My own experimentation with long-term DBT proves otherwise. I found much higher rates of successful identification within a casual listening, long term, home environment than is seen in the studies you reference. Requires a 'blind' switchbox and notetaking, but for me it was more than sufficient to show that the short term tests used are insufficient for all but the highest level effects.
Again, I'll point out- there have been DBTs conducted where the listeners didn't have any statistically significant identification of significantly different speakers.
A lack of system familiarity is a biggie, we're dealing in subtleties in hifi anyway. Your typical DBT eliminates the ability of someone to focus on what changes have been made to the system they know and love. So they're hit with a large amount of unfamiliar information and forced to choose, when you're testing for subtleties. Seems pretty obvious to me that the test method would often swamp the test subject.
Again, I'll point out- there have been DBTs conducted where the listeners didn't have any statistically significant identification of significantly different speakers.
A lack of system familiarity is a biggie, we're dealing in subtleties in hifi anyway. Your typical DBT eliminates the ability of someone to focus on what changes have been made to the system they know and love. So they're hit with a large amount of unfamiliar information and forced to choose, when you're testing for subtleties. Seems pretty obvious to me that the test method would often swamp the test subject.
AETD15M in two-way?
Hello,
Has anyone had experience with the AE TD15M in a two-way with horn loaded compression driver?
After many comments regarding the AE woofers as being one of the best professional designs around. I thought the TD15M as being a good candidate to use as a monitor designed around its strengths with a four distributed subwoofer set up?
Thanks for any input.
NW
Hello,
Has anyone had experience with the AE TD15M in a two-way with horn loaded compression driver?
After many comments regarding the AE woofers as being one of the best professional designs around. I thought the TD15M as being a good candidate to use as a monitor designed around its strengths with a four distributed subwoofer set up?
Thanks for any input.
NW
Would you be so kind to post a link or reference?
There're a couple of studies that showed that there is no audible difference under anechoic conditions when the loudspeakers had similar on-axis frequency response. Whereas in rooms speaker directivity plays a major role. Differences became audible. Flindell et al. "Subjective Evaluations of Preferred Loudspeaker Directivity" - AES E-Library: Subjective Evaluations of Preferred Loudspeaker Directivity
Best, Markus
I wasn't slamming HT as a whole - I was lamenting the quality of AC-3. As far as HT SQ, in general, I have already invested about $5K in drivers and amplifiers including, for the subs, 16 31mmp-p Xmax 12" woofers and a Crown K2 to drive them and enough JBL pro sound 12" woofers, HF drivers and 4344 horns plus parts for my own design hybrid 150 watt x 6 channel amplifier for a 5.1 or 7.1 DIY HT amp/speaker system that I would much prefer to hear something better than AC-3 over.
I would really like to hear higher audio quality in the digital realm overall - maybe enough to get refractory when discussing low end lossy digital audio formats - my DVDA and SACD collection is of high enough SQ in general that I wouldn't miss new releases in analog too badly if such was the minimum digital audio standard.
45 doesn't need to read anything anymore because he already has "done it a long time ago.....!"
What a lot of people don't understand is that sound quality would even exist if there was no music at all.
Best, Markus
Actually, I meant THIS site, but sure, it's probably true of the Stereophile guys. Non-humans, with computers instead of carbon-based brains.
Note you had to say 'probably' here: "The claim that "listeners prefer higher sampling rates (e.g., 96 kHz) than the 44.1 kHz of the digital compact disk" is probably the result of quality differences in the source material"
Practical relevance lies here, I think: Once we clean up our rooms and speakers, we sometimes find that the rest of the chain is not necessarily doing everything as well as it might. There's something that's irritating us. So, where do we start? It's probably a Good Thing to start out knowing what might be possible/not possible for us to hear and experiments like Meyer's and Kunchar's are good to know about and keep in mind as we explore and measure.
I'm not a fanatic about this stuff. For instance, the original topic of this thread is a no brainer for me. I figured out about 40 years ago that pro drivers were a better deal for home use if the speaker design fitted their characteristics. They cost less than the hifi stuff and were more rugged and sounded better when played loud because basically, in the home setting they were cruising along well below their maximum designed capabilities. That was an easy call.
It wasn't so easy when I first got a CD player. So much about it was right but some things did sound so awful...it took a while to figure out what was wrong. Had to work through a number of 'probablies'. It's nice to know lots of things - "practical" and "impractical" - when there's a problem.
Quality of music? To judge the quality of music I go to concerts!
Thanks already know. In fact I have specified musician and common people.
Markus
I think you stole that line from me! NO Problem. You know you've won the argument when people resort to "I don't care what the data says! I know what I believe!" Thats a religious statement not a scientific one.
Last edited:
A word of note: Musicians are notoriuosly bad audio system evaluators on average. Thats because they can only evaluate the performance NOT the reproduction. The two things being entirely different.
Ok I understand you point.
I have also specified people with higher than average musical experience (listeners only). About untrained vs trained I have already made my point previously.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.