For me they are two different things and I approach each differently, so I don't have a conflict.
But Shirley, more pleasure = better system. As to why - that requires measurement. Subjective/objective. You can't have one without the other.
Critical objective listening without the idea of pleasure is beyond me. Think of it this way. You don't do a battery of personality tests and a financial investigation and then decide to fall in love with somebody. It just happens. It is not a rational act. A huge amount of human culrure is then taken up with investigating the consequences, much of which we enjoy on our systems.
Critical objective listening without the idea of pleasure is beyond me. Think of it this way. You don't do a battery of personality tests and a financial investigation and then decide to fall in love with somebody. It just happens. It is not a rational act. A huge amount of human culrure is then taken up with investigating the consequences, much of which we enjoy on our systems.
The alternative is that one uses measurements to quickly get where one needs to be from a sonic standpoint during system setup, and then without wasting time "listening" to idiot placebos like wires or beaks or coins on top of speakers (or amps or digital sources...) one can simply spend the rest of her/his time enjoying music in the highest fidelity possible in that space.
Using measurements properly is much quicker than subjective plug-n-chug. Just as it's easier to draw a straight line with a ruler than to do so freehand.
Now that is subjective!
But you're not listening to wires or beaks or coins, you're listening to music. There is no extra effort involved other than to ask am I having fun yet? I can't understand how this evaluation is anything other than subjective. Are you saying that if the system sounded horrible to you but the numbers say different you would go with the numbers? Let's not go with the wire - that has been fought to a bloody draw/uneasy standoff already.
I fully accept that distortion can be measured, power output can be measured etc. etc., but what is this mysterious objective quality? Who/what is listening/judging?
If you do not want to fight the objectivity and logic behind requiring measurements then stop posting purely subjective opinion. Audio science demands that opinion be backed up by data. This forum is a DIY forum and therefore audio science is a priority.
If you are not controlling your listening tests then your conclusions are most likely inaccurate. Subjectivity is 100% personal stuff and has no proof attached to it. More or less it should never be posted as fact in any discussions online.
Doug, I would point out that the single objective fact in this thread has been posted by me. Everything else is opinion, by myself and all others, including yourself. I would also point out that I seem to be the only one remotely interested in fun and pleasure, and am at a loss as to why others do not consider these and other emotions as reliable guides to whether something sounds good. The why something sounds good can be more difficult to ascertain, as we know.
We follow the hobby for fun and pleasure, just as we listen to music. It is natural to want to express and share these emotions. "I did this it was great! You can do it too, here's how, here are the specs! Enjoy!"
Since we have hit an impasse similar to the wire/cable wars, I withdraw - I have collapsing walls to listen to.
We follow the hobby for fun and pleasure, just as we listen to music. It is natural to want to express and share these emotions. "I did this it was great! You can do it too, here's how, here are the specs! Enjoy!"
Since we have hit an impasse similar to the wire/cable wars, I withdraw - I have collapsing walls to listen to.
You posted measurements to show differences? I didnt find them even the link about the beaks with measurements, was extremely hoaky and 100% questionable.
If this is all about resonance then people need to build better boxes (IMO, totem builds crap boxes THINKING resonance makes them sound better).
Thinking about it, I can place a 2 pound weight on my speakers and the response doesnt change. Maybe, I should try 5 pounds...hmmm 😱
This is from the article
There you go Doug. Tell me, does Audio science also include audio perception? In other words, what goes on in our minds when we listen to music?
There you go Doug. Tell me, does Audio science also include audio perception? In other words, what goes on in our minds when we listen to music?
Read the article. Is an error bar when you discern a radical lifestyle incompatibility with your fellow drinkers just after you order a beer?
Look guys, I'm sorry if I scared you posting about pleasure and joy and fun. These emotions clearly have no place in the grim business of "evaluating" a system. Not that any of you have actually deigned to reveal your methodology or results. So tell us, how do you do it? Is it all smoke and mirrors in the objective world of hard audio science?
As I said the article looks bogus to me. Overlay the two responses from proper measurements and I will care.
btw, I did the quarter thing last night on 4 different speakers....nada, zilch.
As for audio perception, if you are actually testing anything you have to properly control the listening test because your subconcious will have more control over your conclusions then anything you hear.....This is the basic difference between those who understand listening testing and those who simply listen to music and think their subjective conclusions are facts when truely they are not.
Lol, first...I can garuntee I have had more fun and experienced more things in my life so far than you will remotely ever could imagine so lets stop the nonsense with something about pleasure.
I do control my listening tests and its amazing what the real results are when you remove all bias!
Emotions are for the real world, posting audio facts is an emotionless situation.
That's not what scared me. Or more accurately, caused raised eyebrows. It's fact claims of an extraordinary nature, especially relating to a commercial product that cause raised eyebrows. Money and integrity aren't mutually exclusive, but there's definitely a diminution in overlap.
You have a hand drawn "frequency response" graph (no methodology, repeatability, or error bars), you have a manufacturer who claims "...every aspect of it (the cutout on the underside and the fine grooves milled into the surface) must be exactly the way they are." And has "...supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements." Oh-KAY.
"The Beak is meant to be at once a resonator (the air space trapped under the device) and--if we understand correctly--a diffraction device. It is claimed that it improves the bottom end, and it also allows the tweeter to go higher more linearly. How it does this is, for the moment, anyone's guess..." If you fling enough unsupported stuff out there, heedless of basic physics, you can hit the favored buzz words of more suckers. Ka-CHING!
Too bad- the speakers of theirs I've hear were pretty good. Why do they need the snake oil? Oh, yeah, it's commercial high end audio. The story is at least as important as the sound. "Entertainment," says Nelson Pass, very wisely.
What got me was that the reviewers measured the 1.5dB reduction of the peak at 8kHz with the beak removed - it does baffle me that the manufacturer not only believes that this peak is good, but it needs enhancing.
I still don't understand how you can have an objective listening test, for the same reason that your dad told you never to bet on anything that can talk - the human mind is involved. It's either measurements or opinion, and trying to align the two.
I still don't understand how you can have an objective listening test, for the same reason that your dad told you never to bet on anything that can talk - the human mind is involved. It's either measurements or opinion, and trying to align the two.
Well, in this case, it's easy. Put the speakers behind a black acoustic curtain (a la Floyd Toole), and have the devices randomly placed and removed while the listener indicates whether or not he hears a change. It's subjective (involves a human giving a sensory evaluation) but at the same time objective (he either hears a difference or doesn't).
The problem with the vague allusion to measurement is obvious to anyone who has ever measured speakers; a 1.5dB change in the treble can easily be seen changing nothing other than moving the mike, then trying to place it back in its original position. That's assuming, of course, that the HUGE peak they show in this rather poor magazine article is real- which it may not be. The crude crayon tracing on a frequency graph certainly raises my suspicions about the quality of their test regime.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.