The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers

[djreef]

Pat Mc Ginthy of Meadowlark Audio relied a lot on measuring in the design process of all his products, bu he always refused to publish any measurements because his belief is that they are just being misused and does not provide a proper guidance about the performance of a speaker. he claimed that you can take the microphone an make a perfect waterfall plot.... move the mike just a few inches and it looks horrible.... at least it's what he claimed....

Just like the school districts now do with the state mandated tests. They design their curriculum around passing these tests instead of simply teaching the kids in a well rounded way so they'll have no problem translating what they've learned into passing grades.

Designing speakers specifically to test well kinda misses the point.

DJ

 

[Rickster71]

A piano is playing.

A person with deficient hearing, hears this piano. How the person hears it is natural and accurate to him/her.

I think you just made my argument for me.
How important are measurements, if a person hears what is natural for them anyway?

 

[djreef]

You just want to steal my 'In store Kiosk" idea.



Maybe not inverse, but just raising the valley up to flat.

Actually wouldn't that be cool if a high end speaker manufacturer actually gave a hearing test as a prerequisite to buying a pair of speakers, so that pair could be custom designed and manufactured to your actual hearing params. That'd b cool - they'd be the last speakers you'd ever need, at least until your hearing changed again.

DJ

 

[Rickster71]

Actually wouldn't that be cool if a high end speaker manufacturer actually gave a hearing test as a prerequisite to buying a pair of speakers, so that pair could be custom designed and manufactured to your actual hearing params. That'd b cool - they'd be the last speakers you'd ever need.

DJ

That would be interesting too.
I was thinking more along the lines of matching existing speakers closer to a persons hearing.

 

[cschang]

I think you just made my argument for me.
How import are measurements, if a person hears what is natural for them anyway?

What is natural to a person is a piano with a flat FR, not a piano that is compensating for a hearing deficiency.

The whole idea of measurements, is to recreate the measurements of the source (the "standard" piano). That is why we have measurements.

If at a particular position, an "accurate" speaker recreates the measurements of the piano in the frequency and time domains.

Let's ask the question to you in another way. How do you recreate sound that is natural and accurate to two people each with different hearing deficiencies?

 

[Alex2507]

I'm having trouble understanding (for example) how a person with less sensitivity at 4,000 Hz will hear a piano note that's at that frequency.

You don't hear it as well (loud) as a person with normal hearing. Human hearing isn't linear anyway so an extra squiggle in the audible response curve isn't that big a deal.

The same way you lose the ability to hear > 16KHz and don't buy speakers with horn tweeters is why you don't crank the corresponding dip in your hearing. It's not what's normal to you. With corrective lenses you wear them all day long and become accustomed to that as normal but you don't listen to sound out of speakers all day long so a cranked 4KHz setting on speakers would sound 'off'.

I think the kind of thing you're talking about is best addressed with an EQ and some experimentation, not a passive crossover built into a speaker. No kiosk.

 

[Rickster71]

Let's ask the question to you in another way. How do you recreate sound that is natural and accurate to two people each with different hearing deficiencies?

You wouldn't.

The piano analogy isn't really mine. So how about if we talk notes or frequencies?
I'm having trouble understanding (for example) how a person with less sensitivity at 4,000 Hz will hear a piano note that's at that frequency.
How would they possibly hear that note as well as someone with perfect hearing?

 

[cschang]

You wouldn't.

Yes...you would. You recreate the sound as it is presented to them. It is presented to them the same...it is not presented to the differently.

The piano analogy isn't really mine. So how about if we talk notes or frequencies?
I'm having trouble understanding (for example) how a person with less sensitivity at 4,000 Hz will hear a piano note that's at that frequency.
How would they possibly hear that note as well as someone with perfect hearing?

They don't, but that is what is natural and accurate to them because that is how they experience it.

 

[Rickster71]

They don't, but that is what is natural and accurate to them because that is how they experience it.

Perfect, and I agree.
My point all along, was that a perfectly flat measuring speaker is going to be wasted on some. Measurements wouldn't be helpful to them if they can't hear it.

 

[cschang]

The piano analogy isn't really mine. So how about if we talk notes or frequencies?
I'm having trouble understanding (for example) how a person with less sensitivity at 4,000 Hz will hear a piano note that's at that frequency.
How would they possibly hear that note as well as someone with perfect hearing?

They don't, but that is what is natural and accurate to them because that is how they experience it.

So to add to this, for them to have the same experience with the reproduction, you don't change anything...you leave the measurements the same (ie. keep the FR flat).

Perfect, and I agree.
My point all along, was that a perfectly flat measuring speaker is going to be wasted on some. Measurements wouldn't be helpful to them if they can't hear it.

Your key word here is "some"....but only if they actually can't hear anything at a specific frequency. A speaker manufacturer does not make speakers for these "some". If they can hear anything at all at a certain frequency, then it it should be recreated as they hear it.

I can't imagine a consumer looking for deficient speakers in a frequency just because they couldn't hear that frequency.

 

[djreef]

Perfect, and I agree.
My point all along, was that a perfectly flat measuring speaker is going to be wasted on some. Measurements wouldn't be helpful to them if they can't hear it.

Which goes back to my original argument that objective tests are close to meaningless when everything about what we do experience with audio is subjective.

DJ

 

[cschang]

Which goes back to my original argument that objective tests are close to meaningless when everything about what we do experience with audio is subjective.

What I would say is that it is meaningless to those that do not understand the whole host of measurements.

Yes...audio is largely subjective. If you know what you like subjectively in a speaker, and you understood the range of measurements that can be taken, you could largely tie what you like back to those measurements.

Generally, what you are saying, is that not everyone likes an accurate speaker, and that I completely agree with.

 

[Rickster71]

They don't, but that is what is natural and accurate to them because that is how they experience it.

So to add to this, for them to have the same experience with the reproduction, you don't change anything...you leave the measurements the same (ie. keep the FR flat).



Your key word here is "some"....but only if they actually can't hear anything at a specific frequency. A speaker manufacturer does not make speakers for these "some". If they can hear anything at all at a certain frequency, then it it should be recreated as they hear it.

I can't imagine a consumer looking for deficient speakers in a frequency just because they couldn't hear that frequency.

I'm wondering if my wanting to make eyesight and hearing analogous, created a problem. I was equating EQ and matching speakers to hearing ability, in the same way corrective lenses help a person see clearer.

 

[cschang]

I'm wondering if my wanting to make eyesight and hearing analogous, created a problem. I was equating EQ and matching speakers to hearing ability, in the same way corrective lenses help a person see clearer.

Maybe so.

I think GranteedEV was alluding to that as well.

The corrective lenses help you see what is around you. What is around you is accurate (it is reality).

If a speaker is already accurate, what is the EQing doing for you? Perhaps correcting the room...not your hearing, or changing the sound to suite your tastes.

With the glasses, you are correcting the receiving end. With the EQ, you are changing the sending end.

 

[djreef]

What I would say is that it is meaningless to those that do not understand the whole host of measurements.

Yes...audio is largely subjective. If you know what you like subjectively in a speaker, and you understood the range of measurements that can be taken, you could largely tie what you like back to those measurements.

Generally, what you are saying, is that not everyone likes an accurate speaker, and that I completely agree with.

In essence what testing does is attempt to approximate the ideal (a perfectly flat response), which then is used as an indicator for accuracy. It is inherently implied that this is the ideal for the majority from a statistical standpoint. Try to produce a product which sounds good to the majority of people in the most number of situations. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this actually works as advertised given the disparity/diversity in individual hearing abilities.

DJ

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

.....for example....??????

The one thing we may differ a lot is our use of adjectives.

What is "horrible"?

I'm sure the B&W sounds 100 times better than built-in speakers on TV, laptop, phone, tablet and boom boxes. Now those are horrible.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The polars alone preclude it from being well-measuring under any condition. They've got a rise in off axis response right where the on axis response shows a peak.

I don't think a truly well measuring speaker could ever sound horrible. I don't buy however that the improvements fromba Revel F12 to a Revel Salon2 are limited to SPL and Aesthetics....maybe they are though.

Poor B&W!

How do you feel about Paradigm, PSB, KEF?

 

[cschang]

In essence what testing does is attempt to approximate the ideal (a perfectly flat response), which then is used as an indicator for accuracy. It is inherently implied that this is the ideal for the majority from a statistical standpoint. Try to produce a product which sounds good to the majority of people in the most number of situations. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this actually works as advertised given the disparity/diversity in individual hearing abilities.

Sure, there is a wide disparity/diversity in individual hearing abilities, but what is the typical hearing ability? What is the largest market?

I don't think anyone specifically markets to persons with deficient hearing abilities.

 

[PENG]

With the glasses, you are correcting the receiving end. With the EQ, you are changing the sending end.

I couldn't believe how you two have such difficulties communicating this very point. Sending end vs receiving end, that is the best point I have seen so far and I hope Rickster now understand what you have been trying to say.

I agree with him we hear differently, but if Rickster raises that 4Khz from the 'sending end' by EQ'ing his sound system, then when he hears the real piano (in the same recording room and recording was done perfectly) that does not have the EQ thing, he would say how come the real piano does not sound the same as the speakers. A person who has perfect hearing will agree with him. Both Rickster and the person with perfect hearing would say the speakers sound brighter (disclaimer:I hate that word) than the piano.

 

[djreef]

Sure, there is a wide disparity/diversity in individual hearing abilities, but what is the typical hearing ability? What is the largest market?

I don't think anyone specifically markets to persons with deficient hearing abilities.

No, a manufacturer will market to what it believes to be the mass that it believes will be large enough to justify production. What that 'mass' is, is the point in contention. Is this group, in fact, the majority. Has anyone studied the congruencies along large swatches of population to determine a statistically relevant 'normal' to base these assumptions upon? My point in this is that while we have many similarities the evolution has wrought upon us, we also have as many differences to allow us to evolve as the path of least resistance might allow us to follow. Do we in fact hear differently enough to dictate a null event?

DJ