The Linn dealers used to demonstrate the single speaker pair effect vs. multiples in a room. Each time a pair of unused speakers was removed the quality of the sound increased. Even non-audiophiles noticed it.
Inactive speakers in the room...any effect?
A recent thread degenerated into a discussion about whether an inactive speaker in the listening room affects the sound of active speakers. I should have been more tactful, and called it a "hypothesis" instead of a "myth".
Now, a hypothesis can be proven by analytic means or by experiment. This particular hypothesis, from the analytic approach, is very unlikely to be true. So, we go on to an experiment.
A listening test was described where a group of listeners were unanimous in saying that sound quality was degraded by an inactive speaker. (By the way, I don't understand why, if there were any effect, it would have to be a degradation rather than an improvement).
However, to be acceptable as a proof, the experiment would need to be done as follows:
1. The inactive speaker should be introduced and removed from the room in such a way that the subjects, and the person conducting the experiment, cannot tell if it is in or out.
2. The listening test should be performed a number of times. A dozen might be sufficient. More would be better, but the subjects would get bored and results would be degraded.
3. The subjects should record their observations (Speaker IN/Speaker OUT) in such a manner that they do not know how the others are voting.
4. The results must be tabulated and analyzed in a statistically valid way.
I doubt that the reported experiment was done this way. It apparently convinced the subjects, but does not constitute a proof acceptable to an objective non-participant like me. Lacking a valid experiment, I must rely on the analytic approach, and find the hypothesis untrue.
Another game that would be fun would be to conduct the experiment in the manner that I suspect it was done, where everyone knew when the speaker was in or out, but use a speaker that, unknown to the subjects, has had its cones immobilized with glue and the vent (if any) closed off.
I think I know how that would come out if the subjects were believers. (Or, for that matter, if they were nonbelievers). This exercise would indicate how much confidence should be put in the experiment that was done.
Are we having fun yet?
Now, a hypothesis can be proven by analytic means or by experiment. This particular hypothesis, from the analytic approach, is very unlikely to be true. So, we go on to an experiment.
A listening test was described where a group of listeners were unanimous in saying that sound quality was degraded by an inactive speaker. (By the way, I don't understand why, if there were any effect, it would have to be a degradation rather than an improvement).
However, to be acceptable as a proof, the experiment would need to be done as follows:
1. The inactive speaker should be introduced and removed from the room in such a way that the subjects, and the person conducting the experiment, cannot tell if it is in or out.
2. The listening test should be performed a number of times. A dozen might be sufficient. More would be better, but the subjects would get bored and results would be degraded.
3. The subjects should record their observations (Speaker IN/Speaker OUT) in such a manner that they do not know how the others are voting.
4. The results must be tabulated and analyzed in a statistically valid way.
I doubt that the reported experiment was done this way. It apparently convinced the subjects, but does not constitute a proof acceptable to an objective non-participant like me. Lacking a valid experiment, I must rely on the analytic approach, and find the hypothesis untrue.
Another game that would be fun would be to conduct the experiment in the manner that I suspect it was done, where everyone knew when the speaker was in or out, but use a speaker that, unknown to the subjects, has had its cones immobilized with glue and the vent (if any) closed off.
I think I know how that would come out if the subjects were believers. (Or, for that matter, if they were nonbelievers). This exercise would indicate how much confidence should be put in the experiment that was done.
Are we having fun yet?
- ...
- 25 posts total
- 25 posts total