geoffkait,
"Glubson, what’s up with all the racism?"I have no idea. Virus was more interesting.
In Defense of Audiophiles, Bose, Pass, Toole and Science
I don’t know why I look at Audio Science Reviews equipment reviews, they usually make me bang my head against my desk. The claims they make of being scientific is pretty half-baked. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate measurements, and the time it takes to conduct them, along with insights into the causes, but judging all electronics based on 40+ year old measurements which have not really become closer to explaining human perception and enjoyment, they claim to be objective scientists. They are not. Let me tell you some of the people who are:
- Bose
- Harman
- Nelson Pass
- Floyd Toole
This may look like a weird list, but here is what all these have in common: They strive to link together human perception and enjoyment of a product to measurements. Each have taken a decidedly different, but very successful approach. They’ve each asked the question differently. I don’t always agree with the resulting products, but I can’t deny that their approach is market based and scientific.
Floyd Toole’s writing on room tuning, frequency response and EQ combines exact measurements with human perception, and as big a scientist as he is he remains skeptical of measurements, and with good reasons.
The process Nelson Pass uses is exactly right. His hypothesis is that a certain type of distortion, along with other important qualities, are what make for a great sounding amp, and lets face it, the process, and his effectiveness cannot be denied as not being scientific or financially successful. Far more scientific than designing or buying an amp based on THD% at 1 watt alone.
Bose is also very very scientific, but they come at the problem differently. Their question is: What is the least expensive to manufacture product we can make given what most consumers actually want to hear?" Does it work? They have 8,000 employees and approximately $4B in sales per Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/companies/bose/#1926b3a81c46
Honestly, I don’t know how your average Bose product would measure, but you don’t get to these numbers without science. Assuming they measure poorly, doesn’t that mean measurements are all wrong?
The work Harman has done in getting listening panels together, and trying out different prototypes while adhering to previous science is also noteworthy. Most notably and recently with their testing of speaker dispersion which has resulted in the tweeter wave guides in the latest Revel speakers. They move science forward with each experiment, and then put that out into their products.
Regardless of the camp you fall into, crusty old measurements, perception measurements or individual iconoclast, we also must account for person to person variability. It’s been shown for instance that most people have poor sensitivity to phase shifts in speakers (like me), but if you are THAT person who has severe sensitivity to it, then all those studies don’t mean a thing.
My point is, let’s not define science as being purely in the domain of an oscilloscope. Science is defined by those who push the boundaries forward, and add to our understanding of human perception as well as electron behavior through a semi-conductor and air pressure in a room. If it’s frozen in 40 year old measurements, it’s not science, it's the worship of a dead icon.
Best,
E
- ...
- 90 posts total
djones, Great observation, and yes I did see the same - measurements were opposite of expectations or claims. Maybe early product sample not sorted out yet? Got their wires, or software, or labeling crossed? QA problem at the factory? Who knows? Regardless, the mfr attempted to solve the measurements-vs-sound conundrum by offering both choices. Even if, given the ASR findings, you believe that they failed in the attempt, I still think its interesting that they tried. I think in the digital realm we could see more of this, just like DAC chip mfrs offering multiple filters. Even in analog, we see tube amp mfrs offering amps instantly switchable from ultra linear to SET modes. I like having the choices. Thanks for commenting dj - appreciate the thought and effort put into it. JG |
Bose products sell because they have gotten them placed in stores people shop in anyway, like Best Buy, etc and because tone deaf publications like Consumer Reports say they are great. But equating Bose's science to good sound is like a chemist using his knowledge of chemistry solely as his guide for preparing dinner. |
I’d say Bose’s science is going to be more like mini-oreos. It’s junk food, but you can’t deny they spent hundreds of thousands taste testing them, and ramping up for production. Like it or not, Bose does NOTHING without extensive measurements, and listening panels as well as quality control. They may not be producing the product you or I would buy, they are producing the products that will sell the most to the widest audience for the most money. That is effective science, as well as marketing and advertisement. Truthfully, I know of no audio company who does as much science and R&D as Bose. Best, E |
orgillian 197 - Consumer Reports tested the Bose 901's in the '70's. Amar Bose sued them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_United_States,_Inc. |
- 90 posts total