Others may have agreed but maybe I did not notice. I tend to agree with soongsc, "I find almost all forms of measurements are useful in some way." Limiting measurement types or methods does not lead to a standard of course. Putting everything under the Sun in is not possible. I know someone very well on the AES loudspeaker measurement standards committee and within the committee there is great decent on most everything.
On the other hand it is very easy to identify a marketing department or someone wishing to promote a product because this group will always want to limit all measurements to the few the marketing department or promoter wishes to use to validate there particular product(s). Other than adding their test to the "list of test" I tend to pretty much ignore this group and their statements/posts because the goal is so clouded by the requirement to market and promote. Any test which does not serve this marketing/promotion purpose will be rejected by the particular group. Obviously, any test which might show their product in a less than favorable light must be rejected for marketing/promotional reasons.
Read this thread with this thought in mind and discover if post are about broadening perspective and learning or about marketing/promotion.
🙂=SUM
On the other hand it is very easy to identify a marketing department or someone wishing to promote a product because this group will always want to limit all measurements to the few the marketing department or promoter wishes to use to validate there particular product(s). Other than adding their test to the "list of test" I tend to pretty much ignore this group and their statements/posts because the goal is so clouded by the requirement to market and promote. Any test which does not serve this marketing/promotion purpose will be rejected by the particular group. Obviously, any test which might show their product in a less than favorable light must be rejected for marketing/promotional reasons.
Read this thread with this thought in mind and discover if post are about broadening perspective and learning or about marketing/promotion.
🙂=SUM
The problem, as stated, is that marketing wants to show little to nothing and simply say "They sound great - buy them." and talk about some psuedo science or some such nonsense. And I have no trouble with "too much data" as long as what is necessary is there, superfluous data doesn't hurt anything, only insufficient data. That said, its kind of a waste of time taking data that doesn't mean anything, but hey, if you have the time. I certainly don't.
The thing is that virtually everyone who has studied the problem of "sufficient data" has come to the same conclusions - Toole, Fincham, myself, scores and scores of opthers. It seems to me that the data set that is agreed to should at least be presented - or something that can be shown to be equivalent. For example I don;t do exactly what Toole does because I can't, only Harman can. But what I do has all the same data in it that the Harman tests have, its just in a form that I (and any other DIY) can do. Dave Clark came over here on Moday with an Orion and several other speakers that he was using in a test. He was very impressed with how I took data and how I displayed it and wants all his work done that way as well.
So this idea that there isn't going to be agreement is a DIY thing. The pros don't seem to have this problem.
The thing is that virtually everyone who has studied the problem of "sufficient data" has come to the same conclusions - Toole, Fincham, myself, scores and scores of opthers. It seems to me that the data set that is agreed to should at least be presented - or something that can be shown to be equivalent. For example I don;t do exactly what Toole does because I can't, only Harman can. But what I do has all the same data in it that the Harman tests have, its just in a form that I (and any other DIY) can do. Dave Clark came over here on Moday with an Orion and several other speakers that he was using in a test. He was very impressed with how I took data and how I displayed it and wants all his work done that way as well.
So this idea that there isn't going to be agreement is a DIY thing. The pros don't seem to have this problem.
If that was true, yes, but it is not.
The problem is one of perspective. As an engineer your point seems valid, but for most of the regular guys that wear tennis shoes (or an occasional python boot), that doesn't work.
The reason is one of education. The uninitiated see a wiggly graph and think that is horrible! They expect a ruler flat line, but the reality is something different.
Most people buy primarily based on emotion. Squiggly lines do little to ignite passion in the soul, so marketing takes another approach, creating an emotional want and presenting eye candy.
The bottom line is, you have to be very careful about what data you preset and how it is presented because the bulk of your market does not grasp the meaning of all that engineering data, but they fully get the idea of goosebumps.
In fact, that reminds me of a radio advertisement for a highly successful audio store in Philadelphia. The slogan was "We sell goosebumps."
I think marketing knows how people buy. I agree that it's best to let customer listen to the system. This creates a diversified market allowing people to sujectively decide what they enjoy rather than being too analytical. On the other hand, I think it's a commitment for each product originator to do the appropriate work based on what value they want to provide to the customer, and what type of customers they prefer to satisfy. Data should be made available for those whom wish for it rather than openly available. In exchange, the customer asking for data should present their intention of buying something, selection criteria, expected time of purchase, etc. when they ask for more data. This is what I see the responsible two way communication to be.
The most harm to the market is creating direct data and price comparisons.
The most harm to the market is creating direct data and price comparisons.
Last edited:
I truely believe that one of the big problems with "consumerism" is the lack of knowledge of the average buyer. They really have no idea how to interpret advertising claims. Like rating a drill in "amps", or an air compressor in "HP". Those do not tell you how good or bad the device is, they are completely peripheral. They just happen to be terms that the consumer has heard before. While I agree with you, it's not a situation that I encourage nor do I think that any of us should encourage it. The consumer needs to learn about the products that they buy. I am trying to make it all as simple as possible to understand, but I can't make it brainless.
Well, that is true. Part of the problem is that consumers don't want to put forth the effort to learn something. They much prefer to have someone else do it for them.
Additionally, consumers are more and more relying on government to protect them, rather than do their own homework. As long as bigger safety nets are laid out for consumers the less incentive they will have to do diligence in their buying habits.
So, we are nurturing a class of consumers that expect someone else to take care of their purchasing decisions so they don't have to think, just enjoy the candy coated products.
All fine when money flows like water as it did in the near paste. But I see a different future, especially in audio, where the "smart" consumer learns and doesn't waste his precious money (and it WILL become more precious.) I spent very little on my system and yet I'd put it up against any at any price. We all know that price has no correlation with performance. Sure there are "goosebumps" when you purchase expensive stuff, but then the headache comes when you have to pay the bill. The future will belong to the savy consumer who buys what they need at the best price - its called "value". You cannot recognize "value" if you don't understand the the product.
Sorry to disagree with you (and others diyaudio audiophiles). Please stop that non sense -- what is that about "regular guys that wear tennis shoes (or an occasional python boot)", sorry but I wear tennis shoes -- as I had the opportunity to manifest my opinion against that away of thinking before. Theres a lot of people that want to know the full specifications and that are not stupid, I don't know the percentage (in mine or) in your country. In this case I don't think less is more. If you are in a special marketing ad or campaign, then ok, but not for technical informations, on fairs or events were your final user is going to be a diy or tech staff. So, I'm against the RULE. I want full DISCLOSURE.😎
So, what percentage of the total market of audio buyers do you think you (and like minded people like you) make up?
I am not trying to be rude, either, but I think that people on this forum do not necessarily fall in the center of the normal distribution curve when it comes to the market in general.
So, my point was that from the perspective of someone that is outside the normal distribution the rest of the world looks mighty strange (if not wrong). Whether that perspective is true or not is of no importance. What is important is where is the profit in the market? So, as a manufacture you look for where the most pockets are and you market to that segment.
"what is that about "regular guys that wear tennis shoes (or an occasional python boot)?"
That was just a flip quote from Frank Zappa.
It is quite interesting that lots of the basic knowledge necessary to make a good judgement was really acquired before the age of 18, and maybe 80% acquireed by 9th grade. I talk to my children a lot about buying things because I personally almost never go out there and buy on instinct, rather, I start eyeing the market about a year ahead. They know they will get there mom to buy unless it's absolutely required, and they get the cheapest things money can buy. When they come to me, I ask them why they need the particular brand and model they ask for. If they can't think of any, I give them some tips on how to select something like that, and let them tell me what they think why they want somthing like that. Most consumers don't do this because they are never educated to apply their knowledge to daily life. If we as parents don't learn enough to initiate the process, it probably won't happen on a broad scale.
In Taiwan, there is a consumer foundation that overlooks the marking of products. If we ever have a problem with the labeling, we can submit our case to this foundation. I wonder if there are sinmilar organizations in other countries.
Well, if they pay for what they buy, and like it. I think it's good too. At least the economy is moving.😉
From observation it seems very true, "people want to feel good about what they believe." What a particular buyer wants is what the buyer wants which covers a great variety of methods of validation. I like the goose bumps as a listening experience and I like specs galore without the smoothing or omission of the "nice data" department. And as stated in an early post people are often looking to match there personal selection with their personal experience. The conductor does not hear the same thing the person in row 43 hears. Both experience are completely valid and very different. If the market is to fulfill the demand which matches the experience then clearly different systems are needed. There is no "one perfect diet" and there is no "one perfect audio system."
The conclusion...??? Let us define the goal of what we want and then find an audio system that gives us that experience. Next find test which statistically correlate other systems which provide a similar experience and test which show audio system for other applications like the person in row 43. Within this sort of framework the subset of "all audio" can work together to find a satisfactory method for the particular subset. I wonder if this could ever happen? Seems unlikely as those who wish for power over people often want to define the single best- an oxymoron for but one millisecond of time when it was true. There are so many best for so many different applications.
As example, I have never heard any form of compression driver system I would want in my living room. That means nothing to someone else who really likes what their compression driver system does for them. Neither of us is wrong. We both have different experience and different goals. I have always dreamed the day might come with groups of people with similar goals could work together to invent a more perfect system for the group. Again obviously- there is no one size which fits all so there can be no standard which fits all. Exactly as there is no "best song" and no "best type of music" as content selection is very personal based on experience.
In the end for me......I have found professional audio engineers in recording studios and my desires often run very close together so much of the equipment I have made has gone into professional recording studios. Now I must apologize because it is likely for those who listen to a wide variety of content------- some of that content was mixed on speakers I was deeply involved with or amplifiers I supplied and so on. My apologies for tipping the sound of those recordings to the sound character I happen to hold high. It may not be right for you.
cheers
=SUM
P.S. the drink will ease the pain🙂
The conclusion...??? Let us define the goal of what we want and then find an audio system that gives us that experience. Next find test which statistically correlate other systems which provide a similar experience and test which show audio system for other applications like the person in row 43. Within this sort of framework the subset of "all audio" can work together to find a satisfactory method for the particular subset. I wonder if this could ever happen? Seems unlikely as those who wish for power over people often want to define the single best- an oxymoron for but one millisecond of time when it was true. There are so many best for so many different applications.
As example, I have never heard any form of compression driver system I would want in my living room. That means nothing to someone else who really likes what their compression driver system does for them. Neither of us is wrong. We both have different experience and different goals. I have always dreamed the day might come with groups of people with similar goals could work together to invent a more perfect system for the group. Again obviously- there is no one size which fits all so there can be no standard which fits all. Exactly as there is no "best song" and no "best type of music" as content selection is very personal based on experience.
In the end for me......I have found professional audio engineers in recording studios and my desires often run very close together so much of the equipment I have made has gone into professional recording studios. Now I must apologize because it is likely for those who listen to a wide variety of content------- some of that content was mixed on speakers I was deeply involved with or amplifiers I supplied and so on. My apologies for tipping the sound of those recordings to the sound character I happen to hold high. It may not be right for you.
cheers
=SUMP.S. the drink will ease the pain🙂
Last edited:
My only argument against not trying to reproduce the recording would be why measure at all? It seems discussions for reasons to not reproduce the recording actually belong outside of a measurement thread. How much room refection you want to create is an idea that's debatable, but wether or not we should try to reproduce the recording seems out of sorts. IOW, a smooth polar response has to be included for anyone who is the least bit analytical about measuring wether it's omni, wide, narrow or figure eight. Unless someone has a compelling reason why that may not be true.......... I'm listening. I'll take narrow, but I'm a musician and that may well influence my decision. Narrow should also work better for things other than music. My speakers double as my HT. Seems like a match made in heaven--or hell--which ever has been recorded.
As far as the consumer side of things is concerned, buying what makes you feel good on a couple of your feel good recordings in an electronics store makes little sense. Correction, very little sense especially when sighted. There's just too much wrong with that idea to even discuss. Perhaps it's better than just buying on looks alone? But probably not much.
Dan
As far as the consumer side of things is concerned, buying what makes you feel good on a couple of your feel good recordings in an electronics store makes little sense. Correction, very little sense especially when sighted. There's just too much wrong with that idea to even discuss. Perhaps it's better than just buying on looks alone? But probably not much.
Dan
Here is a little dose of reality:
Technical information is so far down on the list of an average purchaser's decision making process that it hardly counts (..at least for full products, as opposed to parts). This is regardless of the prospective purchaser's level of *supplemental* knowledge of the product (and class of products). (..as opposed to "first hand" knowledge, correct or incorrect.)
In the "hi-end" audio market technical information is just there to bolster claims of superiority. What gets the consumer's attention has very little to do with that technical information, rather it's the claim of superiority that does, or the appearance, or the price, etc.. Even then the add isn't there for you to make a final purchase decision, rather it's there to prompt you into making a decision to audition the product.
It's also a mistake to believe that consumers do NOT desire to take an active interest in learning about products and their market, or that they aren't actually learning about products. The *difference* is their weighting of the information they are exposed to.
This isn't a "sad" state of consumerism. Nor is it a state that has changed or is likely to change. It just *is*, and wishing or envisioning other-wise doesn't alter this.
There are of course niche markets and customers that will "buck" the average, but it's rare.
Technical information is so far down on the list of an average purchaser's decision making process that it hardly counts (..at least for full products, as opposed to parts). This is regardless of the prospective purchaser's level of *supplemental* knowledge of the product (and class of products). (..as opposed to "first hand" knowledge, correct or incorrect.)
In the "hi-end" audio market technical information is just there to bolster claims of superiority. What gets the consumer's attention has very little to do with that technical information, rather it's the claim of superiority that does, or the appearance, or the price, etc.. Even then the add isn't there for you to make a final purchase decision, rather it's there to prompt you into making a decision to audition the product.
It's also a mistake to believe that consumers do NOT desire to take an active interest in learning about products and their market, or that they aren't actually learning about products. The *difference* is their weighting of the information they are exposed to.
This isn't a "sad" state of consumerism. Nor is it a state that has changed or is likely to change. It just *is*, and wishing or envisioning other-wise doesn't alter this.
There are of course niche markets and customers that will "buck" the average, but it's rare.
Last edited:
Dan, I agree. If "How it sounds to me" is all that matters, then measurements ARE a waste of time. Don't people see the hypocrasy of "I do lots of measurements, but in the end, I throw them all out and 'just listen'."
Heh, as designers, if we were statisfied with one design and never wanted something better, life would be really boring.
No excitement of new breakthoughs.
No excitement of new breakthoughs.
I think everyone measures to attempt to make real improvement, but some aren't looking to measure the things that have been shown to matter most and others are. Taking a bunch of metric that either do not matter or matter very little in the end while ignoring the ones that matter immensely just doesn't seem like looking in the right places for improvement. When you think about polar response and how we hear, it has to be absurd to ignore it. I can't really see how a decent speaker doesn't start there. That's the textbook 101 of speaker design that no one has written--well, barring Dr. Toole perhaps though not precisely.
To state an improvement, there must be a goal. If the goal is not to better reproduce the recording, then what might it be? If something else, why measure? (see Dr. Geddes last post) Knowing the limitations of transducers, "absolute accuracy" is going to be impossible presently and "accurate enough" hard as can be. Why not start with the most meaningful measurements, then work your way down the line? If there is a good argument for that to not be the most useful metric, no one has presented it. Feel free by all means objectivists.
Dan
To state an improvement, there must be a goal. If the goal is not to better reproduce the recording, then what might it be? If something else, why measure? (see Dr. Geddes last post) Knowing the limitations of transducers, "absolute accuracy" is going to be impossible presently and "accurate enough" hard as can be. Why not start with the most meaningful measurements, then work your way down the line? If there is a good argument for that to not be the most useful metric, no one has presented it. Feel free by all means objectivists.
Dan
I began with unsatisfaction in listening experience compared with live, unamplified performance. I would not have even tried to develop products if I were satisfied with what was out there. When I started to ask for specific measurement data from manufacturers, none was available. My first thought was, "my god, are they engineers or technicians?" So I just had to find out for myself what's going on. After many years playing around with audio stuff, it's kind of interesting to know that it's rare that people have the desire to develop something outstanding to the point that they take the initiative to learn more with an open mind.
I recall back in the 80's when I started to design a rudder control system for an aircraft, and had to run long cable through the structure; in order to control the dropp and sage of the cable, I was doing a little program for the calculation where I needed holes and pullies along the way. To my surprise, even from engeers that had worked with Northrop at that time, nobody seemed to have ever done such calculations.
So what I'm trying to say here is that, no matter what industry we are in, the statistics are going to be similar. There are only going to be a very small percentage of engineers that really get into it and enjoy the process of improvement. In the later years, I was fortunate enought to have a handfull of people working together that could take the schedule pressure and still do an excellent job. In the audio field, well, I'm still looking.
I recall back in the 80's when I started to design a rudder control system for an aircraft, and had to run long cable through the structure; in order to control the dropp and sage of the cable, I was doing a little program for the calculation where I needed holes and pullies along the way. To my surprise, even from engeers that had worked with Northrop at that time, nobody seemed to have ever done such calculations.
So what I'm trying to say here is that, no matter what industry we are in, the statistics are going to be similar. There are only going to be a very small percentage of engineers that really get into it and enjoy the process of improvement. In the later years, I was fortunate enought to have a handfull of people working together that could take the schedule pressure and still do an excellent job. In the audio field, well, I'm still looking.
Soongsc, are you trying to replicate live unamplified music from a recording? Is that your main goal? And it seems all the "engineers" in the audio field that I know of are seeking improvement in their products. Now, I only know of a couple. Can you name some, or even one that are not?
Last edited:
There is that special feel in the instrument's and the performance that seems not so significant in playback. Not knowing the recording process, what we can only do is to look through the measurements, try to find things that have potential for improvment, do the improvement to verify that it's as expected, and listen to see if there is an audible improvement that brings that emotion into listening experience. Yes, I am aware there are limitations, the interaural effects being one, but I'm always curious how much closer to reality it will be if I improve certain aspects. I do have a few items on my list.
Lot's of times I've mentioned the audibility of absolute polarity differences, and I've mentioned that if the CSD can be improved to a certain point, almost any audiophile can hear the difference. To date I have not heard of anyone that actually put any effort to see if they come up with the similar findings, nor have any presented similar CSD performances yet claim that absolute polarity differences cannot be heard. What does that tell you? Just a week ago, I listened to a pair of Tannoy coaxial speakers, sure, they were not that Hi Fi by today's standards as the store manager mentioned, but absolute polarity swap was audible, even though one could prefer differently according to personal taste which one he liked.
A few years ago, I saw a post that claimed grounding the basket improves image sound image and detail presentation, I tried it after improving CSd of a full range driver, sure enough, it worked; when I mentioned it in another thread, quite a few people actually responded with something like "do you think we are all dumb? if it works, why is it not done in wide practice?"
The list can go on, "EnABL" "ground side electrons", you hear good comments from the people in it for fun, but the real so-called experts reject the idea. Some even feel effended if your question their test methods if they show no difference in performance.
I really won't mention names. Unless the person is in the discussion of the related subject. There is no point in singling out the individuals.
Lot's of times I've mentioned the audibility of absolute polarity differences, and I've mentioned that if the CSD can be improved to a certain point, almost any audiophile can hear the difference. To date I have not heard of anyone that actually put any effort to see if they come up with the similar findings, nor have any presented similar CSD performances yet claim that absolute polarity differences cannot be heard. What does that tell you? Just a week ago, I listened to a pair of Tannoy coaxial speakers, sure, they were not that Hi Fi by today's standards as the store manager mentioned, but absolute polarity swap was audible, even though one could prefer differently according to personal taste which one he liked.
A few years ago, I saw a post that claimed grounding the basket improves image sound image and detail presentation, I tried it after improving CSd of a full range driver, sure enough, it worked; when I mentioned it in another thread, quite a few people actually responded with something like "do you think we are all dumb? if it works, why is it not done in wide practice?"
The list can go on, "EnABL" "ground side electrons", you hear good comments from the people in it for fun, but the real so-called experts reject the idea. Some even feel effended if your question their test methods if they show no difference in performance.
I really won't mention names. Unless the person is in the discussion of the related subject. There is no point in singling out the individuals.
Last edited:
One thing I think I've mentioned before. The various imperfections sometimes will tend to mask each other. If we can determine from both data and listening, what might be the more dominating issue, normally, when you fix that, then the next dominant issue becomes more audible. The whole developement cycle just goes round and around. The audible improvements seem to become incrementally smaller until you undo a few of the improvements to find how big the accumulated improvement is.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.