Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

I do not comprehend the analogy of listening loud and shouting at low volume levels. I am certainly not a genius but have 2 BAs, JD, MPA etc and took physics courses at UCLA. My wife was a bio-chem major at Stoneybrook and has very deep comprehension of mathematics. We are not uneducated "noobs."

I have not claimed to be an arbiter of all things audio, or for almost anything audio. You have assigned that job to yourself.  That you don't understand the analogy of listening to loud music and not being able to hear regular conversation, in the context of your post, is not surprising. Being educated does not mean that you are applying your intelligence all the time. You made two comments about the dynamic range of hearing. One from my knowledge is accurate, maybe even a low estimate. The other was ludicrous. That you do not understand my comment means you do not know how to temper the information you believe you know about hearing with the act of listening to music.

I previously commented there are two paths to take with information. I said when that information conflicts with what we believe, but it also applies when that information supports what we believe. We can reject that information without consideration, even becoming angry, we can accept that information, even without knowing if accurate or valid, or we can research and learn further and try to understand the nature of that data. If the data supports what you already believe, you may tend towards confirmation sources that believe the same thing, however unqualified.

You put down Amir because he is saying things you do not want to believe, meanwhile lauding Darko who is saying what you want to believe. There is no doubt at all in my mind, that where this topic is concerned, Amir is far more knowledgeable and would be far more recognized as an expert by others with real expertise. 

There are a lot of put downs of engineers on audio forums. My background is medicine/medical research. I am very familiar with this mindset from lay people. Curiously, I almost never ran into that mindset from people who worked in unrelated science fields. It was unique to those who worked outside the sciences. Not exclusively, but the majority. Perhaps those who work in the sciences have better training to identify likely correct information from likely incorrect information? They are absolutely skeptical people, but they temper that skepticism with research.

Change a few pronouns, descriptors and names to the above post and all of a sudden it's a diatribe against what he's saying.

All the best,
Nonoise

@td_dayton ,

My background is medicine/medical research. Fortunately, or unfortunately, at a biological level we are all rather similar. If we were not, medicine, disease, injuries, would be an even harsher problem to attack. Our preferences will obviously have a combination of genetic, environmental, and experience aspect. That is not controversial. That genetic aspect is driven by evolution and while there are variances, there also strong underlying similarities. We see that in all aspects of sensory stimulus, whether sound, site, smell, or taste.  That is why companies like Walmart pick their color schemes as they are, why food products with multiple flavors always have favorites, why we prefer yellowy light when it is dim, why we like the feeling of soft/plush textures.

Our similarities are even more similar at the hardware level. It is surprising how little variation, when we are young and everything is in tip top condition, there is. That applies to site, hearing, taste, even touch. The resolution, sensitivity, and dynamic range of all our senses varies only by small amounts within a population. Some are gifted with better processing capability and the ability to extract more useful information, but they have similar underlying limitations.

td_dayton,

Thanks, and your points are well taken.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I am thankful for the approach and information available at ASR, which doesn't mean I share precisely the same goals in terms of my own equipment purchases.

For instance, I love the Devore O/96 speakers.   When they came out there was quite a vitriolic comment thread in Stereophile with some self-claimed experts declaring the design ridiculous and incompetent "nobody who knew what he was doing would match that size woofer with that tweeter" etc.

And yet I found, like so many others, that the O/96 was one of the most special, beguiling sounding speakers I've ever heard!  So given there is a sort of "direction" to what is evaluated as "good" or "bad" design on ASR (again, well justified IF you adopt the underlying goals), that kind of product mostly won't be on the radar there, and indeed the Devore speakers have been mocked by some there.  In that sense, ASR isn't the place where I would likely have been led to auditioning those speakers.   It was the subjective reviews, and listening reports from other audiophiles that got me interested, and I found the general take to be bang on when I heard those speakers.

This is one example for why I have often defended the usefulness FOR ME (and many other audiophiles) of subjective reports about some audio gear on the ASR site. Exchanging subjective impressions is not as reliable information per se as objective measurements, especially when you have a specific goal for the measurements (correlated to the sound you want).    But, as I argue, that doesn't make them completely useless or always inaccurate. 

And I find the case interesting in regard to the research on speaker design (Toole/Olive/Harman Kardon etc).  The research suggests that, in the blind tests, I would be most likely to prefer Revel speakers over the Devore, as the Revels are successfully designed to hit the "preference" target that arose out of blind testing.

I completely accept that research.  I think that if I were to go to the Harman Kardon facilities and engage in blind tests, it would be safer to bet my money I'd select the Revel speakers under those conditions.

So what do I do with the fact that I actually did audition a few Revel speakers (which were very competent sounding as predicted) and yet still heavily preferred the Devore?   Well, it could be that I happen to be one of the outliers, and even in blind testing I'd select the Devores.  Less likely, but possible. 

My own decision would be to purchase the Devores over the Revel based on my auditions.  This is because, in "sighted" auditions even IF there are other non-audio factors influencing my perception of the Devores being more engaging, those are the conditions under which I'll be listening to the speakers.  If there are other factors influencing my perception of the sound (e.g. the looks), fine, I'll take 'em because it's sure working to keep me engaged!   Plus, this approach has led to plenty of satisfying purchases over the years, and I just really, really enjoy listening to all sorts of different loudspeakers, so I could never be one of the "order it just on measurements" folks.   But I totally GET that an emphasis on measurements work for some other people.  (AND, btw, over at ASR most members would prefer to hear a speaker before purchasing.  Even when you've narrowed the field down to several "good measuring speakers" there's still enough variation to bring in personal preference).