The logical continuation of this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...t-midranges-shocking-results-conclusions.html
Will be to move to the next step:
Having TWO identical rooms (exact same dimensions, furnitures, acoustical treatments, door's position, etc...)
Room A: a complete ''boutique'' sound system: multiway speakers, amplifiers, source, HD source, etc...
Room B: a DIY ''cheap'' kit made with the most basic components possible, just enough to MIMIC the sonic result of room A for the listeners.
Basically, you install the sound system in room A, then an ''audiocopy'' is prepared and tested in room B.
Blindly, participants will have to identify which is which. Normal listening SPL, from a ''normal'' seating position, with many different music excerpts/lenghts.
If my theory is right, 90%+ of participants won't have any clue which is which.
Right off the bat, i can tell you that i'll use the following ''cheap'' components:
- class D power amplifier
- AAC lossy audio format
- cheapest possible cables that are functionnal
- cheapest enclosure(s) or structure possible
- digital preamplification
- nanoDigi DSP/xover/EQ
- whatever DAC fits the most for the audiocopy
Any suggestions as for the Room A kit you'd like to see performing ?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...t-midranges-shocking-results-conclusions.html
Will be to move to the next step:
Having TWO identical rooms (exact same dimensions, furnitures, acoustical treatments, door's position, etc...)
Room A: a complete ''boutique'' sound system: multiway speakers, amplifiers, source, HD source, etc...
Room B: a DIY ''cheap'' kit made with the most basic components possible, just enough to MIMIC the sonic result of room A for the listeners.
Basically, you install the sound system in room A, then an ''audiocopy'' is prepared and tested in room B.
Blindly, participants will have to identify which is which. Normal listening SPL, from a ''normal'' seating position, with many different music excerpts/lenghts.
If my theory is right, 90%+ of participants won't have any clue which is which.
Right off the bat, i can tell you that i'll use the following ''cheap'' components:
- class D power amplifier
- AAC lossy audio format
- cheapest possible cables that are functionnal
- cheapest enclosure(s) or structure possible
- digital preamplification
- nanoDigi DSP/xover/EQ
- whatever DAC fits the most for the audiocopy
Any suggestions as for the Room A kit you'd like to see performing ?
Last edited:
you can also have for reference the crappy hifi then trying to EQ a premium hifi system for having the same result to look for people hear difference or not ?!
they can find the second EQed system : as bad, or as good, maybe better (if the copy is feeled better, the test is over !)... or worst (it beginns to be interessant !)
they can find the second EQed system : as bad, or as good, maybe better (if the copy is feeled better, the test is over !)... or worst (it beginns to be interessant !)
Jon, no offence, but aren't you trying to run after first learning to crawl?
Your first test was to see what FR does for perception of sound, to see if we can hear a difference between very different drivers once they are EQ-ed within a certain threshold.
But this test was one speaker, a Mono speaker. Things might change once you start to listen to stereo. Not saying it does, but wouldn't that be a logical step between the mono driver and a full stereo setup?
Your first test was to see what FR does for perception of sound, to see if we can hear a difference between very different drivers once they are EQ-ed within a certain threshold.
But this test was one speaker, a Mono speaker. Things might change once you start to listen to stereo. Not saying it does, but wouldn't that be a logical step between the mono driver and a full stereo setup?
I laughed reading the test report. Didn't they understand anything?? What are they trying to prove? That matching between amplifier and speaker is important? That certain amp-speaker combo with better bass control will win the majority listeners?
Well, put the forum on a zip disk and call me consolidated. I like what you're hypothesising, but much will be redundant from the last test. Much will now also involve the other aspects of what makes a speaker good, but the room will become a complication in the test, particularly if it is to remain fixed and the result will be the answer to a closed question.
There is nothing wrong with your testing and probably nothing wrong with the test participants and what they report hearing. There is no breaking news to it either.
However, your test setup and use of test results is with errors and shortcomings for the conclusions you made.
There have already been done lot of scientific researches on psychoacoustics and small room acoustics in relation to speaker's frequency response, dispersion, distortion, etc.
If your testing shall have any scientific interest and not only end up as yet another trip to a dead end, you will need to isolate all properties but the one you are testing for. This can be quite a bit challenging to do and requires very systematic approaches and profound knowledge of speakers and acoustics (and also electronics in some test scenarios). Next the testing method should be arranged in a way that ensure statistical confidence.
Leaning on scientific approaches to draw hasty and erroneous conclusions is a bigger treat than ravings from the ignorants. Do your testing, but be careful in your conclusions.
BTW, we can agree that there are not ALWAYS a correlation between price, quality and audibility
However, your test setup and use of test results is with errors and shortcomings for the conclusions you made.
There have already been done lot of scientific researches on psychoacoustics and small room acoustics in relation to speaker's frequency response, dispersion, distortion, etc.
If your testing shall have any scientific interest and not only end up as yet another trip to a dead end, you will need to isolate all properties but the one you are testing for. This can be quite a bit challenging to do and requires very systematic approaches and profound knowledge of speakers and acoustics (and also electronics in some test scenarios). Next the testing method should be arranged in a way that ensure statistical confidence.
Leaning on scientific approaches to draw hasty and erroneous conclusions is a bigger treat than ravings from the ignorants. Do your testing, but be careful in your conclusions.
BTW, we can agree that there are not ALWAYS a correlation between price, quality and audibility
Last edited:
This has little relevance to what JonBocani is trying to figure out Pano."How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?"
It's those tiny speakers and weird speaker cables, that how.
Transducers (e.g. microphones & speakers) are the most critical components of any audio 'system'. They transfer acoustic to electrons and electrons back to acoustic. That's a huge challenge to do accurately without altering the original sound.
OTOH, all the stuff in the middle (read electronics, cables, etx.) are massaging those electrons but not transferring them; so detecting differences in how electronic components and cabling affect the sound becomes much more of a challenge requiring a trained listening panel that listens over an extended period to try and detect a difference. The statistics becomes much more of a challenge.
OTOH, all the stuff in the middle (read electronics, cables, etx.) are massaging those electrons but not transferring them; so detecting differences in how electronic components and cabling affect the sound becomes much more of a challenge requiring a trained listening panel that listens over an extended period to try and detect a difference. The statistics becomes much more of a challenge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver
Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines accepted the challenge.
Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines accepted the challenge.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.