Tweet
......that skirts subjectivism v.s. objectivism:
-
Some of my audio projects:http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/ -
Re: An interesting article....
I am normally a "listen to the music, not the speaker" kind of guy myself, but the author takes it it to ludicrous extremes.For an interactive listener however, there was too much perfection of frequency response linearity and too much disregard for other criteria. Hence my ultimate lack of interest in this particular design and writing it up. I am one of those who think that when all dynamic contrast is squelched, the music has been irrepairably damaged.
By removing all bumps in the FR, all that is left is the music, not the other way around.
Another subjectivist who simply doesn't get it.Don't listen to me - I have not sold any $150,000 speakers. -
Re: An interesting article....
Really. If it’s only a “listen to the music” thing then get some decent headphones or earbuds, or any of dozens of simple-but-adequate two-way monitors, DIY or commercial. “The music” is all there. If the goal is, in addition, to recreate some acoustic aspects of a live performance then it is both a technical and psychoacoustic problem, and “subjective” to the listener how well the illusion of “real” is created and maintained.Originally posted by johnnyrichards View Post
But the article linked is neither about the music nor about the illusion . . . it is simply an exercise in self-indulgent stroking. What, really, does “dynamic contrast” have to do with frequency response? It’s all in his (muddled) head . . . and I, for one, don’t want to go there."It suggests that there is something that is happening in the real system that is not quite captured in the models."Comment
-
Re: An interesting article....
My opinion is that testing for noise, phasing, freq response, pure tones, test tones, ect are good to measure but shouldn't be the end all setting. Its almost like a great starting point but not ever the end point. Like I've mentioned before in my early book smart days that basing decisions on the RTA response and saying "but my rta response is ruler flat and perfect" doesn't sound worth a crap to the ear. There still has to be some objective as reference but the joy of fidelity is the subjective. I do practice this each and every day especially when using hearing aids with 6.1 surround processing and data logging. The prescription for gain and output first has to be set based on the hearing thresholds thru testing but thats just the start. Basing decisions on real life experience using the data logging is where the pot of gold lies.Comment
-
Re: An interesting article....
For me, testing and measurement is mearly a way to show someone who has never heard the component of what it might sound like. That is why manufacturers put FR graphs on their literature. The measurement being the only common reference between two different people looking at the same piece of geat but who have differenc listening rooms, musical tastes, or who have nevered heard the same piece of gear.
If we were all required to listen to the same gear under the same circumstances, then we can easily say "it has better midrange than X". Since that is not the case, we can look at a graph.
I listen to the music and depending on the gear, I thirst for whatever is lacking... That is why I hate bad recordings because they themselves may lack something. I use measurements to tell me what it sounds like on paper.
I could noit imagine going to audition a set of speakers and see the salesaman smile and give me a thumbs up while listening to pink noise and printing out a graph.Comment
-
Re: An interesting article....
That's a sneaky and dishonest commentary. The author says he decided against reviewing the speaker, then proceeds to dis it anyway. That way he gets his opinion across, but if the manufacturer complains he can claim that it wasn't a real review anyway."We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true."
–Robert WilenskyComment
-
Re: An interesting article....
Funny, no one has mentioned the cat....Comment
-
Re: An interesting article....
I was reading a British Hi-Fi mag on a plane once (picked it up at an airport), and one of the editors had a neat little snippet in there on measurement. He said: "If it sounds bad and measures good, it is bad." If it sounds good and measures bad, it'll eventually be caught out." Stuck in my head, it is a good comment. IMHO, a good speak should sound good and measure good, too.
I do think you can XO the life out of a speaker (having done it :p ), and you can also under-do it and have certain pieces of music sound great, and others shabby.
Cheers / RobertComment
-
-
Re: An interesting article....
From some advertising in the same article:
"Our suspensions are made of genuine goat leather."Comment
-
Re: An interesting article....
I feel like I should clarify a little... For some people the entire goal is to reduce coloration of the source to near zero. This author waxes poetic about the music, and then gets all butthurt when someone goes another mile to remove coloration from the speaker, bringing the listener (technically) closer to the source.
I am normally really a music listener, not a speaker listener, so I generally don't bother myself with a few dips or peaks... But this guy rubs me the wrong way - especially when he calls loudspeaker measurement a "pseudo-science". You see howhe prefaces his views on subjectivity (a very important part of the experience) by calling something with repeatable, objective results a "psuedo-science', and even intimated that it is a religion. To be fair, he also implied that subjectivists are also religious in nature but the entire tone of his article places himself above the rest of the crowd.
At the end of the day, I adjust the bass boost on my system because I like bass heavy music, but in no way do I delude myself that I am necessarily hearing it the way the audio engineers wanted me to hear it. In point of fact, I am taking active measures to change what the engineer wanted me to hear.
I agree with the above poster about the underhanded way he gave the speaker a negative review, as well.Don't listen to me - I have not sold any $150,000 speakers.Comment
Comment