|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
77.78.86.10
In Reply to: RE: Stereo vs. multichannel: what are your thoughts on this statement (inside). posted by Phelonious Ponk on June 26, 2010 at 05:17:15
"Second, having actually read his columns, I disagree with Analog Scott that Olive "seems to be against the idea that taste in sound may actually vary from person to person." I don't think he's against that idea at all. Doing the kind of research he does, I'm sure he has observed it many times. What that research has revealed, though, is that more often than not, most people (and it cuts across age, sex, and listening experience) end up preferring the same stuff. Another thing it has revealed, over time, is that people's blind, subjective impressions of sound very often reflect what is seen in the measurements. Imagine that."
I may have over simplified my conclusions but much in the same way as I think Sean is trying to oversimplify things as well. I think with the idea of "majority rule" with preferences the minority do get dismissed. I get that choice for a manufacturer. But to make a blanket statement of superiority does imply that minority diversions in opinions and tastes are somehow wrong. They are classified as things such as "noise." It is that "noise" Sean seeks to eliminate in using mono tests. IMO he seeks greater clarity and unity in his results rather than actual "accuracy." If the results are more "noisy" in stereo than in mono does that not *possibly* mean that there is more to judge in stereo and different people of different tastes will diverge more from the median when there is more to consider in one's preference?
Image the "noise" he must get when he varies the program material. Kinda like what audiophiles do when they actually listen at home.....in stereo.
Follow Ups:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Scott. I don't think Olive is trying to manipulate his results. He may inadvertently BE manipulating his results. To some degree, everyone does. The objective of good methodology is to minimize it.
I think two things have contributed to his testing in mono:
1) He, or someone at Harman, has invented an effective way to blind A/B speakers (the speaker mover); INDIVIDUAL speakers. He tests what he has the tools to test.
2) Lack of personal belief in the importance of imaging. This comes through in Sean's writing, particularly casual responses. Soundstaging is just not something that seems to be important to him as a listener, so testing in mono serves him well enough. And it does serve him well. While it may leave imaging untested, his speaker testing methodology seem to test everything else pretty well, including dispersion. Will this result in Harman speakers with great tonal balance that don't image well? I don't know.
Majority rules? Of course. We're talking about research that will ultimately be used to develop and market products. The ultimate goal is to please more listeners and capture greater market share. But as long as his quest for the preferences of the majority keep leading him to greater accuracy, his "majority rules" will even serve audiophiles who couldn't care less about the preferences of the majority. Or at least they'll serve this one. So far I almost always find the more accurate to be the more musical. But I am also one of Sean's "image obsessed," listeners, so I'll have to keep an ear out for that. Where I really disagree with him is in the notion that there is something wrong with the center image of a stereo pair. If there is, there is something wrong with the system.
P
> > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Scott.> >
I have no problem with that.
> > I don't think Olive is trying to manipulate his results.> >
Manipulate is a loaded word. I beleive he is sincere and wants the best results he can get. But it looks to me like he has an afinity for definitive results.
> > He may inadvertently BE manipulating his results. To some degree, everyone does. The objective of good methodology is to minimize it.> >
That is what I suspect he is doing via oversimplification. I suspect he is drawn towards results that are less ambiguous. He claims that the results form testing in mono is both more sensitive and tracks with stereo tests. he says there is more "noise" with testing in stereo. For me there in lies the rub and I have just asked Sean about my concerns here on the HA thread. We will see how he responds. WTF is "noise" in blind perceptual preference tests? I *suspect* that the results are simply less conclusive in stereo than in mono. Is that "noise" or is that simply a more complex yet more accurate "signal?" In stereo there is more independent qualities to judge hence more opertunites for divergence in preferences. Is that noise? IMO trying to eliminate such "noise" is an act of oversimplification and a sublime dismisal of diversity in opinions. I suspect he wants simple and decisive answers for complex questions that ultimately will wrought more ambiguous answers. I think in effect this amounts to an aversion to diversity in taste.
> > I think two things have contributed to his testing in mono:
1) He, or someone at Harman, has invented an effective way to blind A/B speakers (the speaker mover); INDIVIDUAL speakers. He tests what he has the tools to test.
2) Lack of personal belief in the importance of imaging.> >
I think you give him less credit than I do here. I don't think he is dissing imaging. he has given his reasons. Mono tests are more "sensitive." and they track stereo tests. I question whether or not they are really more sensitive just because they wrought more consolidated results. i think there is an underlying assumption there that preferences will consolidate as the data gets "better." It seems to me he is judging the lesser consolidation in the stereo tests as a lack of sensitivity when I suspect it is simply indicitive of diversity in taste since there are more elements to subjectively wiegh against each other. I don't think more "complex" results means less sensitivity. I have a hard time wrapping my head around any rationale that would lead one to consider results of listening tests that don't represent actual in the field usage as anything but less acurate than results of listening tests that better represent actual consumer usage i.e. mono tests instead of stereo.
> > Majority rules? Of course.> >
I agree and said as much. i do get the business part of it.
> > We're talking about research that will ultimately be used to develop and market products. The ultimate goal is to please more listeners and capture greater market share. But as long as his quest for the preferences of the majority keep leading him to greater accuracy, his "majority rules" will even serve audiophiles who couldn't care less about the preferences of the majority.> >
"Greater accuracy?" Accuracy to what reference?
> > Or at least they'll serve this one. So far I almost always find the more accurate to be the more musical.> >
How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one.
> > But I am also one of Sean's "image obsessed," listeners, so I'll have to keep an ear out for that. Where I really disagree with him is in the notion that there is something wrong with the center image of a stereo pair. If there is, there is something wrong with the system.> >
I agree with you there.
"How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one."
-- In the case of transducers you measure and compare the frequency response of what is coming out of the transducer to the signal going into it. By necessity this requires measuring close, in an anechoic chamber. While I fully recognize the inherent weaknesses -- you can't measure stereo, or imaging this way, we don't listen at 1 meter in an anechoic chamber, etc, etc, I'm also aware of my own preferences. There are speaker manufacturers who deliberately color the output, the most common examples being the mid-bass hump to create "deep bass" in small speakers, and the upper midrange air or sizzle, to create the illusion of detail. Then there are those manufacturers, usually very conservative, often working in the pro market, who endeavor to produce speakers that put out an accurate reflection of the signal that is sent in. They never get it quite right. Transducers are the weak link and always have been. But I found, many years ago, that I preferred those conservative, some even say boring speakers over the others.
Musical? You can't measure musical in equipment, because "musical" is an audiophile conceit. Music is musical. Equipment is reproductive. Except when it is wrong. :)
P
> > "How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one."
-- In the case of transducers you measure and compare the frequency response of what is coming out of the transducer to the signal going into it. By necessity this requires measuring close, in an anechoic chamber. While I fully recognize the inherent weaknesses -- you can't measure stereo, or imaging this way, we don't listen at 1 meter in an anechoic chamber, etc, etc, I'm also aware of my own preferences. There are speaker manufacturers who deliberately color the output, the most common examples being the mid-bass hump to create "deep bass" in small speakers, and the upper midrange air or sizzle, to create the illusion of detail. Then there are those manufacturers, usually very conservative, often working in the pro market, who endeavor to produce speakers that put out an accurate reflection of the signal that is sent in. They never get it quite right. Transducers are the weak link and always have been. But I found, many years ago, that I preferred those conservative, some even say boring speakers over the others. > >
I'm sure this would not work for my preferences and goals. One can take a pretty distorted speaker and add some digital EQ and get a pretty flat response from one meter in an anechoic chamber while having something that would sound pretty lousy in practical use.
> > Musical? You can't measure musical in equipment, because "musical" is an audiophile conceit. Music is musical. Equipment is reproductive. Except when it is wrong. :)> >
OK but you did claim a corolation between levels of "accuracy" and "musicality." if you can't measure musicality I'm not sure how you corolate it with measured accuracy.
"I'm sure this would not work for my preferences and goals. One can take a pretty distorted speaker and add some digital EQ and get a pretty flat response from one meter in an anechoic chamber while having something that would sound pretty lousy in practical use."
I'm not sure you can get a pretty flat response from a pretty distorted speaker, in fact I suspect you can't, but in any case, that low distortion is a goal, along with a relatively uncolored response, is a given. I'm not going for a noisy uncolored speaker (I think that might be an oxymoron), I'm going for the cleanest, least-colored speaker possible. And mind you, I understand that this is a very lofty goal, but usually, the closer you get, the better I like the results. YMMV.
P
Thank you for the clarification. I got the impression that it was only about frequency response when there are many other ways a speaker can distort.
For me, it's all about chasing an apparent purity in acoustic instruments and voices, and most of that is in the midrange, which is why I'm satisfied with relatively small speakers and no sub. And it's about imaging, which is where I depart from Dr. Olive. I'm a long-time headphone listener, and as far as balance, purity and coherency are concerned, it is very difficult for any speaker system, in any room, to equal a reference headphone set up. But they simply cannot image like stereo speakers can. And I almost never listen to music as background, so imaging is most of my reason to own speakers.
P
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: