We had a buddy who had a pair of full-range speakers with woofers built into a fancy cabinet. The woofer cabinet was not braced, but lined with tiles. When the speakers were standing freely, you could hear how much bass was being thrown around behind them. Since he was only firing a 12 square meter room, these boxes were simply unsuitable. Here, the necessary attention to the relationship between mass and rigidity became apparent. Tuning a loudspeaker is not easy, because it sounds dead when damped. But undamped is not good either. And then you have to choose the materials.
Thanks a lot I am quite conscious of the challenge to design and build a great bass unit but i have also learned that the ear is much less sensitive down there
Clearly when the problems are very evident like booming or sounds hanging in the space like forever i will understand that there is a problem
But my attention now is more focused on finding a good solution for the 200 to 3kHz range
one i get that right i will be almost done
Clearly when the problems are very evident like booming or sounds hanging in the space like forever i will understand that there is a problem
But my attention now is more focused on finding a good solution for the 200 to 3kHz range
one i get that right i will be almost done
Basically, there is no mention of what should be tested. Therefore, we can't even say whether the design, the method tested what it was supposed to. We can only guess what should be tested based on the results given;-)
A DBLT is NOT a prerequisite for scientific validity. A method must work, that would be a prerequisite. Only then could you do a DBLT.
But what would a DBLT always ask? Are the results valid/ or not, or does the method work/ or not?
Trust me: DBLT is taught and communicated in the absence of educating people scientifically, or having no scientific education themselves.
Audio would be a great way to learn how to work scientifically, far away from the quantitative methods that are generally and only basically taught. But this does not happen because most of those involved have no scientific training and no scientific attitude: they leave university with a normal education and believe that they have learned everything, that they are experts in general;-) Like: a carpenter claims to be able to build loudspeakers;-)
Oh, I agree. It would be nice if every website that reports the "results" of an "experiment" would have a methods section like a scientific paper.
Tom
True. But a blind test where the experimenter is in the room during the experiment is known to be biased (experimenter biased). So I'd throw that out on that alone.
Tom
I fully agree.
Now, please let's imagine that there is already even a better and much more effective method to effectively attribute to a device the description of its sound qualities.
Assuming that this system existed, and it doesn't, then a certain device could describe its own sound qualities.
In what way this be practically useful to a guy who wants to replace a device in his system?
What would that guy do if that effective method existed?
I could guess that would look for one whose description was somehow better compared to the device he already own.
But could it ever be a better description for all parameters?
I really don't think so, and therefore the difficulty for the buyer who wanted to replace a device in his system would not be reduced by much, in my opinion, but it would still be a difficulty.
Furthermore, even if that system that does not exist told the buyer of a piece that he wants to replace that it was better than the one he already has at home, could it ever predict which system it would be inserted into?
I think it is very difficult if not impossible.
And this would be true for every appliance and every accessory.
So, even if that system existed - and it does not exist - perhaps it would not be of much use to that guy since neither he nor the effective system is effective could not predict the infinite number of possible interactions between the components.
So, in my hypothetical vision, it would probabòy be exactly as happens today, the guy who is passionate about music and audio would still have to listen to that device he wants to replace in his sistem once inserted into his system to know if he will like it or not.
So, what would be the point of an effective or even perfect listening test?
And getting back to the present day, what would be the point of a DBLT even if it was performed following all the rules and by qualified personnel?
I really can't see it.
Yes, it would be nice like this, in a perfect world. 👍
Now, please let's imagine that audiophiles could agree on the definitions for the superlatives used in the reviews.
At least subjectivists agree on the definition of THD+N. 🙂
Tom
At least subjectivists agree on the definition of THD+N. 🙂
Tom
I mean, in audio we have to take a close look at what is happening - it fails to analyze what has happened so far:
A-B test. I recommend: first compare openly, get to know each other, then blind - as far as I'm concerned, a stranger can change the plug elsewhere.
It is important that the expectations are clarified: e.g. whether a device can be plugged in 3 times in a row. We must ensure safety in the test. If you can a) distinguish the characters yourself, i.e. describe them, and b) assign them correctly, and the majority of them, about 8/10, then you're good to go. And if 10 people sit together and 8 out of 10 can hear a difference and can also describe and assign it, then it fits. Attention: Variable A already includes many things: device, character to anything else, characteristics in relation to B, C, D...
The proof that electronics, e.g. amplifiers, or cables, sound objectively different has been done. millions of times and cannot be overturned.
So we have the objective point a) electronics have objective audible qualities, and thus also the objective point b) the listener, the measuring instrument, is objectively able to perceive them - Just not always the same in all circumstances, see next.
Classify it as an empirical science for all I care;-)
An A-B-C test does not serve to question the A-B test, but to analyze the measuring instrument, listener, human, more closely: at what level of complexity does the ability to differentiate and categorize decrease? Aside: These three participants (A, B, C) must be known to the listener in their relationship to each other, i.e. compared and described in contrast.
It should already be made clear to the test person here that his perceptive faculties cannot be interpreted to his disadvantage: low perceptive faculties and suchlike. This test would be interesting for neurologists or hearing scientists, for example.
An A-B-X test is a completely different matter. This is about the insertion of an unknown. This is no longer necessary in the area of audio, device comparison, and is also misleading. This test is certainly of interest to psychologists and sociologists, as the interaction between the tester and the tested must be included. It's about trust, deception, what do I know: X can also be a hamster in a hamster wheel and the test person hasn't noticed;-)
Important with all methods: do not simply switch back and forth while playing music. The organism is a swing system that has to swing in and out sufficiently. A pause of > 10 seconds has proven effective. Minutes are generally not a problem.
This is my offer;-)
Both "objectivists" and "subjectivists" can be subject to expectation bias. The "objectivists" group usually includes those who have learned electronics not as physics but as lines and numbers.
A-B test. I recommend: first compare openly, get to know each other, then blind - as far as I'm concerned, a stranger can change the plug elsewhere.
It is important that the expectations are clarified: e.g. whether a device can be plugged in 3 times in a row. We must ensure safety in the test. If you can a) distinguish the characters yourself, i.e. describe them, and b) assign them correctly, and the majority of them, about 8/10, then you're good to go. And if 10 people sit together and 8 out of 10 can hear a difference and can also describe and assign it, then it fits. Attention: Variable A already includes many things: device, character to anything else, characteristics in relation to B, C, D...
The proof that electronics, e.g. amplifiers, or cables, sound objectively different has been done. millions of times and cannot be overturned.
So we have the objective point a) electronics have objective audible qualities, and thus also the objective point b) the listener, the measuring instrument, is objectively able to perceive them - Just not always the same in all circumstances, see next.
Classify it as an empirical science for all I care;-)
An A-B-C test does not serve to question the A-B test, but to analyze the measuring instrument, listener, human, more closely: at what level of complexity does the ability to differentiate and categorize decrease? Aside: These three participants (A, B, C) must be known to the listener in their relationship to each other, i.e. compared and described in contrast.
It should already be made clear to the test person here that his perceptive faculties cannot be interpreted to his disadvantage: low perceptive faculties and suchlike. This test would be interesting for neurologists or hearing scientists, for example.
An A-B-X test is a completely different matter. This is about the insertion of an unknown. This is no longer necessary in the area of audio, device comparison, and is also misleading. This test is certainly of interest to psychologists and sociologists, as the interaction between the tester and the tested must be included. It's about trust, deception, what do I know: X can also be a hamster in a hamster wheel and the test person hasn't noticed;-)
Important with all methods: do not simply switch back and forth while playing music. The organism is a swing system that has to swing in and out sufficiently. A pause of > 10 seconds has proven effective. Minutes are generally not a problem.
This is my offer;-)
Both "objectivists" and "subjectivists" can be subject to expectation bias. The "objectivists" group usually includes those who have learned electronics not as physics but as lines and numbers.
In my opinion this is a stereotypical image that no longer exists, I believe that all the people who gravitate around the audio world have evolved.
At least I hope so.
Yes, you are right.
However, in my view, things are a bit more than this and the two different points of view of manufacturers and buyers both have their own particular importance.
A manufacturer has the duty to know and use the measurements and knowledge related to the audio technology he deals with, I believe.
But for a simple enthusiast it is not like that.
A simple enthusiast has the right to ignore measurements (except for compatibility reasons) if he wants (just like me myself), also because a very important factor is often forgotten, in my opinion, and that's the fact that the "average" buyer probably understands nothing about technology, electronics, and industrial design and he only wants the piece of audio equipment he is buying to sound good in his system.
And of course any buyer in the world of any kind of merchandise would also like to pay the lowest possible price.
I guess we all do it, buyers or sellers.
So, back to listening tests, I think that they, generally speaking, have not exactly done any good for Audio, since, in my view, they at the end of the day result as divisive.
Instead, the most normal and aggregative thing in this (audio) world in my opinion is that a manufacturer must necessarily be an objectivist, because measurements and both theoretical and practical technical knowledge are indispensable in order to build a device that is technically at the state of the art.
On the other hand, an enthusiast who has just inserted a new piece of audio equipment built by the manufacturer above cannot but be a subjectivist, because he is looking for the sound he likes listening to his system.
Anyway, as I've said many times, these two categories of people just described, which then is just one (music and audio lovers), should not be in conflict in any way, but should instead proceed with linking arms. 🙂
For the sake of Audio.
I would have to disagree with your wording here. They cannot 'sound objectively different' since hearing any sound and offering a strictly personal opinion is, by definition, a subjective process. To determine any objective differences, we would have to be able to unpassionately, accurately, and repeatably measure devices independent of the weaknesses and extreme limitations of the easily-fooled ear/brain combination.
Hi, is there studies about this? I hear this a lot in the forum, that too much damping sounds dead, but since damping changes frequency response I think it's just that. If a system has too little lows to start with, like a fullrange driver typically has as it's always a compromise between highs and lows, I bet it sounds dead if lows are "EQ":d even lower and system balance is now off. However, if you added damping and then compensated the frequency response back with EQ would it still sound dead, with system balance maintained with EQ? This would make the notion of too much damping means dead relevant for system that has no EQ available, and not very relevant for system that has.
Logic is that infinite damping, iow removing sound inside the loudspeaker box would reduce coloration, right, to the point where enough damping material there is no coloration. This would affect the system damping, Q, the frequency response around resonance, which could be restored back with EQ. In comparison, less damping material would make the box have imprint on the sound, because some of the sound in the box affects audibly, which is reason or the whole notion, right? Logically more damping = less box sound, less damping = more box sound.
Last edited:
You can't even peep measure why one diode sounds colored and another gray;-)
You still don't recognize hearing as measuring. However, hearing is the measurement, the observation, when it comes to audio, to hearing. Peep measurement methods can be subordinated to this. Start working scientifically.
By the way: regarding "objective" and "subjective": I mean, many people here mention something like truth and untruth. That is inaccurate.
And: the "objectivists", the supposedly truthful ones, move in the realm of concepts. The "subjectivists" also engage in more comprehensive observations and interpretations, beyond "Ohm's laws", they engage in a more complex understanding of physics, of "objects";-) It would be better to distinguish between conceptualists and objectivists;-)
It would be best to investigate where audio is most frequently handled: in people's living rooms and listening rooms. The supposed non-experts mutate into experts here, because they have to find a way of dealing with all the devices and get them to work together. And this is where we find what we are looking for in terms of evaluate and replacing devices up to wave off, cables, plugs, Klimbim;-)
You still don't recognize hearing as measuring. However, hearing is the measurement, the observation, when it comes to audio, to hearing. Peep measurement methods can be subordinated to this. Start working scientifically.
By the way: regarding "objective" and "subjective": I mean, many people here mention something like truth and untruth. That is inaccurate.
And: the "objectivists", the supposedly truthful ones, move in the realm of concepts. The "subjectivists" also engage in more comprehensive observations and interpretations, beyond "Ohm's laws", they engage in a more complex understanding of physics, of "objects";-) It would be better to distinguish between conceptualists and objectivists;-)
It would be best to investigate where audio is most frequently handled: in people's living rooms and listening rooms. The supposed non-experts mutate into experts here, because they have to find a way of dealing with all the devices and get them to work together. And this is where we find what we are looking for in terms of evaluate and replacing devices up to wave off, cables, plugs, Klimbim;-)
It's about resonance, about the "distortions" that make the system come alive. Forget frequency response, it plays a subordinate role.
You can also increase the damping per amplifier or cable. Doesn't sound good. Especially as the poor sound of the amplifier is often forced onto the loudspeakers.
You can do these studies yourself.
You can also increase the damping per amplifier or cable. Doesn't sound good. Especially as the poor sound of the amplifier is often forced onto the loudspeakers.
You can do these studies yourself.
Typical amplifiers with low output impedance and normal speaker cables make low series impedance with the driver, which means high electrical damping, so I can mostly reduce system damping by changing amp or cables to have higher impedance. Use series resistor for example. I could have high acoustic damping inside the box which would lower system Q, then add series impedance to restore the system Q back to target, to a higher value. Would this sound worse than low series impedance and less damping material inside the box?
From resonance perspective it should not as long as system Q ends up the same, the resonance should be the same, but all the other noise inside the box should be reduced with more damping material inside the box. Increasing series impedance with the driver should reduce motor distortion turning acoustic as well so I think this would win, if any of this stuff is audible beyond frequency response, because noises from the box and motor are reduced. Or, people just prefer more noisy system?
Yes, it's better always to experiment ourselves to find out. I need to do this with next speakers.
ps. system Q is jut how many cycles it takes the spring mass system to come at rest. If system Q is 0.5 or 0.7, not sure if any different what the frequency response makes? Perhaps it does, half cycle at 34Hz would be about 14.7ms time to settle, while 0.7 would mean about 20ms time to settle, so perhaps it is. Although, rooms easily ring longer than this.
From resonance perspective it should not as long as system Q ends up the same, the resonance should be the same, but all the other noise inside the box should be reduced with more damping material inside the box. Increasing series impedance with the driver should reduce motor distortion turning acoustic as well so I think this would win, if any of this stuff is audible beyond frequency response, because noises from the box and motor are reduced. Or, people just prefer more noisy system?
Yes, it's better always to experiment ourselves to find out. I need to do this with next speakers.
ps. system Q is jut how many cycles it takes the spring mass system to come at rest. If system Q is 0.5 or 0.7, not sure if any different what the frequency response makes? Perhaps it does, half cycle at 34Hz would be about 14.7ms time to settle, while 0.7 would mean about 20ms time to settle, so perhaps it is. Although, rooms easily ring longer than this.
Last edited:
I've not studied electronics or electro-acoustics and therefore I'm not able to hold a technical conversation, but I can still think... 😉
So I just guess that "more box sound" could also have a positive effect on the sound of the speaker system, regardless of the frequency response.
I think that the sound of the "wood" of the box does not necessarily have to be "negative", but could even bring an improvement from the point of view of the overall sound result.
Just as the following description. 🙂
BTW: I don't know why, but I was reminded of Peter Snell's mastery of making even relatively inexpensive drivers sound extraordinarily good in beautifully constructed and ingeniously tuned boxes. 😍
Last edited:
Well, yeah why not, it seems though that it's much more fiddly than to make a neutral one, box with low coloration. But if box coloration is what makes sound good, then what is it, why is that?
I bet it's not "distortion" as such but something else, perhaps something that makes the sound source more realistic somehow? For example, a colored box could sound different to different directions being a more realistic sound source than a point source which I'm not sure exist in reality? A real sound source identifying itself so your mind looking at it with eyes and hearing with ears is satisfied, there it is, the speaker. But this would also mean that one wants the sound source to be realistic, the speaker to sound like a speaker, turning the original sound in the recording as local sound source, which I think is not what everyone always want. So, it's just another subject among many, where understanding would help to figure out what suits better for any particular application, so matter of discussing context, right?
I bet it's not "distortion" as such but something else, perhaps something that makes the sound source more realistic somehow? For example, a colored box could sound different to different directions being a more realistic sound source than a point source which I'm not sure exist in reality? A real sound source identifying itself so your mind looking at it with eyes and hearing with ears is satisfied, there it is, the speaker. But this would also mean that one wants the sound source to be realistic, the speaker to sound like a speaker, turning the original sound in the recording as local sound source, which I think is not what everyone always want. So, it's just another subject among many, where understanding would help to figure out what suits better for any particular application, so matter of discussing context, right?
Last edited:
My experience: cleanness, cleanness, cleanness first. In other words, remove everything that the ear perceives as noise, crash and dirt.
Loudspeakers are mostly wooden boxes. Wood without counter-sound sounds flat and contourless. I recommend metal, steel, as a counter-sound. It's like tuning an instrument. When it comes to resolution and subtlety, stone or concrete is the much better choice.
The resonance of the materials is clearer to the ear and also easier to tune than electronic distortions. Electronics can also be tuned using materials: simply place different materials under the devices and test them. Until it's right;-)
Mechanical resonances modulate electricity, current - electrical signals. Just like at the dentist: when he drills, not small microphones and not just the electrical discharges do modulate the electrical network nerve system;-)
Loudspeakers are mostly wooden boxes. Wood without counter-sound sounds flat and contourless. I recommend metal, steel, as a counter-sound. It's like tuning an instrument. When it comes to resolution and subtlety, stone or concrete is the much better choice.
The resonance of the materials is clearer to the ear and also easier to tune than electronic distortions. Electronics can also be tuned using materials: simply place different materials under the devices and test them. Until it's right;-)
Mechanical resonances modulate electricity, current - electrical signals. Just like at the dentist: when he drills, not small microphones and not just the electrical discharges do modulate the electrical network nerve system;-)
What I'm realizing lately is that faithful reproduction of sound involves such a quantity of heterogeneous and sometimes even completely unrelated factors that it has no equal in any field related to any other sense.
This is why I've been insisting lately on the uselessness of listening tests.
And not only because they are used to divide rather than unite the audio-phile (in the normal and noble sense of the term: lover) community.
In fact, Audio is a hobby (let's call it that, for now) so singular that it is almost illogical that there is even a Forum (many forums) on which to share one's ideas.
Because in a paroxysmal paradoxical way, the listening experience, that is, hearing, the auditory system, your brain and the music you listen to, is illogically asked to produce certainties.
I don't know how else to say that audio must be listened to and that measurements are useful and it is to them that we must ask to be certain.
Even if you then realize that no measurement will tell you not only how a device sounds, but even if it existed it will not tell you above all how that device will sound in your system.
Once you realize this last fact you will realize that it is no longer necessary to ask the listener to be repeatable and scientific because at the end of the day you listen to your system in your room with your music your ears and your brain and your past experiences of life, of pleasure, of science, of anything else you can still imagine.
And that all this is simply ineffable, yet absolutely real.
If I understood you correctly yes, the perception of sound we have is ours only, and what ever makes it is basically irrelevant in the end. Unless you have had a perception of really good sound in some other circumstances than at your own home, and if you set out try and achieve that by yourself (at home) as well. Now it's very much relevant to be able to understand perception at the other occasion, and then understand how it relates situation at home and what it takes trying to replicate that sound and whether it's possible or not, and whether it matters or not.
Easiest things everyone would pick out from the good sounding occasion would be to take note on the brands and makes and models of the gear, that is simple, first thing that pops up in mind. They buy the same gear and perhaps be happy at home because that's why the sound was good, right? If one cannot understand perception too deeply, there might be no difference, it might actually sound the same if you think so. It could sound different but you might not care, because you now have the gear that sounds good, right? It might still sound way better than what you had before so does it matter, one is happy and that was the goal, right?
While partially true that gear matters, there was likely all kinds of things going on on that occasion with the very good sound that also affected perception. Just because perception is not only what goes into ear canal but also the memories and sight and all kinds of stuff, mood, so it was likely also a very nice occasion overall, perhaps friends, perhaps good food and overall good mood that day that elevated perception of the particular system above anything you've perceived before, or after. Perhaps your senses were elevated and you noticed something with the sound that you had never before, like something about stereo image. Perhaps the system was setup very well and it was almost irrelevant what the gear was as long as it's well functioning and adjusted and suitable for the occasion. But this stuff is not apparent, for example it's not easy to understand if you perceived something that you had paid any attention before, or if you did notice that, which is likely what happened as you thought it was the greatest sound, it's not easy to notice it was likely your listening skill that noticed something, and not necessarily anything magical in the equipment for example. It's much more easier to attribute good sound to some particular amplifier or speakers, because that is easy to understand and easy to acquire, just go and buy and be happy, right? Most importantly, first thing to realize the good sound was not some one particular thing, but many things all aligning for you to have the elevated perception.
As the example here kind of hints the sound at home is likely not the same as it was there, on your favorite sound memory, even if you had the same gear, but does it matter if one cannot distinguish if it is or not? So in this sense anything goes, what ever makes you happy! And if one really wants to improve a system it must happen through understanding perception better, and how written concepts and measurement data relates to perception, so basically getting deeper into this stuff would mean listening experiments and improve listening skill, and the system would evolve with it, right?🙂 So in this sense one should study their perception more first and foremost, then the gear and anything related to playback, in order to be able to produce perception one is after.
Easiest things everyone would pick out from the good sounding occasion would be to take note on the brands and makes and models of the gear, that is simple, first thing that pops up in mind. They buy the same gear and perhaps be happy at home because that's why the sound was good, right? If one cannot understand perception too deeply, there might be no difference, it might actually sound the same if you think so. It could sound different but you might not care, because you now have the gear that sounds good, right? It might still sound way better than what you had before so does it matter, one is happy and that was the goal, right?
While partially true that gear matters, there was likely all kinds of things going on on that occasion with the very good sound that also affected perception. Just because perception is not only what goes into ear canal but also the memories and sight and all kinds of stuff, mood, so it was likely also a very nice occasion overall, perhaps friends, perhaps good food and overall good mood that day that elevated perception of the particular system above anything you've perceived before, or after. Perhaps your senses were elevated and you noticed something with the sound that you had never before, like something about stereo image. Perhaps the system was setup very well and it was almost irrelevant what the gear was as long as it's well functioning and adjusted and suitable for the occasion. But this stuff is not apparent, for example it's not easy to understand if you perceived something that you had paid any attention before, or if you did notice that, which is likely what happened as you thought it was the greatest sound, it's not easy to notice it was likely your listening skill that noticed something, and not necessarily anything magical in the equipment for example. It's much more easier to attribute good sound to some particular amplifier or speakers, because that is easy to understand and easy to acquire, just go and buy and be happy, right? Most importantly, first thing to realize the good sound was not some one particular thing, but many things all aligning for you to have the elevated perception.
As the example here kind of hints the sound at home is likely not the same as it was there, on your favorite sound memory, even if you had the same gear, but does it matter if one cannot distinguish if it is or not? So in this sense anything goes, what ever makes you happy! And if one really wants to improve a system it must happen through understanding perception better, and how written concepts and measurement data relates to perception, so basically getting deeper into this stuff would mean listening experiments and improve listening skill, and the system would evolve with it, right?🙂 So in this sense one should study their perception more first and foremost, then the gear and anything related to playback, in order to be able to produce perception one is after.
Last edited:
