It all boils down to one simple thing....you cannot choose one single location in any room that will allow every speaker to operate the way it was intended.
Can anyone refute that?
If we agree on that, then this test has no relevance (as it was done to show what speaker is preferred) and nor should this testing room be considered the be-all-end-all for comparative subjective listening tests.
I love what they do (test speakers and attempt to remove bias). I just take issue with their interpretation of the results. And the claim that: the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test.
Can anyone refute that?
If we agree on that, then this test has no relevance (as it was done to show what speaker is preferred) and nor should this testing room be considered the be-all-end-all for comparative subjective listening tests.
I love what they do (test speakers and attempt to remove bias). I just take issue with their interpretation of the results. And the claim that: the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test.
ah - ok - a different thread, the one on line arrays... that's where he was and then gone! sorry to be so confused... (my usual state, so what of it??)
_-_-bear
_-_-bear
I was trying to keep track of my objections to that thought cast in the form of impermeable logic. But I ran out of fingers.
Hello JRace
I guess it depends on how you do your individual room set-ups. I have basically fixed positions for speaker placement where I get the least amount of room modes and issues below 300hz. It doesn't matter what speaker I put there. The main difference is loading in the last 2 octaves.
I have had a series of monopoles in those positions over the years and even when experimenting always seemed to come back to those prime room positions. Overall it was a trade off but in general they all seemed to work better in those positions and give me the smoothest in room response.
I don't know how many others also do this or have shared that experience. From my point of view using the same speaker position makes sense to me. Changing the positions when putting in new speakers is just adding another variable when you are setting things up and trying to evaluate what's going on.
Rob🙂
Last edited:
placement
If you minimize the number of modes excited in the modal region, you'll have no sound. Don't you mean you've optimized the room position for modal propagation?
Also, this rather simplistic analysis seems to ignore what goes on above 300 Hz.
I would think the study could have determined the best position for a specific type of speaker design (monobox, dipole, open baffle, etc.) separately, as each has room interaction consequences exclusive to their design. With an intelligent experimental design, this could be accomodated.
John L.
John L.
If you minimize the number of modes excited in the modal region, you'll have no sound. Don't you mean you've optimized the room position for modal propagation?
Also, this rather simplistic analysis seems to ignore what goes on above 300 Hz.
I would think the study could have determined the best position for a specific type of speaker design (monobox, dipole, open baffle, etc.) separately, as each has room interaction consequences exclusive to their design. With an intelligent experimental design, this could be accomodated.
John L.
John L.
some days I should shut up and stay in bed
Yep, some days I should shut up and stay in bed. No doubt.
It was KEELE not TOOLE. (anyone remember the movie Brazil? "Buttle, not Tuttle, sorry...") Oh gee. 
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/165596-constant-beam-width-transducers-line-arrays.html
<smacks self with flounder> ouch! </smack with flounder>
_-_-bear
Yep, some days I should shut up and stay in bed. No doubt.
It was KEELE not TOOLE. (anyone remember the movie Brazil? "Buttle, not Tuttle, sorry...") Oh gee. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/165596-constant-beam-width-transducers-line-arrays.html
<smacks self with flounder> ouch! </smack with flounder>
_-_-bear
Speaker placement determined by the smoothest in-room response at my listening position. I meant positions away from where the primary room modes are where you get the worst peaks as an example.
Most placement dependent "room effects" are below 300hz. Wasn't meant to be detailed. The idea was to point out that there are definite room postions that work better than others. It doesn't matter what speaker you put there.
What study would that be??
Rob🙂
the problem with putting each speaker in an ideal location is that then the listening position has to move as well WRT to the speaker position... so that introduces another set of variables.
The advantage of this system is that they can rapidly switch speakers into position while having the other speaker(s) under test effectively removed from the room, and so not playing any role. A good idea... of course this causes other factors to become "of concern"...
Rob he is referring to "the" study under discussion, no doubt.
I think that one can get some ideas from these studies, my problem with them is that they are not dispositive WRT anything... but they can be useful in terms of making broad and general design decisions. I part ways with folks who use these sorts of studies as the bedrock of some sort of system of beliefs that are then called "proven" and/or "absolute".
_-_-bear
<crawls back into cave>
The advantage of this system is that they can rapidly switch speakers into position while having the other speaker(s) under test effectively removed from the room, and so not playing any role. A good idea... of course this causes other factors to become "of concern"...
Rob he is referring to "the" study under discussion, no doubt.
I think that one can get some ideas from these studies, my problem with them is that they are not dispositive WRT anything... but they can be useful in terms of making broad and general design decisions. I part ways with folks who use these sorts of studies as the bedrock of some sort of system of beliefs that are then called "proven" and/or "absolute".
_-_-bear
<crawls back into cave>
Precisely ,
The test is flawed from this perspective and seems baited for a certain conclusion, nothing to do with sound quality , real or perceived ...
Hello Bear
I didn't get the connection because that wasn't what the study was about. It really doesn't address any speaker type differences directly and wasn't meant too.
Struck with a Flounder?? Have you seen this?
YouTube - Monty Python, The Fish Slapping Dance
Rob🙂
I didn't get the connection because that wasn't what the study was about. It really doesn't address any speaker type differences directly and wasn't meant too.
Struck with a Flounder?? Have you seen this?
YouTube - Monty Python, The Fish Slapping Dance
Rob🙂
Last edited:
OK, I hear all the little cranky complaints about speaker placement, etc. but based on nearly 30 yrs as a Toole-watcher, don't think it amounts to serious criticism or indicates a pernicious bias in the testing against Speaker M.
How about taking on the acoustical measurement? Speaker M has a frequency response that looks jagged all over the place. Awful. Harman does an interesting official anechoic test: first they rotate the speaker on a turntable while standing up to do polar. Then they spin it on its side to do what can be called power or directivity index, depending on your theological commitments.
Anything about Speaker M that would impair it in that kind of test? Electrode spacing or shading? Inherent comb filtering? Gravity on the Saran Wrap? Fiberglass particle contamination?
Might be true about Speaker M. But my ESL feeling is that they are a sweet and smooth as you'd want while shoving heavy cardboard or aluminum domes around is fraught with danger of numerous ringings.
How about taking on the acoustical measurement? Speaker M has a frequency response that looks jagged all over the place. Awful. Harman does an interesting official anechoic test: first they rotate the speaker on a turntable while standing up to do polar. Then they spin it on its side to do what can be called power or directivity index, depending on your theological commitments.
Anything about Speaker M that would impair it in that kind of test? Electrode spacing or shading? Inherent comb filtering? Gravity on the Saran Wrap? Fiberglass particle contamination?
Might be true about Speaker M. But my ESL feeling is that they are a sweet and smooth as you'd want while shoving heavy cardboard or aluminum domes around is fraught with danger of numerous ringings.
Last edited:
To make things a bit easier here are the graphs of the speakers under test
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences
Rob🙂
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences
Rob🙂
Attachments
Last edited:
Who would have thought it .. earthlings actually prefer good sounding hi-fi..😛
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html
doesn't matter
hence, the conclusions are not "generalizable".... a weak study with obvious flaws
hence, the conclusions are not "generalizable".... a weak study with obvious flaws
Hello John
If the forth speaker was also a monopole would you have the same opinion? There seems to be a misconception that this one test condems Dipoles which in fact is not the case. I think everyone agrees that placement may have been an issue but I certainly would not call it a weak study. Can you reference other studies you felt were not as weak?
Rob🙂
Elsewhere, I waxed lyrical about the comparison of open baffles to boxed speakers as a dumb experiment when you try to figure out the one factor (among many factors) that "causes" the difference.
Is Toole's work any smarter? Oddly, the fact that high school kids and his "trained" shills liked the same speakers seems odd (and MP3 crap reproduction gizmos too). Nobody was really given what we call in the trade, a "set" to listen for except something vague. I am not sure the exact wording (VERY important) was reported... or even that they used any strictly-adhered-to script (which is very important to do).
(BTW, giving no instructions ("just tell us what you like") and/or working in a certain Harman lab setting, provides an unintentional and uncontrolled set... as compared to scripted explicitly stated instructions.)
The training of the trained panel is pretty vague, by the standards of the psychology trade. It seems there was much training in detecting irregularities of frequency response. A worthy purpose but proposing THAT (or any other single or arbitrary criterion) is the most important criterion for a speaker is putting the cart before the horse.
Even within the frequency-error-detection training they got, it is clear that some kind of global sound quality over-rode machine-like hearing (they couldn't tell treble peaking from bass cutting, for example).
And in the end, Toole say, "hey, it is mostly which system has the biggest bass."
Is Toole's work any smarter? Oddly, the fact that high school kids and his "trained" shills liked the same speakers seems odd (and MP3 crap reproduction gizmos too). Nobody was really given what we call in the trade, a "set" to listen for except something vague. I am not sure the exact wording (VERY important) was reported... or even that they used any strictly-adhered-to script (which is very important to do).
(BTW, giving no instructions ("just tell us what you like") and/or working in a certain Harman lab setting, provides an unintentional and uncontrolled set... as compared to scripted explicitly stated instructions.)
The training of the trained panel is pretty vague, by the standards of the psychology trade. It seems there was much training in detecting irregularities of frequency response. A worthy purpose but proposing THAT (or any other single or arbitrary criterion) is the most important criterion for a speaker is putting the cart before the horse.
Even within the frequency-error-detection training they got, it is clear that some kind of global sound quality over-rode machine-like hearing (they couldn't tell treble peaking from bass cutting, for example).
And in the end, Toole say, "hey, it is mostly which system has the biggest bass."
That does seem to make a disproportionate difference. 😀 And there also seem to exist a bias against big bass in a lot of the audiophile community. Two sides of the coin.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.