HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[Vladimir]

Imaging and soundstaging is not a mystery, they are part of designing good driver dispersion, directivity, time alignment, cabinet reflections etc. As we mentioned the JBL M2 speakers, they have mathematically projected and designed waveguides that improve imaging and soundstaging significantly. You can read about this greater details online. Also check about Edgar Villchur's (AR) invention of the dome tweeter.

I also recommend this brief clip of Laurence Dickie. The weirdest craziest looking designs he produced (B&W Nautilus, Vivid Audio Giya etc) all are derived from a mind of an engineer. This man tried to move B&W into the future, with stiff pistonic drivers, active designs, pro audio etc. Unfortunately B&W thought otherwise and he left to create his own company Vivid Audio. In the end, a decade later B&W did try to put their Dalex speakers in recording studios to get some pro credibility, but it's not the same if they were the real deal and kept LD. When you see B&W used in recording studio, they don't work on those, they keep them to play the final mixes to their clients. For accuracy they use Genelec, Adams, JBLs, ATC etc. Can't imagine how amazing and progressive B&W would have been today with Laurence staying after the Nautilus if he had the freedom Toole, Olive, Timbers, Sprinkle and others have at Harman. What a historic flop...

Peter Walker of QUAD said in an interview that they don't bother listening to their amplifiers untill they were ready to ship to the stores. There is no violinist sitting next to every engineer giving them reference how to solder in parts. That sure made some audiophiles throw a tantrum.

And I'm sure many are aware of the pro-science and pro-engineering opinions circulating online by Alan Shaw of Harbeth. We often post his threads and videos on this forum.

Many more professionals out there saying the same thing to audiophiles - be smart, be skeptical, be logical, be reasonable.

 

[manicm]

And apologies for the insult - nothing personal.

 

[Vladimir]

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

You heard a difference and prefered A over B. You are repeating yourself. Can you answer why did you hear a difference?

Coke tastes better than Pepsi. Why?

 

[manicm]

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

You heard a difference and prefered A over B. You are repeating yourself. Can you answer why did you hear a difference?

Coke tastes better than Pepsi. Why?

You're being idiotic and you know it. Does anyone prefer pain? Does anyone want to listen to sharp piercing sibilance constantly with all music. Why? Why are you being stupid?

 

[manicm]

Why is the sky blue, or the mountain high, or the ocean deep? Why Vladimir indeed. Why are you being such a complete idiot?

 

[Infiniteloop]

Vladimir, no-one here is disputing science or blind testing, but when A suggested the looks may have affected my listening, well one needs to recognise one's own pile of foo.

Everybody's perceptions are influenced by other factors. Nobody is immune from it.

Chris

Yes but when looks are brought into the equation then it all goes to hell, and I can't dignify idiocy. The player I kept was far from the best looking.

And while I believe the science how does one measure imaging or soundstaging? The thing is manufacturers colour speakers as well. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

Resorting to insults isn't productive! It's also rather childish.

But you misunderstand. It's isn't necessarily the aesthetics that influence you, although they might, but simply for example knowing the brand and/or the price. See the video that Vlad posted that shows that people's ratings of speakers changes when they can see it. It's a well-understood and documented phenomenon and if you believe you are immune from it then you are simply deceiving yourself.

You can measure "imaging" and "soundstaging" because everything is in the signal. There is no magic ingredient that is outside the signal and you can measure the signal. It might not be easy to translate that into subjective terms but the information is there.

Chris

Interesting. - If you can measure imaging and soundstaging, what piece of equipment would you measure them with and what units would you define them in?

Please point to a piece of equipment capable of doing this. I'd like to see some science showing the difference between two different speaker pairs in their presentation of imaging and soundstaging.

I said it wouldn't be easy! That's because you would have to start with an agreement about what the terms mean. If we could get to that, which I doubt, then you could design equipment to detect it. My point though is that the information is there in the signal, there is nowhere else for it to be.

The other point is that without any agreement about what these terms mean my use of them might mean nothing to you. So any discussion we have would be fairly pointless. It's like the subjective reviews that WHF serves up, they mean nothing.

Chris

Chris

So there isn't in fact any science to back up what you said?

Um, OK.

 

[Vladimir]

You're being idiotic and you know it. Does anyone prefer pain? Does anyone want to listen to sharp piercing sibilance constantly with all music. Why? Why are you being stupid?

I'm not asking why you prefered A over B. I ask why did you hear A is different than B.

 

[Covenanter]

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

You heard a difference and prefered A over B. You are repeating yourself. Can you answer why did you hear a difference?

Coke tastes better than Pepsi. Why?

Coke does taste better than Pepsi IMO! However, I believe that in sighted tests people prefer Coke and in blind tests it's Pepsi. Coke has consistently won the branding war with Pepsi and this seems to influence people's opinions.

Chris

PS I've never done a blind test but when I am bought a cola in a pub I can tell immediately which it is without seeing what they are selling .

 

[manicm]

You're being idiotic and you know it. Does anyone prefer pain? Does anyone want to listen to sharp piercing sibilance constantly with all music. Why? Why are you being stupid?

I'm not asking why you prefered A over B. I ask why did you hear A is different than B.

Because the first Pioneer B was disappointing, and NAD's B was rubbish, and you're being deliberately stupid?

 

[Vladimir]

Why is the sky blue, or the mountain high, or the ocean deep? Why Vladimir indeed. Why are you being such a complete idiot?

Sky is blue because blue light has short wavelength and unlike red that passes through, blue gets accumulated by gas molecules and gets scatered.

The other two because of our size and relative perception to it.

The last one is misconception of yours since I have an IQ test confirming I'm not an idiot, let alone a complete one. *wink*

 

[manicm]

Vladimir, my IQ figure wasn't half bad either, but you're demonstrating symptoms of the lesser end of the scale. If NAD or Tesco or Linn produce something bad go and ask them why, not me.

 

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, my IQ figure wasn't half bad either, but you're demonstrating symptoms of the lesser end of the scale. If NAD or Tesco or Linn produce something bad go and ask them why, not me.

I don't remember anyone asking you anything in the first place. You just came in the thread and made it loud and clear that you like one player over some other player. Now use that awesome IQ of yours and get a clue that this thread is about what makes a difference and not your personal preferences. We have yet to hear you contributing anything of any value here. Feel free to do so.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

So when did being an 'Audiophile' become something dirty?

Have you read or heard what is said about audiophiles by the average person? Audiophiles have been mocked for a long time. The feeling is that audiophiles spend fortunes on products, cables and tweaks that make no sonic difference whatsoever. The reason for the mocking is simple, Audiophilia has become mosty about subjective evaluations with no regard for science or definitive proof. As long as they believe they hear a difference, then that's all that matters.

When did the pursuit of audio excellence utilising the resources at hand become something sordid?

Achieving high fidelity without the use of science only trial and error is a bad thing now?

Would you buy a car built purely by trial and error? A house? Would you travel on a bridge or a plane built with no regard to science??

The only ones who actually complain are those who try to integrate science into this hobby. Searching for the perfect 'curve'.

Some throw figures, measurements and the like into an argument that is purely down to personal preference.

How you going to tell a man who enjoys what he has, that he achieved through no more than trial and error that he's wrong just because the so called scientific figures are telling YOU it's 'wrong'?

Who's the real 'I'm the victim' here?

Naaaah.....some of you need to step back and rethink things through - step outside your bubbles.

What do you mean by "he's wrong"? You can't tell someone that they don't like the sound of their system. It could be so coloured that the measurements show it as defective, but if he likes it then he likes it. That's not the point. Some of the anti-science persons take it all far too personally. Which is why these discussions can't advance.

No one doubts you can assemble a satisfactory sounding system from trial and error. But imagine you've spent years auditioning different products, cables, tweaks etc etc at dealers, HiFi shows and in your own listening room. You've also spent quite a sum of money buying and selling components to finally craft your ideal setup, then one of those science guys you ignore, shows you that they could have given you the same sound for far less money and without all that effort on your part, would you still feel as satisfied?  The aim of the science is to understand sound reproduction, to determine why you like what you like. Eventually we'll be able to customise sounds to our exact liking, without years of trial and error and spending a small fortune. The possibilities are endless.?

?

The question I would ask, if you want to step outside of your bubble, is when did science become a bad thing? Why should it be offensive to anyone? ?

 

What?

'What the average person says'?
Reading your posts or Vlads in this thread what do you think they'll say about you?

Like I've said before all the R&D is left in the lab we are end users - regardless the science, the engineering usually the end result of trial and error the numbers account for very little.

And again with this coloured nonsense. Fact is what you say can be flipped on its head.

A system built purely on numbers being showed the way by a system built with voodoo.

The kit is out there.

Science is acknowledged the math is acknowledged but it's left in the lab and is ineffective in domestic or real world application.

 

[Native_bon]

Who told us we really know how to measure sound as at yet. Am up for enjoying my music if my system can make it believeable either with good or bad measurements. If people want systems that measure well nothing bad with that, weather they are happy with the sound or not. There are so many things in life that has been invented through trial & error, yet we know the invention works through the laws of physics but we cannot still explain fully how or why it works.

Now let confuse your minds. YOU READY: What happens tomorrow & in the future is affecting what happened to you in the past. In other words, what we do in our world tomorrow affects our world today. So says quantum mechanics. Nothing is absolute.

I may have just killed this thread!! *biggrin*

 

[Bradley747]

what an awful series of posts this has turned out to be...

hard work sometimes this forum

 

[manicm]

Vladimir, my IQ figure wasn't half bad either, but you're demonstrating symptoms of the lesser end of the scale. If NAD or Tesco or Linn produce something bad go and ask them why, not me.

I don't remember anyone asking you anything in the first place. You just came in the thread and made it loud and clear that you like one player over some other player. Now use that awesome IQ of yours and get a clue that this thread is about what makes a difference and not your personal preferences. We have yet to hear you contributing anything of any value here. Feel free to do so.

Thank you your highness (get off that horse before you fall), you don't even know my personal preferences because I simply didn't state them here. Does anyone prefer sibilance or physical pain?

I'm not disputing the science here. But Ajani also makes a generalisation that most manufacturers don't have 'proper research facilities', well B&O do. And also what would these facilities be?

That most hifi is coloured or exaggerated may be true, but unlike most other electronics hifi components haven't really become cheaper. And thus at certain price levels compromises invariably have to be made. And therefore compensations, to one end or another have to be made.

 

[Bradley747]

What have you created here Ajani?!

Im off to pull some teeth out for a bit of enjoyment

 

[Thompsonuxb]

What have you created here Ajani?!

Im off to pull some teeth out for a bit of enjoyment

.....lol

 

[Covenanter]

Vladimir, my IQ figure wasn't half bad either, but you're demonstrating symptoms of the lesser end of the scale. If NAD or Tesco or Linn produce something bad go and ask them why, not me.

I don't remember anyone asking you anything in the first place. You just came in the thread and made it loud and clear that you like one player over some other player. Now use that awesome IQ of yours and get a clue that this thread is about what makes a difference and not your personal preferences. We have yet to hear you contributing anything of any value here. Feel free to do so.

Thank you your highness (get off that horse before you fall), you don't even know my personal preferences because I simply didn't state them here. Does anyone prefer sibilance or physical pain?

I'm not disputing the science here. But Ajani also makes a generalisation that most manufacturers don't have 'proper research facilities', well B&O do. And also what would these facilities be?

That most hifi is coloured or exaggerated may be true, but unlike most other electronics hifi components haven't really become cheaper. And thus at certain price levels compromises invariably have to be made. And therefore compensations, to one end or another have to be made.

Good. When you ask questions you get answers and learn things. This is better than screaming how much you like strawberry and hate vanilla.

Dr. Floyd E. Toole in that video lecture said that very few manufacturers can afford facilities to do advanced scientific research and testing. Most just do engineering, which is building things based on present knowledge and from trial and error (unavoidable part of engineering). Psycho-acoustics and acoustics learn new things, enginering applies that knowledge in actual products.

It's not only having the facilities, but also human resources like Toole and Olive cost Harman a lot of money. Check their DBT facility on Youtube. It has a hydraulic robot shuffler that changes speakers during DBT. Check the anechoic chamber, the Spinorama room, the Trained Listening Academy in Northbridge etc. You have also video showing how they prototype and test inhouse drivers... Google is your friend.

B&O is traditionally known for their industrial designs (think Jacob Jensen), not so much for acoustic designs. They don't even make their in-house drivers. I don't get the impression B&O have advanced with speaker design as much as Harman has.

They do have good success in the field of electronics with their Icepower class D amp modules.

B&O make some good products but they are as much a lifestyle company as a technology company.

Chris

 

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, my IQ figure wasn't half bad either, but you're demonstrating symptoms of the lesser end of the scale. If NAD or Tesco or Linn produce something bad go and ask them why, not me.

I don't remember anyone asking you anything in the first place. You just came in the thread and made it loud and clear that you like one player over some other player. Now use that awesome IQ of yours and get a clue that this thread is about what makes a difference and not your personal preferences. We have yet to hear you contributing anything of any value here. Feel free to do so.

Thank you your highness (get off that horse before you fall), you don't even know my personal preferences because I simply didn't state them here. Does anyone prefer sibilance or physical pain?

I'm not disputing the science here. But Ajani also makes a generalisation that most manufacturers don't have 'proper research facilities', well B&O do. And also what would these facilities be?

That most hifi is coloured or exaggerated may be true, but unlike most other electronics hifi components haven't really become cheaper. And thus at certain price levels compromises invariably have to be made. And therefore compensations, to one end or another have to be made.

Good. When you ask questions you get answers and learn things. This is better than screaming how much you like strawberry and hate vanilla.

Dr. Floyd E. Toole in that video lecture said that very few manufacturers can afford facilities to do advanced scientific research and testing. Most just do engineering, which is building things based on present knowledge and from trial and error (unavoidable part of engineering). Psycho-acoustics and acoustics learn new things, enginering applies that knowledge in actual products.

It's not only having the facilities, but also human resources like Toole and Olive cost Harman a lot of money. Check their DBT facility on Youtube. It has a hydraulic robot shuffler that changes speakers during DBT. Check the anechoic chamber, the Spinorama room, the Trained Listening Academy in Northbridge etc. You have also video showing how they prototype and test inhouse drivers... Google is your friend.

B&O is traditionally known for their industrial designs (think Jacob Jensen), not so much for acoustic designs. They don't even make their in-house drivers. I don't get the impression B&O have advanced with speaker design as much as Harman has.

They do have good success in the field of electronics with their Icepower class D amp modules.

Harman - 28,000 employees

B&O - 2,050 employees

 

[Vladimir]

B&O make some good products but they are as much a lifestyle company as a technology company.

Chris

Which I think is great for those that prefer amazing industrial design without sacrificing good sound. I've had several B&O products and above average sound quality was never absent. But those who chase accuracy in music reproduction will certanly look elsewhere.

 

[manicm]

Vladimir, my IQ figure wasn't half bad either, but you're demonstrating symptoms of the lesser end of the scale. If NAD or Tesco or Linn produce something bad go and ask them why, not me.

I don't remember anyone asking you anything in the first place. You just came in the thread and made it loud and clear that you like one player over some other player. Now use that awesome IQ of yours and get a clue that this thread is about what makes a difference and not your personal preferences. We have yet to hear you contributing anything of any value here. Feel free to do so.?

Thank you your highness (get off that horse before you fall), you don't even know my personal preferences because I simply didn't state them here. Does anyone prefer sibilance or physical pain?

I'm not disputing the science here. But Ajani also makes a generalisation that most manufacturers don't have 'proper research facilities', well B&O do. And also what would these facilities be?

That most hifi is coloured or exaggerated may be true, but unlike most other electronics hifi components haven't really become cheaper. And thus at certain price levels compromises invariably have to be made. And therefore compensations, to one end or another have to be made.

Good. When you ask questions you get answers and learn things. This is better than screaming how much you like strawberry and hate vanilla.

Dr. Floyd E. Toole in that video lecture said that very few manufacturers can afford facilities to do advanced scientific research and testing. Most just do engineering, which is building things based on present knowledge and from trial and error (unavoidable part of engineering). Psycho-acoustics and acoustics learn new things, enginering applies that knowledge in actual products.

It's not only having the facilities, but also human resources like Toole and Olive cost Harman a lot of money. Check their DBT facility on Youtube. It has a hydraulic robot shuffler that changes speakers during DBT. Check the anechoic chamber, the Spinorama room, the Trained Listening Academy in Northbridge etc. You have also video showing how they prototype and test inhouse drivers... Google is your friend.

B&O is traditionally known for their industrial designs (think Jacob Jensen), not so much for acoustic designs. They don't even make their in-house drivers. I don't get the impression B&O have advanced with speaker design as much as Harman has.?

They do have good success in the field of electronics with their Icepower class D amp modules.

Harman - 28,000 employees

B&O - 2,050 employees

Look I don't really care either way, but all of that happened to me way back between 2002 and 2003, probably before terms like 'expectation bias' were being thrown around. I was still only in my late twenties, and what would you expect of me, that I'd have tons of measuring equipment lying around, that I'd spend tortuous hours on end doing abx testing on my own equipment that I had for months?? But still you and Ajani would say 'I may or may not be right. I may or may not be wrong'. Well which is it then? So your question as to 'why' did I find a difference was insane and inane.

In the 90s 2 prominent German cars were found to have serious flaws. The first A-Class had failed the so-called Elk test, and Mercedes subsequently installed stability control as standard. Journalists, one of them being the renowned racing driver Tiff Needell, found the first TT to be prone to sudden and snap oversteer, and Audi subsequently stuck on a rear spoiler to mitigate it.

I don't recall the public asking why the drivers rolled the merc over or why the Audi did what it did. The makers had to rectify the cars and that was all there is to it.

It seems to me that your kind would like to pass a law to make the general consumer to be versed in audio engineering before walking into a hifi shop.

 

[Romulus]

I like this thread, better then reading about boring Arcams or Denons. One thing Manicin is right about Coca Cola is far more superior taste to Pepsi Cola and one can discern the difference in taste quite easilly even when being highly tipsy!

 

[Vladimir]

A scientific test was conducted using an Encephalogram (electric maping of brain activity) together with a sighted and double blind test.

When subjects didn't know which brand of cola they were drinking Pepsi stimulated more areas of the brain that are for pleasure (endorphins) by a significant amount, and people also chose Pepsi as better tasting. In the sighted test Coke won by huge margin, people said it tasted better and it made large brain activity, however not just in the pleasure area but more in the memory and language area (they overlap). So they tasted marketing, and it tasted good.

This isn't surprising since the recent Pepsi scandal told us how Pepsi makes its drinks. Media leaked that Pepsi uses stem cells to generate tissue on which they test taste stimulation. In a way this is the perfect 'tongue', the perfect test subject, because it isn't biased in its decision. Pure stimulation-reaction relationship. But despite their more scientific approach, Coke is still world's #1 cola.

The media and activist groups blew the Pepsi stem cell tests out of proportion spreading misinformation how Pepsi uses dead fetus in their drinks to make them taste better. I wonder if Coke has something to do with this.

 

[Romulus]

A scientific test was conducted using an Encephalogram (electric maping of brain activity) together with a sighted and double blind test.

When subjects didn't know which brand of cola they were drinking Pepsi stimulated more areas of the brain that are for pleasure (endorphins) by a significant amount, and people also chose Pepsi as better tasting. In the sighted test Coke won by huge margin, people said it tasted better and it made large brain activity, however not just in the pleasure area but more in the memory and language area (they overlap). So they tasted marketing, and it tasted good.

This isn't surprising since the recent Pepsi scandal told us how Pepsi makes its drinks. Media leaked that Pepsi uses stem cells to generate tissue on which they test taste stimulation. In a way this is the perfect 'tongue', the perfect test subject, because it isn't biased in its decision. Pure stimulation-reaction relationship. But despite their more scientific approach, Coke is still world's #1 cola.

The media and activist groups blew the Pepsi stem cell tests out of proportion spreading misinformation how Pepsi uses dead fetus in their drinks to make them taste better. I wonder if Coke has something to do with this.

I just watched the 'video' and I think I will simply take Floyd Toole with me as an advisor when auditioning loudspeakers!