Beware the audio guru

^^^^^ Wise words from B Russel.

Doubt is an essential part of both critical thinking and open mindedness.   You have to be able to at least entertain doubt about your own position in order to alter it when better information comes olong.   That’s why a form of procedural doubt is built into the scientific method, and it’s why it features so heavily in philosophy.

I just wish I saw more of this among high end audio hobbiests, but in the more subjective world of high end enthusiasts, doubt tends to be incorrectly percieved as close mindedness of not outright negative dogmatism.  And even suggesting doubt about the perception reported by others is rallied against:  who are YOU to tell me my ears aren’t hearing what they hear!”

Among many audiophiles, their own perception is inviolate, it is the undoubted bedrock upon which any inference stands. 
“If you can’t measure what I say I’m hearing, the problem is in the science of the measuring, certainly not in my own perception!”

Again, a little more humility and doubt in ones own inferences and perception is not a bad thing.

And this applies to anyone, including and especially those who would be seen as “gurus.”

I am not an audio guru.  Even my engineer friend is not a guru, although usually correct, he is constantly learning new technology to apply to his products.  I don't think anyone is an audio guru I can trust 100%.  Plus, the guru's hearing maybe different from mine, so his/her perception of sound can be very different (and choice of music can be extremely different).  Same thing in food taste.  A master chef produces food that maybe on a high innovative level but not to everyone's taste.  

fleschler,

Good points.

On one hand I think someone who truly has reached a level of expertise and who has contributed to our knowledge - for instance about audio - deserves recognition and respect.

On the other hand, as you mention, the expert’s aims, criteria or subjective asssesment may not align perfectly with our own.

It reminds me of some interaction I’ve had with Floyd Tool who is about as close to an audio guru as there may be in terms of his work in audio and listener perception.

I have huge respect for his work.  He’s determined so much about how to predict listener preferences in loudspeaker design.

And yet I am left puzzling when I listen to a speaker line like Revel, designed using all the techniques Tool has handed them;   Why don’t I like those speakers more?
I mean, they certainly sound massively competent, yet they fail to grab me in ways many other speaker lines have which were not constructed via Tool’s research.

In no way does my own preference amount to a repudiation of Tool’s work, but it is a reminder to me that no matter how much compelling theory and experiment may support a product, there are still variables - particularly with speakers - that means theory won’t replace personal auditions.

Prof Floyd Toole is an engineers engineer and that is certain.

However a common point made is why do all major speaker companies products which are competently designed, still  sound different?

The answer is simple there is tunning for flat frequency response and then there is the deliberate adding or subtracting of frequncies and designs to tune the product to what the designer or design team is trying to accheive.

A Harbeth sounds different than an ATC, a Vandersteen sounds different then a Magico, which sounds different than a Rockport, or Wilson.

Each design team has a specific criteria to what "sounds good" to that team and those values echo the design materials and technologies that are being pursued by the respective company.

As per liking or not liking a particualar product that will also come down to tunning and matching of gear to augment the products strengths and ameliorate that products difficencies.

A good example of this is with the Elac Adante’s a well designed speaker that can sound good or bad depending on what gear is matched with them.

Our approach is to try different combinations of electronics, sources and cables with a given set of speakers to tailor the sound to what we like.

If you look at pictures of our sound rooms we don’t have a single system setup we have a room full of different dacs, amplifiers, so we can find the combination that works for our clients.

We found the Adantes to have a slightly peaky top end and a slightly hollow midrange, so we match them with a wamer amp which is a little fat in the midrange and with a smooth top end, such as Naim or a tube amp or a hybrid tube/solid state amp.

Too many audiophiles and dealers don’t see the folly of not working this way, and for this reason many stores have bad sounding demos because they were too lazy to experiement trying to work out what is required, and sometimes that means bringing in a new line of electronics or sources or whatever to make that louspeaker line pop.

We had the exact same experience with the Paradigm Personas and the Polymer audio research line, both very detailed, uber high resolution designs, we tried, Chord, Thrax, Electrcompaniet, Devialet, Conrad Johnson, Manley Labs, until we found the T+A electronics which sounded dramatically better on both of those reference class loudspeakers than the other lines did.

Same with the digital we tried Esoteric, EMM Labs, Aqua Hifi, and then Light Harmonic the Davinci beat all the other front ends by a considerable margin, with the Aqua a good second.

Long story short to create magic in a high end system requires the careful matching of all the parts to bring out what you want to create.

So in the case of the Revels two things might be occuring, one you just don’t like the design choices made by the design team, or two, when you heard them, the ancellory equipment was not working in the way you like to tune the speakers to sound the way you would like them to sound.

Just food for audiophile thought.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ

Dave,  

I always keep in mind the nature of the speaker set up when I audition speakers - both in terms of the room, speaker position, amps.

I am pretty good at getting he gist of a speaker in a demo.   I generally prefer my CJ premier 12 amps to any solid state amps I’ve heard, I know the qualities they tend to impart to a speaker so I’m pretty good at mapping that on to what I’m hearing even when the demo is using other amps.  Yes you can massage the sound of speakers via dialing in set up/amplification, but generally speaking a speaker’s character or voice carries through it all (at least through competent system set up).

If found if a speaker has an “IT FACTOR” (for me) I’ll notice it in almost any set up, and further refine it at home.  I’m sure I could nudge the Revel sound further to my liking (and they were quite good!) but their voice didn’t have the IT factor that grabbed me in any way, to compel me to further effort.  

I’ve heard a number of the Revel floor standars in different set ups.  They all had that Revel sound - to me, extremely competent but never compelled me to want to spin Tune after tune.   Whereas for instance I’ve heard Quad ESL 57s, or Harbeth speakers (and many others) in tons of different rooms and types of amplification and I’ve never experienced that ho-hum feeling.  They always sound compelling to me.  Same goes for Thiel, MBL, some Audio Physic models, and other brands that, while set up conditions certainly affect their sound - they have a particular presentation that comes through and keeps me wanting to hear more.

What would be really interesting to me would be trying the blind test at Harmon.
Given Tool’s work, statistically I’d be likely to choose the Revels in a blind test (unless those other designs get close enough to the design criteria identified as desirable).
So I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if that happened.   Then I’d have to wonder what to do with those results.  Do I go with what I chose in the blind test?  Or with what I perceive as more compelling in my sighted tests?  It would be fun to find out.
(I’d have no problem sticking with my sighted test preferences for various reasons).