Why is there never any test data?

M

MrQ

Audiophyte
This is my first post. Gee, it's great to be here.

Right. Now before I start, the following comments are intended to be neither incendiary nor mindless criticism and I warmly welcome any controlled, pleasant responses. Also, the start of the next paragraph is not trumpet-blowing, it's purely just me stating where I'm coming from.

I am an acoustician with a masters' degree in acoustical engineering. Like some of you, I am concerned with the high quality reproduction of recorded sound subject to qualitative and sometimes quantitative ideas of what is going on, i.e. the amount of energy present in each octave band, the psychoacoustic considerations introduced by phase differences between loudspeakers, the design of loudspeaker transducers and their respective room/enclosure coupling, the room-speaker interface and the room acoustics of the listening environment. I am immovably of the opinion that when it comes to reproduced sound, if it can't be measured, it is not a difference. And I absolutely totally, utterly refute any claim that listening to music more or less "deeply" makes any difference to anything except perception bias.

And so to the reason for this post (which I hope stirs up a few counter arguments because without being sarcastic, I really am interested to hear them). Why is it that audio companies so rarely actually provide test data quantifying the performance of their kit? If using whizzy cables that have been wound with some sort of mega-shield that somehow "confuses" RFI somehow gives you a better sound, why doesn't anyone ever produce something that shows, quite clearly and in 1/3 octave bands, the difference in output when it is used? Could it be that they can't and that this is all an aesthetics exercise? I suspect it is but I am quite happy to be proven wrong. In fact, I would like to be. Anyone?

Some of the megabucks kit that gets punted to high-spending hi-fi fans with the promise of improving their listening pleasure is sold on the basis on scientific (or often pseudoscientific) ideas that contradict much of what I spent five years studying. For example, if anyone can actually provide an explanation of why replacing the rubber feet of a CD player with a set of spiked feed lathed from a piece of oak actually provides any positive sonic, oscillatory or mechanical advantage when you're taking about a digital output device, I really would be keen to hear it. As I understand it, replacing a soft rubber element with a stiff wooden element actually increases transmissibility of vibration across the bandwidth of interest so if the purpose of such feet is to isolate the device, well, they simply won't work. And when you add this to the fact that the device is not turning out a complex continuous signal but merely a bunch of 0s and 1s, the whole thing seems farsical. Analogue devices might be a different story but again, I have yet to speak to anyone who can either explain why or prove that suspending their electronic equipment in a way that restricts the transmission of vibration due to footsteps, house vibration due to traffic or other everyday shaking makes the sound sound better. This goes for the majority of isolation devices, many of which seem to be very well disguised as 19" units carefully painted and adorned with logos. Again, if anyone can tell me where I can find anything that shows, in explicitly scientific terms, why this stuff *does* in fact work, do tell.

And cables - that's another one. Okay, I don't want to get even more boring here because obviously this topic has already been done to death many times over, but supposed increases in "rhythmic tightness" etc would seem to be to be all about psychoacoustic bias rather than an actual improvement in sonic output.... if not, why can't anyone ever actually prove it? There is plenty of test equipment that could easily be used to indicate, quite clearly and definitively, whether the system output with cable A is better than that with cable B but it would seem that not even the majority of manufacturers are bothered about it.

Finally, two tiny gripes. Firstly, if people are so serious about obtaining high fidelity reproduction, why do so few people ever bother to hire an acoustic consultant?? :( Secondly, since so much of the moaning is in connection with defeating RFI, why isn't hi-fi kit balanced most of the time?

There, my little tirade has come to an end. Why am I wasting everyone's bandwidth like this? Well, because I honestly haven't seen anyone else asking for hard proof that all this kit works and it seems like someone should start asking.

I thank you. :)
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I think you'll feel welcome on this site. There are tons of articles regarding cables and such here. This site is all about using measurements to prove things. You'll find that the mantra here is that "90-95% of your sound is speakers and acoustics", something you know quite well. Of course there is always the subjectivism involved (after all it IS a hobby), but unlike so many tweaky audio magazines, the BS content here is basically zero.

You won't be stirring the pot on this site with the kind of claims you've made. Rather, you'll be welcomed with open arms. So welcome.
 
Spiffyfast

Spiffyfast

Audioholic General
you decided to post that in a great forum, unfortunately most of the memebers here are going to agree with you 100%, I think you will find few that will try and contest your claims, and IMO if someone does they are just crazy and like to spend a lot of money for things that may look better. If that is the actual reason for buying a $1000 cable and they have the money to do that, I have no problem with it, but when someone claims it drastically improved their sound thats when I'd throw the perverbial B.S. flag, welcome to the forum.
 
M

miklorsmith

Full Audioholic
You're in the right place

The groupthink here is right in line with yours. You'll have a great and prosperous career of doubt here. You won't get a lot of counterargument though. You have tiptoed up to the greatest divide of audio - believers and nonbelievers. In your first post! Believers say "I'll give it a shot and see what happens", where nonbelievers choose not to believe unless something is proven to them.

The rub - the believers represent a sufficient market segment to not warrant companies' attempts to prove the existence of "God". Why should I spend a huge portion of my R&D on determining what parameters I need to test for, devising machines to do the testing, building those machines, and doing the tests to convince a bunch of naysaying nannyhoos when I've got lines of people not demanding those rigors? I wouldn't expect most hi-fi companies have the financial resources to devote an entire sector of their business model to testing, which makes no money.

My uneducated perspective is that while many insist that everything is testable, testing is either not sufficiently advanced to capture all audible parameters, or that such testing is cumbersome, complex, and generally impractical. Not to disparage testing - more empirical testing is done by the righteous fellows here than anywhere else I know.

MrQ - With such a perfectly specialized education in this very area - and I'm not being sarcastic for once - is there a test for soundstaging or imaging within the soundstage? I've heard excellent speakers that do and do not portray these elements in the same room. I've never seen even a proposal for such a test. Such phenomena could reside, conceivably, in electronics or speakers. It could be quashed by bad wires.

I'm a believer in case you couldn't tell. I trust my ears. Not all of my diversions have proven correct but some have and the thrill is the chase. Well, half the thrill anyway. The other have is sipping single-malt and enjoying the fruits of it.

Welcome.
 
Spiffyfast

Spiffyfast

Audioholic General
miklorsmith, couldn't that be done with an SPL meter and moving it around a room to see where it deviates the most and at a predetermined level saying this dropped off enough to speculativly say that it isn't really in the sound stage for this speaker, its just bouncing off a wall. Beings that I have no knowledge when it comes to testing something like that, it just seemed like a simple enough approach
 
M

miklorsmith

Full Audioholic
Two others

I see two other posts have joined since I started typing. I'm one of the (the only?) fly in the ointment. I own a pair of VMPS 626r's in my second system, which happens to be in the living room. I've only had them about a month and have been quite blase about them - uninspiring. The system is an old Technics CDP and a 15-year-old Audiolab integrated amp that was highly regarded in its day and sold for around $1k.

Last night, my intended amp showed up for these speakers. It's an Audio Zone Amp-1, which I'm sure nobody here's ever heard of. It's a gainclone with external power supply and integrated, just one input. The difference had me in wonder - it completely transformed the speakers in the worst audio cliche sense. The amps are rated at 50 wpc and 45 wpc respectively.

I disagree with the 90-95% number, though the general idea is probably sound, just not to that degree. And I will contest claims without being "just crazy".
 
Spiffyfast

Spiffyfast

Audioholic General
miklorsmith said:
And I will contest claims without being "just crazy".
Just b/c a cable may change your signal at an audible level doesnt neccessarily mean that there was an improvement. But like Jaxvon said, audio is subjective because it sounds different to everyone, IMO someone that said a cable drastically improved their sound is crazy, if they could back it up with data I'd retract the statement, if they cant I'm entitled to that thinking that person is crazy and in turn they are entiteled to thinking the cable improved their sound.
 
P

philh

Full Audioholic
MrQ said:
This is my first post. Gee, it's great to be here.
Some of the megabucks kit that gets punted to high-spending hi-fi fans with the promise of improving their listening pleasure is sold on the basis on scientific (or often pseudoscientific) ideas that contradict much of what I spent five years studying. For example, if anyone can actually provide an explanation of why replacing the rubber feet of a CD player with a set of spiked feed lathed from a piece of oak actually provides any positive sonic, oscillatory or mechanical advantage when you're taking about a digital output device,
Improve your listening pleasure :)

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina27.htm

Also check out some of their other products!
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I'm not sure which is better..the upgrade chip, the jar of rocks, or the $600 wooden knob that is supposed to do wonders for your sound as well...
 
M

miklorsmith

Full Audioholic
??

How did this thoughtful thread degenerate into tweak-bashing?
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
Blame Philh...he started it...but I stupidly played along.

That said, while it WAS tweak bashing, it was the absolutely rediculous ones. I don't wanna bash vibration damping stuff (seems like a good idea, even if it doesn't help playback). However, magical rocks, a $600 wooden knob, and a chip you put on your player to "upgrade" CDs are pure BS.
 
Spiffyfast

Spiffyfast

Audioholic General
my thoughts exactly, but ppl are dumb and will buy anything
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
MrQ said:
This is my first post. Gee, it's great to be here.
MrQ said:
Good to have you here. Please keep coming back, but you may be preaching to the choir ;) But your input is valuable as we can see right off the bat


. I am immovably of the opinion that when it comes to reproduced sound, if it can't be measured, it is not a difference.

And if you can measure a difference, what then? My question is, is it audible?
Technology can measure very small differences. Threshold of detection has limits though, and I think psychoacoustics has a pretty good handle on that aspect which I am sure you know inside and out :D
 
Duffinator

Duffinator

Audioholic Field Marshall
MrQ said:
This is my first post. Gee, it's great to be here....

Finally, two tiny gripes. Firstly, if people are so serious about obtaining high fidelity reproduction, why do so few people ever bother to hire an acoustic consultant??
MrQ you have found the right place. Nobody splashing around snake oil here. Lots of sensible discussion from some very knowledgable people. I've learned a lot over the past year I've been hanging out here.

The reason I've never hired an acoustic consultant is because I didn't know they existed. :eek: Is there a web site with the types of services acoustic consultants provide? Thanks.
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I believe CEDIA has lists of places like that, for instance, RIVES Audio.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
miklorsmith said:
where nonbelievers choose not to believe unless something is proven to them. [/b]

Just a prudent way to be with some aspects of the consumer marketplace. But then, there are plenty of gullible purchasers out there, right?

The rub - the believers represent a sufficient market segment to not warrant companies' attempts to prove the existence of "God".

You are right about that :D

Why should I spend a huge portion of my R&D

LOL. Sheer speculation that it needs huge funds to do some DBT comparison first ;)


on determining what parameters I need to test for, devising machines to do the testing, building those machines, and doing the tests

Hey, it is far from rocket science, or cutting edge research. Some just like to imagine it must be.




to convince a bunch of naysaying nannyhoos when I've got lines of people not demanding those rigors?

Absolutely right. Why bother when marketeering works and one can laugh all the way to the bank.


I wouldn't expect most hi-fi companies have the financial resources to devote an entire sector of their business model to testing, which makes no money.

Actuall, the respectable companies do test, believ it or not, even do their own DBT with their research. You just have to expand your horizons to find out.


My uneducated perspective is that while many insist that everything is testable,

Not a negative or something that cannot be falsified, right?


testing is either not sufficiently advanced to capture all audible parameters,

Hogwash.

[/b]or that such testing is cumbersome, complex,[/b]

More bs.

and generally impractical.

That it may be. ;)




I've heard excellent speakers that do and do not portray these elements in the same room. I've never seen even a proposal for such a test.

Ah, listening come to mind, under DBT protocol. You pick the right one.


It could be quashed by bad wires.

Hogwash.

I'm a believer in case you couldn't tell. I trust my ears.

Not knowing when to trust it and when not to is your greates downfall. But, that is allowed. Just watch the landing :p
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Duffinator said:
The reason I've never hired an acoustic consultant is because I didn't know they existed. :eek: Is there a web site with the types of services acoustic consultants provide? Thanks.

I don't think they come cheap ;) Nor will the redo of your room be on the cheap or doable by the better halfs :D
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I agree Mtry, the best speaker companies out there are investing tons into R&D. How else do new products get introduced? Take B&W for instance. Always on the cutting edge of driver design and such. Many others out there too...
 
M

MrQ

Audiophyte
My goodness, what a nice sensible collection of individuals. :D

mtrycrafts, you are of course quite right. There is bound to be some limitation on the extent to which hearing thresholds can be measured in this context, especially when you're trying to establish whether little slabs of plastic stuck to your CD player make any difference to the sound. Ultimately, if your insane hi-fi fanatic genuinely believes that he hears a difference, then it will be recorded that there is a difference, at which point the marketing guys come in and find ways to pitch the supposed difference. So where do you get absolute verdicts from? Test data, I'd have thought. And as far as I'm aware, every conceivable element of physical acoustics can be measured using available equipment. To pick on one particular item of testing kit, the Bruel & Kjaer 2260 is £13K-worth of kit that can measure 1/3 octave energies, accurately and consistently, down to 0.1dB, arguably around 10 times' higher resolution than the human ear can detect (although maybe when you spend $23K on Opus speaker cable, they also throw in a mindblowingly-good cochlear implant. Bargain.) :rolleyes:

It seems that most of the stuff that gets talked about by crazy hi-fi fans is to do with things like purity, tightness, mellowness (??), etc. These are all ultimately psychological considerations and as such can only be measured psychometrically (until I finish developing my home made brain probe), which I guess is where the problem lies. Clearly this is one of those things where, unless you can prove to someone that what they're saying is wrong/misadvised/a lie, which when it comes to psychological effects we generally cannot, the arguments will go on and on. Hey, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if *I* should start selling $1,000/metre cable and oak feet!! I would probably never get exposed as a fraud, so why not?! :D

Duffinator, we do exist but clearly very few people seem to be aware of us :( Thinking for a moment about the sane segment of the audio consumer market (pretty much everyone here, apparently) and given the amount of money that is spent on high quality kit and trying to ensure, without going to ridiculous measures, that their hi-fi/home cinema sounds as good as it can, is there any precedent for someone such as myself to go into business as a domestic room acoustics consultant? I'm on the wrong side of the fence here but it would seem sensible to me for anyone spending anything more than $5K to make sure that their shiny new gear is actually going to sound good. You'd be amazed at how badly the majority (and yes, it really is the majority) of "professionally-installed" home cinemas I have been into sound wooly, resonant and totally devoid of a coherent image. Putting room acoustics right is often not hard and to a large extent (although not completely) can be compensated for using decent EQs tuned from an analyser profile. Speaking of which, I went into a well-known British hi-fi specialist chain recently and asked why no-one ever bothers to buy equalisation for their hi-fi these days. I was told by the 18 year old commission-based smartass that putting an EQ inline "compromises the purity of the signal path". That was red rag to a bull.... honestly, what's the matter with people?? If a £10K EQ unit from Focusrite is good enough for Todd-AO, Pinewood Sound, The Hit Factory, Air Lyndhurst and, well, just about every other production facility in the world, it *should* be good enough for the enthusiast. Plus the irony is that by rejecting EQ, they're rejecting the one item of kit that could and would dramatically and genuinely increase their listening pleasure!!

Uh oh, long post again. Plus I'm supposed to be working. Working on the acoustics of a Hare Krishna temple today, would you believe. :confused:
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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