Art vs Science of Audio Reproduction: Which Team Are You In?

[gene]

In this latest YouTube video, Hugo and I discuss the art and science of audio as well as which is the right way to approach. If you think measurements don't matter or everything can be equated down to a neat little formula to determine product superiority , then I'm sorry to say you are sorely mistaken.

In order to have a Zen line balance in audio and in life in general, you must embrace all aspects of the art and science of sound. Let us know your thoughts in our forum after watching our YouTube video and reading this article.

Read: Art vs Science of Audio Reproduction: Which Team Are You In?

Don't forget to vote in our poll. Are you Team Art or Team Science or both?

 

[gene]

 

[Hobbit]

The art is in making the music. The science is in producing a replica of the music the artists made.

 

[hk2000]

I too used to be a 'science' guy- if for nothing else other than to counter the 'audiophile' mindset that an x amount of $ is needed to truly have good sound. I still believe much of the science arguments are valid, but there is nothing in science that accounts for the state of mind of the listener, which to me is the number one factor in how good a reproduction sounds. I still have vivid memories of my childhood years and how beautiful music sounded to me- on an old battery operated Phillips transistor radio. I currently have multi thousand dollar systems that I'd gladly give up in return for the enjoyment of music I had back then.

 

[3db]

To me art is all about the arrangements of the band and how it's going to be mixed. The science is in the equipment used to capture the sound, how far the instruments need to be from the acoustic treatments. Yes the two go hand in hand. If one area is overlooked, then the recording becomes mediocre IHO.

 

[ski2xblack]

False equivalency. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but audio components are engineered machines. I think Toole referred to it as science in service of art.

 

[gene]

I too used to be a 'science' guy- if for nothing else other than to counter the 'audiophile' mindset that an x amount of $ is needed to truly have good sound. I still believe much of the science arguments are valid, but there is nothing in science that accounts for the state of mind of the listener, which to me is the number one factor in how good a reproduction sounds. I still have vivid memories of my childhood years and how beautiful music sounded to me- on an old battery operated Phillips transistor radio. I currently have multi thousand dollar systems that I'd gladly give up in return for the enjoyment of music I had back then.

Great point! I still can't achieve the state of audiophile nirvana I had in my bedroom when I first got my Status Acoustics Decimos and a single 10" sub. It was my first exposure to true high-end audio and I haven't really ever replicated that feeling again. I still have those speakers in my family room system but they are poorly placed for aesthetic reasons and in a very large room so they don't quite connect with me like they once did.

 

[herbu]

It has to be both. Without the art, what would be the goal of the science? In other words, exactly what sound are the science guys trying to replicate? For a studio recording, do they replicate how it would sound to a guy sitting front center in the studio? For a live recording, ditto? I suppose both would be less than satisfying.

The art is in defining the goal of the science. And since art is subjective, therefore difficult to quantify, the guy who is both an artist to define what sounds "good", and technical to build it, is the most capable guy to realize when the successful marriage of art and science is achieved.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Music is art. Audio is engineering.

 

[KEW]

I think there are some semantic issues in the video presentation.

The title is Art Vs Science, but the video mainly seemed to talk about listening vs measurement. I get the connection between measurement and science, but categorizing listening as art (or science) gets very sketchy.
We are enjoying art when we listen but I can make an easy argument that listening is as scientific as it is artistic (but I would not really even want to view it in those terms)!

The second area is the treatment of "blind" as in blind testing. I appreciate that you point out that a better looking product does make a valid difference. However, if you understood the role of blind or double-blind (which often do not even involve something you can see) experimentation, you would recognize that the reason for testing blind is not to eliminate the bias of visual appeal, but to eliminate the bias associated with an expected outcome. An obvious example is a placebo drug test. If everyone knows they are taking the placebo, the experiment is invalid.
In terms of audio, an poignant example might be to see if listeners can hear a difference between a BlueJeans Cable and an AudioQuest Cable. If you let the average person know which is which and let them know the cost during the experiment, the AudioQuest will be statistically preferred. That is why you test blind!
Personally, I have read (and believe) that my Paradigm S-2 sound better with the grill in place. However, I will never put the grills on because they will always be "better" speakers in my experience when I can see the drivers! So I understand your point, but even in that context, I think there is value in knowing that I am choosing looks over (a minimal improvement in) SQ!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It's very simple. It is everything - art, science, and emotions/sentiments.

Our enjoyment and perception not only depend on the art and science, but also our mood and feelings at that exact moment in life.

You attend a musical event. Perhaps with the person or people you love. It's a very special occasion or moment in life. It is one of the best experiences in your life. It's not just the music or venue. Everything is just perfect.

We can clone many things artistically and scientifically. But how do we replicate a SPECIAL emotion, mood, sentiment, or feeling we had at a certain time in our life?

 

[PENG]

I respect Dr. Toole and I agree we don't listen the way a mic does, but I believe measurements taken using mics do allow us to compare the performance of speakers. If two speakers produce exactly the same responses measured by the same mic, they are not going to sound too different to our ears.

 

[gene]

I respect Dr. Toole and I agree we don't listen the way a mic does, but I believe measurements taken using mics do allow us to compare the performance of speakers. If two speakers produce exactly the same responses measured by the same mic, they are not going to sound too different to our ears.

assuming you get the entire power response of the speaker and also test it to its limits. You would need to take a lot of measurements to make that assumption.

 

[gene]

I think there are some semantic issues in the video presentation.

The title is Art Vs Science, but the video mainly seemed to talk about listening vs measurement. I get the connection between measurement and science, but categorizing listening as art (or science) gets very sketchy.
We are enjoying art when we listen but I can make an easy argument that listening is as scientific as it is artistic (but I would not really even want to view it in those terms)!

The second area is the treatment of "blind" as in blind testing. I appreciate that you point out that a better looking product does make a valid difference. However, if you understood the role of blind or double-blind (which often do not even involve something you can see) experimentation, you would recognize that the reason for testing blind is not to eliminate the bias of visual appeal, but to eliminate the bias associated with an expected outcome. An obvious example is a placebo drug test. If everyone knows they are taking the placebo, the experiment is invalid.
In terms of audio, an poignant example might be to see if listeners can hear a difference between a BlueJeans Cable and an AudioQuest Cable. If you let the average person know which is which and let them know the cost during the experiment, the AudioQuest will be statistically preferred. That is why you test blind!
Personally, I have read (and believe) that my Paradigm S-2 sound better with the grill in place. However, I will never put the grills on because they will always be "better" speakers in my experience when I can see the drivers! So I understand your point, but even in that context, I think there is value in knowing that I am choosing looks over (a minimal improvement in) SQ!

It's not just listening but the experience too. I know at times vinyl doesnt sound as good as CD but I often prefer it b/c I like the experience of putting the record on, hearing the pops, etc.

I fully understand the point of a blind test. I ran many myself both in college, at my professional job during my telcom and defense days and on Audioholics. Until I studied how the blind test could be abused both in audio and in taste tests (think Coke with corn syrup vs cane sugar test), I didn't fully comprehend how a blind test could be a fallacy in itself. I am NOT against Blind tests, just the abuses of them which I've written about numerous times. That said, when the differences are very subtle like with cables or sources, blind testing is critical. When the differences are obvious like between speakers, I've found as long as you can do a properly level matched test, most listeners don't care which speaker is playing. They don't even look at them especially with the grilles on. I've had ugly, less appealing speakers win sighted tests many times. It's interesting to study how a trained listener vs an untrained listener does in these tests. Again I wrote about that too.

see:http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/2010-1k-faceoff

 

[PENG]

assuming you get the entire power response of the speaker and also test it to its limits. You would need to take a lot of measurements to make that assumption.

I can agree to that..

 

[PENG]

When the differences are obvious like between speakers, I've found as long as you can do a properly level matched test, most listeners don't care which speaker is playing. They don't even look at them especially with the grilles on. I've had ugly, less appealing speakers win sighted tests many times. It's interesting to study how a trained listener vs an untrained listener does in these tests. Again I wrote about that too.

That's probably true in many or most cases but people have been embarrassed too, in thinking that they heard obvious differences that turned out to be non existent. I think relying solely on data, graphs and blind test is not good, but if I am forced to pick one and not both, i.e. sighted listening test only or relying on measurements only, I will pick measurements. By measurements I mean lots of data/graphs that are generally accepted as relevant, something like what Audioholics and Stereophile typically do. If you call that science then so be it.

 

[gene]

That's probably true in many or most cases but people have been embarrassed too, in thinking that they heard obvious differences that turned out to be non existent. I think relying solely on data, graphs and blind test is not good, but if I am forced to pick one and not both, i.e. sighted listening test only or relying on measurements only, I will pick measurements. By measurements I mean lots of data/graphs that are generally accepted as relevant, something like what Audioholics and Stereophile typically do. If you call that science then so be it.

Agreed. The only issues I find one needs to be careful about when doing blind loudspeaker tests are:
1. the screen losses. If you don't have the speaker right up against the cover screen, it will cause HF losses and diffraction. I've seen and measured this and it caused the less bright speaker to lose a blind test while winning a sighted test.
2. listening fatigue. This can happen with sighted tests too. If you keep switching back and forth for long periods of time (longer than 15 min in my findings) the listener can get overloaded making it difficult to determine what they really prefer. This is why I like doing extensive testing over several days when the results between two speakers are very similar.

On the flip side, I had 3 inexperienced listeners compare both speakers sighted noting the MA was prettier but still picked the Pinnacle as better sounding b/c of the better bass and less constrained sound. These folks were brand agnostic but they did use their eyes and still picked the uglier speaker as better in a sighted test.

Yes I had someone walk into a sighted listening test between a pair of Monitor Audio Silver 5i's (mediocre speaker) and Pinnacle Classic Gold Reference (respectable speaker) thinking the MA would smoke it b/c of all the glowing reviews and brand prestige. He declared it was the better speaker before even listening. So I switched it up on him telling him he was listening to the opposite speaker of reality. The grilles were on both so he couldn't really tell which one was playing. He picked the Pinnacle thinking it was the Monitor Audio. When I showed him, he was quite shocked and cancelled his order.

 

[PENG]

Gene, talking about grille, what's your experience of their effects on measurements? I asked because I was so surprised to find significant differences between with and without grilles on. My R900 has a dip in the high frequency that disappeared with the grille removed. Aside from that one dip though, the plots don't change much. Then I just acquired a pair of old Mirage that don't sound bright at all but the REW plots show elevated high frequencies with the grilles removed. Wiith the grilles on it flattens out nicely. I can post the plots and you will be amazed of the difference. My Focal and Veritas 2.3i on the other hand measured almost identical with or without the grilles on.

I am now convinced that speaker manufacturers should make it clear in their manual and data sheets whether the speakers are designed to be best listened to with or without the grilles.

 

[gene]

Peng;

Good grilles can still show 1-2dB of loss at high F and bad ones can be even more. What you may be experiencing is diffraction off the grille frame which is very common. I don't believe a speaker can ever sound better with a grille on unless it was deliberately tuned to be bright to compensate.

The grille mesh I used to cover all of the speakers in that test wasn't pulled tightly enough and the speakers weren't flush up against the grille. I learned a lot from that shootout.

 

[PENG]

Peng;

Good grilles can still show 1-2dB of loss at high F and bad ones can be even more. What you may be experiencing is diffraction off the grille frame which is very common. I don't believe a speaker can ever sound better with a grille on unless it was deliberately tuned to be bright to compensate.

The grille mesh I used to cover all of the speakers in that test wasn't pulled tightly enough and the speakers weren't flush up against the grille. I learned a lot from that shootout.

I understood the grille you referred to was just for the shootout. The word grille simply reminded me of my recent discovery of the difference they made to two of my speakers and not to the other two. Looking at the graphs for the Mirage, they must have bad grilles but good in the sense that they seem to act like a good EQ system that levels the frequency response.

The Mirage grille on was from 1M whereas the grille off was from 6ft as they were not done on the same day. The R900 one's were done with the mic in the same spot the difference was just grille on vs off. You can see the 5 dB dip at around 13,300 Hz when the grille was on.

I guess I am getting off topic but you have the power to move it to where this belong right?