Lossless Audio vs MP3 and Accurate Speakers vs Inaccurate speakers

AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I understand that this is not uncommon in the pharmacology field. Drug companies fund or perform studies and only publish the ones that produce positive results for the drugs. Negative results generally mean the chemical is quietly shelved, but a few inconclusive studies just get tossed in the trash can if one comes up with a positive result.
Where in the world did you actually hear that?:eek:

The studies that matter the most in medicine are the final human trials, which take place in REAL hospitals across the country and are closely followed & approved by the FDA. We are talking about hundreds of patient here, not five patients. The FDA require that these studies prove that the drugs are both effective and safe.

You think the FDA will let any of these studies slide under the rugs?:eek:
 
tonmeister

tonmeister

Audioholic
You can bet that if the tests had turned out badly for the house brand, they would keep quiet about it. It is only when it is in their own interests to make such tests public that they are likely to make the results public. This is one reason why disinterested third parties need to be running things.
One of the goals of a competitive benchmark loudspeaker listening test is to provide feedback to the engineers to optimize the sound quality of the speaker. So if the test " turns out badly for the house brand" the feedback from the listeners is used to fix the loudspeaker, and it is retested.

As I pointed out earlier, the comprehensive anechoic loudspeaker measurements don't lie. There are 25+ years of scientific research that have shown that the speakers with the best set of technical measurements tend to score the highest ratings in controlled listening tests. This was true when I worked at the National Research Council (a disinterested 3rd party) 20 years ago, and it is still true today.
 
tonmeister

tonmeister

Audioholic
Of course I won't trust "that data", but I'll trust the 3rd party measurements that support the data... where in my post the last two well measuring speakers, were Pioneer and PSBs respectively, not Harman brand speakers at all. All I suggested was that if a speaker measures well off axis, and is voiced flat on axis, it's a lot harder for a speaker to win in a blind test against other such speakers, whereas speakers' measurements are a mess, like the Wilson, B&W, and Klipsch speakers I posted, then in the blind test they won't be favoured.

Where does that show anything suggesting the Manufacturer's speakers always win their tests? All it shows is that the well-measuring speakers beat the less well measuring speakers, like you'd hope they would.



It really isn't about showing the P363 were "the best", though - the number of speaker samples used is statistically insignificant. It was just showing that people in a blind test, even teenagers, gravitate towards the speaker the measures better on and off axis. The focus of this study was to show that teenagers don't inherently "prefer" bad sound - even though that's a common perception in the audio world including the mixing community.

That doesn't mean the P363 is the best measuring speaker at its price point even. It's possible, but the point is just that there wasn't the expected preference towards "boom n sizzle" or "MP3"

You're kind of missing that, and too caught up in company A vs company B/C/D.

There's a lot that can be learned from Harman or NRC or even BBC research, without the assumption that Harman or NRC or BBC speakers are subsequently the best.
Thank you for restating the point of the test: to determine whether this group of teenagers preferred accurate sound over less accurate sound. The accurate speaker could have been any brand or price, as long as it happened to have a good set of technical measurements.
 
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
The accurate speaker could have been any brand ...
I'm astonished - astonished - that a test run by Harman Audio found the speakers that I own to be superior to some other fool's more expensive speakers. :D :D :D
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Some people also think because Gene or Audioholics love RBH speakers, that their tests and findings are biased toward RBH speakers.

They are also saying that just because the anechoic measurements involved a Harman speaker (P362), that the anechoic results are somehow biased toward the P362.

I guess they are also saying that 3rd parties like Stereophile Magazine, Home Theater Magazine, Sound & Vision Magazine, and Soundstage Magazine are less biased even though they have tons of advertisements and endorsements and all that.

Perhaps some people still have a bad taste in their mouths after the Axiom so-called double-blinded testing?:D
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I'm astonished - astonished - that a test run by Harman Audio found the speakers that I own to be superior to some other fool's more expensive speakers. :D :D :D
Some people believe that the most important speaker measurement is the spectral-decay cabinet resonance measurement.

They don't believe that the off-axis (60-degree horizontal, 15-30 degree vertical) and on-axis FR are the most important measurements.:D
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
Some people believe that the most important speaker measurement is the spectral-decay cabinet resonance measurement.

They don't believe that the off-axis (60-degree horizontal, 15-30 degree vertical) and on-axis FR are the most important measurements.:D
I think timbral accuracy is a combination of many things, and well braced, constrain layer damped cabinets are important, as is max SPL, as is IMD, 3rd/4th/5th order HD, as is relative phase, and useful impedance/sensitivity.

But if the polar or listening window response remind me of white water rafting, that's the number one "NO THANKS" moment. That to me has less to do with cost cutting (whereas most of the above tend to) and more to do with arrogance and backwardsness - kind of like tube amps that measure like this.

I think the idea of teenagers prefering well-balanced speakers is good, because it means the arrogant companies are basically humbled.
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Flat doesn't impress the iPod crowd, boom and sizzle does.
Some, but not all.

That is the reason you need a large sample size.

I've made over 20 relatives (adults & teenagers and also my 9 yo daughter) listen to all my speakers.

The first thing that came out of their mouths - their first impressions - were not about bass at all.:D

I thought they would immediately mention the bass from the dual Rythmik subs, but none of them did.

Their first words were, "Wow, theses speakers sound so CLEAR!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
Some people believe that the most important speaker measurement is the spectral-decay cabinet resonance measurement.

They don't believe that the off-axis (60-degree horizontal, 15-30 degree vertical) and on-axis FR are the most important measurements.:D
The single most important measurement is the one taken in your room at your sweet spot.
Most folks take this measurement with their ears.

I would like to be able to measure FR better but as I continue in this hobby I find that I'm better able to identify various characteristics of a speaker's performance. I may not be a golden ear but there is yellow stuff in my ears. :D
 
tonmeister

tonmeister

Audioholic
Some people believe that the most important speaker measurement is the spectral-decay cabinet resonance measurement.

They don't believe that the off-axis (60-degree horizontal, 15-30 degree vertical) and on-axis FR are the most important measurements.:D
People are free to believe what they want to believe including the existence of Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. The difference between "beliefs" and "facts", is that facts are supported by hard scientific evidence (which is, frankly, in short supply when talking about audio beliefs). There exists much scientific data to show that the comprehensive anechoic on and off-axis measurements are highly predictive of how a loudspeaker will sound in a room -- at least above 300 Hz. Below that frequency, the combination of the loudspeaker and room will dominate what you hear. Bass quantity and quality accounts for >30% of the listeners' preference rating so it makes sense to deal with bass problems in rooms.

If you listen to your speakers on-axis in an anechoic chamber or outdoors then the direct sound will dominate what you hear. If you sit off-axis or listen in a semi-reflective room (like most of us) both the direct and the reflected off-axis sound will play an important role in your impression of the loudspeaker's sound quality.

If you design a loudspeaker that has both good on-axis and off-axis response then it will likely sound good in any acoustical environment.
 
Last edited:
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
One of the goals of a competitive benchmark loudspeaker listening test is to provide feedback to the engineers to optimize the sound quality of the speaker. So if the test " turns out badly for the house brand" the feedback from the listeners is used to fix the loudspeaker, and it is retested.

Certainly, one would hope that that is how the information would be used. But it would be good to fix whatever problems a speaker might have without it having to lose to other speakers; one hopes for the best it can be (for its price).


As I pointed out earlier, the comprehensive anechoic loudspeaker measurements don't lie. There are 25+ years of scientific research that have shown that the speakers with the best set of technical measurements tend to score the highest ratings in controlled listening tests. This was true when I worked at the National Research Council (a disinterested 3rd party) 20 years ago, and it is still true today.

I would like to see comprehensive measurements on a number of old speakers that I have heard and liked, as well as the competition at the time. I do know that the single on-axis frequency response isn't enough, but that isn't what you are saying. Rather ironically, some of the speakers I have liked have had less good specifications than some of the competition that I liked less well. For example, when the Ohm Walsh 2 speaker came out, I liked it very much for a speaker at its price point (which was about $750 in the early 1980's, if my memory is right). But as I recall, their frequency response specification was with a worse tolerance than usual (+/-4dB), and even so, they did not go out to 20kHz (not that there is much musically at such a high frequency, even if one is able to hear that high). The Ohm website lists the frequency response as 42 - 17,000 Hz, but without a tolerance specified (which, again, if my memory is correct, was originally specified +/-4dB). But I have not seen comprehensive tests of this speaker, nor have I seen anything for off-axis response (which, for frequencies below the crossover point for the tweeter, should be identical to on-axis response, until one gets behind or nearly behind them, given the Walsh driver and the blocking of the sound to the rear).

As for your statements:

The most preferred speaker had the flattest on-axis response with the smoothest off-axis curves. The least preferred speaker had among the worst frequency response in terms of flatness and smoothness.​

I am not disputing those claims, as it is more than just on-axis response that is important. And I do expect that overall preferences could be correlated with appropriate measurements (I don't think speakers are magic devices), though I do not pretend to know precisely what measurements matter or how much they matter.

When I think about several of the speakers I rather like, there is often something unusual about the dispersion pattern, as Ohm Walsh speakers and Magnepan and Apogee ribbon/planar speakers.

But not all of the speakers I have liked very much are so unusual; the U.S. version of the Aurum Cantus Leisure 2SE is my favorite bookshelf speaker (obviously, my favorite must be selected from among those I have heard, so this is not a claim of it being better than all others). I have not seen comprehensive tests of any of these speakers, so I cannot say how well they correspond with the idea that the best speakers have "the flattest on-axis response with the smoothest off-axis curves." It is unfortunate that such information is simply not available for the vast majority of speakers.

I would also be interested in participating in double blind listening sessions with some of my favorite speakers compared with others, as it would be interesting to find out if non-audio considerations have influenced my preferences. Certainly, I do not expect to be immune to things that influence human perceptions, but I do know that it isn't as simple as being a sucker for exotic speakers, as otherwise I would like Martin Logan speakers much more than I do (I have never heard a Martin Logan speaker that I liked very much, even though I wanted to like them and had heard that they were supposed to be superb).

But I would really like to see proper measurements of the various speakers, to know what it is that is different about them.
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
I wonder what the "prefered" radiation pattern is... here are the speakers i'd love to be part of a blind test of, with placement optimized for their individual radiation pattern.

- An open back stuffed line monopole with a RAAL 70-20d tweeter, like the Salk Soundscape

- A dipole with control over polar response, like the Nao Note

- A "wtf were they thinking mishmash of drivers" like the RBH T30LSE

- A CBT Line Array

- A true omni speaker that maintains pattern control up to 10khz at least, like the wmax speakers

- Cross-fired narrow directivity speakers with minimal horn diffraction (like the Geddes Summa)

- Cross-fired narrow directivity BIPOLE speakers with minimal horn diffraction (like Audiokinesis)

- Curved electrostats like Soundlabs
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
People are free to believe what they want to believe.
I think the issue is that a lot of people believe what they want to believe without any kind of scientific proofs.

They say "This will work, and that will not work", yet they have never even tried it themselves, much less conduct any kind of testing, and nothing remotely close to a true double-blinded study which attempts to remove as much bias from the equation as humanly possible.

Apparently a lot of people also believe that the measurements by 3rd parties like Stereophile Magazine or Home Theater Magazine or Soundstage Magazine are worth more than a well-designed and executed double-blinded studies and anechoic chambers by a "non-3rd" party.

But people are free to believe what they want to believe, even if they have absolutely no proofs of any kind whatsoever.:D

Are there any studies to prove or disprove the significance of cabinet resonance, max SPL, IMD, 3rd/4th/5th order HD, relative phase, and useful impedance/sensitivity?
 
Last edited:
jonnythan

jonnythan

Audioholic Ninja
Apparently a lot of people also believe that the measurements by 3rd parties like Stereophile Magazine or Home Theater Magazine or Soundstage Magazine are worth more than a well-designed and executed double-blinded studies and anechoic chambers by a "non-3rd" party.
Oh my god. Are you serious?
 
C

corey

Senior Audioholic
I was not surprised with lossless audio sounding better than lossy audio.
Where did the study make this sweeping statement? All they did was compare 128 CBR to lossless. As Dr Olive states: "The main purpose of this test was to try and replicate the MP3 128 kbps settings that Berger used several years ago". He also states that higher bit rates are "pretty transparent for most people most of the time".
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
But people are free to believe what they want to believe, even if they have absolutely no proofs of any kind whatsoever
talk about logical :D
 
H

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Look at slide 28 of the PDF the comprehensive anechoic frequency response measurements of the four loudspeakers and you will see a clear relationship between the preference ratings and the measured performance of the loudspeakers. The most preferred speaker had the flattest on-axis response with the smoothest off-axis curves. The least preferred speaker had among the worst frequency response in terms of flatness and smoothness.

The listening test results can be predicted with 86% accuracy based on those measurements alone. see
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12794
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12847
How were the HS students screened for their ability to decide what sounds better or worse? In my experience, having been in A/V sales for a long time, the younger kids think that loud=good. That being the case, the Martin Logans would be considered worse than some of the others because of that deep V in the 3KHz range, where human hearing is generally most sensitive. However, the way some people listen, I'm not sure their ears are actually sensitive in ANY frequency range.:D
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top