Thanks Brad, Something just for us speaker designers then. On that Harmon speaker shuffler mechanism were all the speakers placed in identical positions when testing so the distance to back and side walls was consistent or was each speaker optimized for position?
I have always been warned to consider the sympathetic vibration from a secondary speaker in a room when doing any test analysis, that often makes me think about what Harman does to alleviate this problem, perhaps the speaker inputs are shorted but that doesn't do anything for the cavity resonances from a ported enclosure.
I have always been warned to consider the sympathetic vibration from a secondary speaker in a room when doing any test analysis, that often makes me think about what Harman does to alleviate this problem, perhaps the speaker inputs are shorted but that doesn't do anything for the cavity resonances from a ported enclosure.
There are probably papers about it, but the presented speaker (always a single channel as this is more revealing that a stereo pair) is brought to the identical centered position behind the curtain. The other units are kept a fair distance back in a row. The power amplifiers with zero input signals will constitute the equivalent of a short across the unselected loudspeakers, and I doubt that there is much concern about other resonances such as from ports.
If there were some significant effects, the speakers could be swapped around between trials, but I doubt that the effects are large enough to be confounding variables, given that loudspeakers have such wide variations.
Comfy chairs with display and input.
John, because of testing like this, Harman found out what to improve, which they did. So now they are the best.
Last edited:
Seems to be an approach to eristics but whatever floats your boat.
The last one is interesting, but let´s see a typical sentence:
"That´s an astonishing comment given the fact that science knows that different test protocols rely on different mental processes and that the ABX format is more involving than, for example, an AB protocol."
The facts indeed are, that different test protocols rely on different mental processes and that the ABX-protocol is more involving than others.
You obviously missed the self-explanatory (at least i thought it was) conclusion/argument that therefore JC isn´t necessarily searching for excuses but is just having more difficulties with this test protocol.
Science was mentioned because the field of sensory tests is surprisingly complex but exists since ~18xx and a plethora of published material exists just to be widely ignored by people doing tests related to our discussions in this thread.
"Science knows" means just that researchers have done comparisons on A/B vs. ABX and the results were simply better in case of A/B hence the conclusion that the more "involving mental process" might lead to more difficulties for some humans.
Sure. And that constitutes a problem or is particularly interesting because of....?
Well stated. And, ultimately, aren't we hoping to enjoy our stuff? Regardless of how we get there.
Yes, they don't put the listener's head in a vise. I suppose you might be permitted to walk around, but it's probably discouraged.
Oddly I never have had the "experience" and haven't been back in the door since I was kicked out in 2004, after ten years of consulting, but Olive once tricked me into a test with a turntable presenting some cheap computer speakers. I might add that I never alleged to have any particularly great discriminative faculties, but he tends to delight in embarrassing people. We remain friends nonetheless.
Although there are examples for wrong theories and incorrect experimental research that in the end led to new discoveries, usually experimenters try to gather correct data.
´
Would a (most likely) incorrect result (means no sound difference) be more useful?
If no experiment is needed, fine, but if an experiment is executed, then it should follow good scientific (
) practice and therefore gather correct/useful data. Although it might not create something new a confirmation sometimes is good news too.That´s what i thought.
Beside the experiment done, it is interesting that the Stereophile people followed during this event exactly the same routine as always.
Listened to the amplifiers and thought they were different, Carver modified his amp and thought he succeeded. The crew listended and said "nope", Carver modified again, the crew listened again and said "yes" .
Just sighted listening.
Well I fully agree with you on the relative (un)importance of super-accurate RIAA response.
I will look up the TAA 1/80 report, I don't remember it.
Jan
Would a (most likely) incorrect result (means no sound difference) be more useful?
If no experiment is needed, fine, but if an experiment is executed, then it should follow good scientific (
Fair enough, to outline a cable test the way I might like to do it would combine the Pear and Carver challenge. Take the $7000 speaker cable and have the challenge be pick an amp and speaker and let me take the cable and make a substitute out of stock Belden wire and maybe even a passive or two at the speaker end using any measurements I want.
As I said I was actually surprised at how low on the usual nonsense the Pear site was, but that being said even though triboelectric, DA, etc. effects are real I don't think they matter here. IMO the R/L/C/G, length matter and little else.
EDIT - Though DBT in this case
Last edited:
Here is the RDH. I think things have become a bit more stringent since.
Attachments
I just love epistemological archeology.
But John, how did the people in that era convince themselves that they indeed heard differences, without any sort of objective verification?
Good thing we're using those 1950s "standards" today.
That means all those early 1970s amps with the horrible TIM type problems are all going to sound "good" today?
And, so, regardless of which standards and criteria or testing method, which two or more amplifiers are going to NOT be distinguishable??
Waiting for that enumeration...
For example, maybe, at Harmon, it did not matter which amplifiers they used?
Of course out of their own, but then why would it matter if it was theirs or another brand?
I must say that on the surface the idea that behind some curtain if little computer speakers could sound indistinguishable from actually good quality speakers that maybe, just maybe it is possible that the best quality achievable in that test situation was on par with the cheap computer speakers?? Surely, that would explain the story told!
That means all those early 1970s amps with the horrible TIM type problems are all going to sound "good" today?
And, so, regardless of which standards and criteria or testing method, which two or more amplifiers are going to NOT be distinguishable??
Waiting for that enumeration...
For example, maybe, at Harmon, it did not matter which amplifiers they used?
Of course out of their own, but then why would it matter if it was theirs or another brand?
I must say that on the surface the idea that behind some curtain if little computer speakers could sound indistinguishable from actually good quality speakers that maybe, just maybe it is possible that the best quality achievable in that test situation was on par with the cheap computer speakers?? Surely, that would explain the story told!
The presence of a curtain could be an issue, along with listener distance from the speakers. When mixing with near field monitors, it is usually done pretty close to speakers with any grill cloth removed. Also, the same grill cloth effect occurs when a scrim in used in a theater setting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.