I don't even understand what all that means...
🙄
Dismissing the very concept of the EQ, in 2020, reminds me of old school photographers who are refusing, as a dogma, to use Photoshop, because it's ''unpure''.
You know what happens with old-school-photographers? They are replaced with new, younger ones. Who use Photoshop.
Because it's a great tool to create great photography.
I know this is a dumb question but in your test is beaming from different speakers not affecting the results if you can't distinguish them in the blindtest from the 8in,3in 4in and so on or are they so close that it doesn't have any effect in the beaming of each speaker but if you distance them to where you usually sit can you still tell the difference
1.65m distance, and only one driver, and on-axis, so the beaming wasn't a real factor.
However we did few sessions with participants ''allowed'' to swing their head left and right as much as they could without falling from the chair, and it didnt change anything in the results.
By effectively equalizing (if I understood the setup correctly) the frequency response and dispersion differences between drivers the trial examined distortion and 'mystery character X'? Certainly interesting.
JonBocani, we all know you're the leader of "everything is the same" party, and that makes your test less trustful unfortunately. Next time you perform similar test, team up with your political opponent, please.
It would be very interesting while I guess the result will be not very interesting.
It would be very interesting while I guess the result will be not very interesting.
Thanks for quick reply I thought that given the different size speakers used that depending on size of speaker become omni directional, and beaming will occur at the frequency you set so it be more focus on axis and and dispersion of the sound be different from each other if they moved there heads around like you stated, but I'm just here learning and taking in info , I'm also taking in info from ampslab he got lot of measurements with different speakers just like you he even flips polarity on his compression drivers I didn't even tried that yet have you ever flip polarity and test them that way,just a thought I'm not no professional just taking in knowledge so I can experiment myself and getting opinions from everyone thanks for responding
OK this helps with the understanding of the results a lot. The common theme in disbelief has been the off axis related differences the drivers would exhibit, and clearly the listening setup largely removed this from the equation.
Tony.
OP, correct me if I'm wrong, is the question you are trying to answer this:
Is it possible to find a range of speaker drivers, given enough processing, so that within a specific frequency range and listening parameters they will be indistinguishable from each other in a blind test?
If not what is the statement/question? I believe you've got it.
Is it possible to find a range of speaker drivers, given enough processing, so that within a specific frequency range and listening parameters they will be indistinguishable from each other in a blind test?
If not what is the statement/question? I believe you've got it.
Last edited:
JonBocani,
In post #68 you describe the test sequence in some detail, but not very thoroughly. Here is what I think you do, but please correct me if I misunderstand it.
A subject is seated near field directly in front of the speaker at roughly 5.5 feet.
A music selection is played for some period of time. You don’t say how long that is. The subject is told that was Speaker A. Then a different driver is substituted and the same music selection is repeated. Subject is told that was Speaker B.
You don’t say how the driver substitution was made or how long it took to do it.
Now, one of the two drivers is somehow re-enabled, the same music selection is played, and the subject is asked was that A or B. There are three possible answers to the question: A or B or I don’t know.
Then you change the music and repeat the process with the same pair of drivers. And you do that up to 20 times with the same person.
Somewhere in there you also change to a different pair of drivers, but it’s not clear when and how that happens.
However, you're not presented us with any of the critical data. You have provided no information on how the subjects answered the question of which speaker it was. That set of answers is of paramount importance from a statistical analysis perspective, but you have not provided any such information.
Instead, you simply ask everyone to accept your analysis that there is no distinguishable difference between the drivers. There is no reason people should accept your conclusions without seeing the data and knowing more about the entire testing procedure.
In post #68 you describe the test sequence in some detail, but not very thoroughly. Here is what I think you do, but please correct me if I misunderstand it.
A subject is seated near field directly in front of the speaker at roughly 5.5 feet.
A music selection is played for some period of time. You don’t say how long that is. The subject is told that was Speaker A. Then a different driver is substituted and the same music selection is repeated. Subject is told that was Speaker B.
You don’t say how the driver substitution was made or how long it took to do it.
Now, one of the two drivers is somehow re-enabled, the same music selection is played, and the subject is asked was that A or B. There are three possible answers to the question: A or B or I don’t know.
Then you change the music and repeat the process with the same pair of drivers. And you do that up to 20 times with the same person.
Somewhere in there you also change to a different pair of drivers, but it’s not clear when and how that happens.
However, you're not presented us with any of the critical data. You have provided no information on how the subjects answered the question of which speaker it was. That set of answers is of paramount importance from a statistical analysis perspective, but you have not provided any such information.
Instead, you simply ask everyone to accept your analysis that there is no distinguishable difference between the drivers. There is no reason people should accept your conclusions without seeing the data and knowing more about the entire testing procedure.
Last edited:
what was your intro to the test subjects? as in how did you describe the experiment and what was wanted from them?
Were they paid for their services?
Were they paid for their services?
I understand that some people have more time to burn in quarantine to write things like this thread, but I still think this blind-test didn't happened. There is so much missing data to assume this.
Hard to believe that there was no test-log, pictures etc for this extensive test to confirm that bold claim: all drivers equalized for the same on-axis sounds the same and they are indistinguishable from each other.
So please, if you have some pictures or anything from the test other than empty words, share with us, don't hold it back! 🙂
Hard to believe that there was no test-log, pictures etc for this extensive test to confirm that bold claim: all drivers equalized for the same on-axis sounds the same and they are indistinguishable from each other.
So please, if you have some pictures or anything from the test other than empty words, share with us, don't hold it back! 🙂
As I recall, there WERE some pictures from the test, and the test really happened:
World's best midrange Blind Testing - Need your help.
World' Best Midranges - SHOCKING Results & Conclusions.
World's best midrange Blind Testing - Need your help.
World' Best Midranges - SHOCKING Results & Conclusions.
Thanks Sonce!
I didn't followed those threads, but unfortunately the pics are not visible anymore (at least to me).
I didn't followed those threads, but unfortunately the pics are not visible anymore (at least to me).
What, me suggesting you have a cavalier attitude toward EQ when you wrote this in post 46:
So here is the thing: I DID NOT put much effort in the EQ. Was even a bit sloppy, to be honest.
That is a cavalier attitude toward EQ. If it isn't, I don't know what could possibly be described as such.
You started this thread with an authoritative air talking about an activity you claim (and I do not dispute said claim) to have engaged in. That activity is presented, in effect, as a scientific test of psychoacoustics, but you have thus far failed to provide a single, concise statement with full and proper details of test equipment, test methodology, procedural analysis, full result data and your detailed analysis of said. Not a lot to ask. Instead of doing so, you write this:
No doubt true. You could perhaps, indicate who it is you are claiming is 'dismissing the very concept of the EQ'. I see nobody here who is doing so. However, major concerns about your procedural accuracy / methodology are inevitable when you casually announce regarding the EQ you applied that you 'did not put much effort in', and were 'even a bit sloppy, to be honest'. I honour your candour on that particular front, but sloppiness of application on what is a rather critical aspect of your test procedure doesn't exactly make for good testing practice.
TBH I don't know why people are arguing about it, it would be simple enough to do an equally thorough test for themselves.
The thing is, its not so simple. Doing proper psychoacoustics testing is hard and complicated. Take a look at the serious literature on the subject. Here is one to get started: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Sensory...nsory+Evaluation,+2nd+Edition-p-9781118994788
That isn't what Jon did though, or anything remotely like it. My point was anyone can do similar to what he did and decide for themselves what they can or cannot hear. People don't need to read books to discover if they can hear a difference worth worrying about.
For many reasons, Scott.
- They don't want to spend time, energy and money into that, because, you know, discovering the truth ain't worth it...
- They just don't know how to do it or don't have the equipment to do it.
- They are afraid to discover the reality, that might go against their beliefs.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.