Measurements have their place. BUT, your ears should be the ultimate arbiter of whether a component is right for you. Many components that measure great sound like cr*p, and vice versa.
Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
- ...
- 1423 posts total
@mitch2 I have not objected to the science on ASR. It's sound and I find no issue with it. What I take issue with is the interpolation of said aforementioned data as gospel and all that really matters when determining a quality component. It would be like doing a psychological study of medication on the body. Measuring the physical effects and not asking the participants what their experience was like. Or telling people to go buy a Tesla model 3 because it outperforms or matches another car like the m5 in performance and technical specs. The driving experience will be different and just because something is good on paper doesnt mean it translates. @prof Show me where you object to anything Amir has said? All I see is soft pedaling and brown nosing. The snake oil discussion I linked to, in it someone directed peoples attention to a 600 thousand dollar Magico speaker saying it was basically snake oil. Some corrected him, but this is very common. There is another discussion on ASR just about extreme snake oil and someone linked to a million dollar system. More often than not, high prices are synonymous with bad. How can someone afford it? The blame and shame shift to anyone who would be dumb enough to buy such a product. All of this without ever having heard it, and wait for it, or testing it scientifically or otherwise. I agree there is a lot of pseudo science out there, and I applaud ASR for helping people sort out what is bogus and what is real. However when that tips the scale where Amir is tipping it, it becomes just as bad as the people who say buy my crystal cable holders to improve your sound. Tossing out the experience of audio, which is what many people want is not productive. Ive had studio engineers in my space, and been to many production facilities. All recommended bass traps as standard basic treatment as most rooms encounter bass bumps. Cardioid and dutch and dutch use their physical designs to avoid room problems and then further smooth it out with eq. From the dutch and dutch guide: "These room resonances can be attenuated by means of acoustical treatment in the form of bass traps. With the 8c, one also has the possibility to do a low-frequency equalization in the 8c to compensate for the effect of the room resonances and obtain an equalized, i.e. “flatter”, low-frequency response in the listening area." They don't say you dont need bass traps. |
We have hardly discussed room acoustics so the claim that I "keep quoting" research is obviously wrong on the face of it. The other bit is what you are manufacturing on my behalf and then complaining about. Really, the plot is lost.
Whether I paraphrase what you said or waste time quoting you absolutely have referenced research or existence of (without quoting), and used that to promote a particular view that is very much due to variability subjective.
Since you are responded to me, at least initially, we did not get here that way. You made claims about rooms and acoustics that were inaccurate.
Why do you have your speakers far out from the front wall (front from an audiophile perspective, not 2034). Was that modal, or to minimize boundary issues? Are those boundary issues gone completely, the ones that DSP cannot correct?
Paraphrasing because I don't feel like going back and cutting and pasting, but pretty much yes, you did state that furnishing and natural reflection was superior, though your responses had an air of arrogance as you later made the assumption the acoustic implementation would be haphazard at best. I will state at this point, that unlike some other audiophile additions which likely are inaudible, a couple acoustic panels will make a readily audible and measurable change. While controlled listening would be preferred, it would be near impossible in this case, hence accepting preference ratings is valid. That is furthered by the reports of many who would less susceptible to expectation bias. The result is not always positive.
Therein was a bit of an intentional trap. For one, the majority did not prefer the reflective sidewall. Go read it again. The sum of the diffuse and absorption preferences exceeded the reflective wall. As I previous noted, the conditions in this test were not at all like what would be experienced in your room or probably any typical listening room. The trap is that research like this is used to make conclusions that cannot be made due to vastly different usage conditions. The only part of that test that was like sidewall reflections in your setup was the baseline. Trap are effective at illustrating bias formed through incorrect usage of information.
This is very rare in practice and would go against most recommendations from acoustic professionals and most of the audiophile community who recommend absorption and diffusion, being careful not to over deaden a room, that preference plays a large part in what is done, and hence accept you may or may not like the results and will have to adjust.
You should probably qualify low frequencies. However, as noted by Mahgister, Helmholz resonators work at low frequencies and while narrow band, that can be good. So can diaphragmatic absorbers. So can multiple subwoofers. EQ is absolutely beneficial, but effectiveness is localized and EQ will work even better if acoustic methods are used first.
Would this be akin to someone shaming someone buying, owning, and using an amplifier that has poor distortion measurements, highly likely to be audible, even though they prefer the outcome?
Mainly what I see is audiophiles, from their own experience, and that of acoustic professionals, is that they have added a limited number of panels to fix a perceived problem, usually caused by limited space, and that the majority have been happy with the results. That is not to say there is over use of panels in some particular ways, but those are likely not doing harm, they are just not doing anything.
There is more to audio life than proving 1+1 = 2. You have that part down pat. Think harder problems. |
- 1423 posts total