I think Audio Science Review (ASR) is one of a kind. ASR is - to speak with Carl Sagans words - a candle in the dark. A very needed candle in a very daemon haunted audiophile world. Why?
Manufacturers/Brands often mislead with their claims that this amplifier or DAC or speaker or even network player with 5-digit or even 6-digit price tags are needed to reproduce music as it was heard/recorded in the studio/live venue. And most - if not all - of these audiophile seduction claims are bull… Sure, you get always a kind of “sound”, but mostly not a true reproduction of the sound which was intended by the ones who created the music/recording.
ASR debunks audiophile myths. It shows that some of this high priced equipment is technically flawed and let alone from this point of view not worth the money.
HiFi (or later High End) always was about how to get the original sound in my living room. HiFi always was about real science, research, technology, engineering. Not about pseudo science or voodoo. One can buy stereo equipment for half a million and end up with a system which is (for instance SNR of some astronomically high priced amplifiers) literally worse than a system from 1980. ASR (in some aspect Stereophile too) shines a light on this. If you like the sound of a technically flawed stereo system - ok, go ahead and buy it. But ASR gives you the chance to think twice.
Do we need a race for perfection (for instance DACs)? I guess not. But we need some counterweight and reflection what HiFi was all about.
I think, one can find some light by looking at equipment, which is used in studios: Mostly there is no need for (electrical) perfection. But you often find speakers (active monitor speakers) which are completely linear - and that’s for a reason. You don’t have to sell your kidney for a pair of active studio monitors and still get closer to the intended sound in your living room than with a system full of marketing slogans and voodoo.
I do not see many claims that these components are ´needed´ for reproduction. High End Audio is clearly a luxury business and no one is told that anything expensive is ´needed´. People are free to buy it or not buy it. One might argue that a lot of claims and discussions about technical solutions in DACs and amplifiers is overly dramatized.
Wait, wait a moment. If ASR´s measurements on DACs and amplifiers are showing in the majority that there are no differences clearly above the audibility threshold - and Amir and others are highlighting that only scientifical evidence of audibility is counting here - then the verdict can only be that most of DACs and amplifiers on the market are excellent and meeting the specifications for their purpose from technical perspective.
If they do, they cannot be on the other hand ´not a true reproduction´ or ´broken´. In my understanding basing verdicts and rankings on inaudible specs and differences in measurements is highly misleading. If ASR and its supporters are claiming that an amplifier with 0.01% distortion is audibly inferior to one showing 0.0001%, they have to prove that. Because they on the other hand claim that their results are based on scientific research and are objective.
So buying a cheaper product or a more expensive one is everyone´s free decision without having to fear inferior quality if you buy a product with bad ASR review. This is what I call highly misleading review methods.
No, it creates and spreads (different to the existing ones) audiophile myths to the same extend that real high end esoteric are doing it. They just do it under the banner of science and objectivity.
Linear speakers are for a reason and they make sense, but they exist in hi-fi and in pro-audio as well. The problem is: A speaker which is showing linear response in the anechoic chamber (or simulated free-field conditions), does not necessarily do the same thing in a living room. There are other, much more important technical aspects of a speaker ongoing, and ASR seem not to understand these or speaker misleading about it.
If they would want to educate people, they had to talk about differences between a speaker for the studio (or home cinema or any acoustically treated room) and a living room.
I am a big fan of active speakers for a long time, but I cannot agree to that claim. There are a lot of very good products on the pro market, but most of studio monitors rely on the acoustical quality of a pro-grade studio control room. In a living room with different conditions, many of these excellent products are lost and would lead to disappointment.
Would rather say: it is claiming to be that candle, and the candle is indeed needed. Hi-fi is based on science and everything audible is (in the meaning of descriptively) explainable, it is not a field for esoteric and voodoo. The latter is the only thing we can agree on.
In my understanding, the method of ASR is not only failing to be a candle in the dark, it is in reverse much more misleading as it is not only full of claims contradictive to each other but also giving a certain impression that measurements and the way audibility is seen in scientific surveys is the only and one truth in this world.
This type of ´hi-fi absolutism´ I find even more misleading than any esoteric snake oil product´s description on the market (which I would probably agree with Amir and all ASR readers that these are against the facts). It does not only leave to room for a different opinion and experience, it also seems to vitally miss the important points of what is defining sound quality in a room.
This in my experience with home users is a pretty safe way to flawed reproduction quality and dissatisfaction on the long run. The extensive use of and believe in DSP-based room correction systems is the brightest example in my understanding of the vast field of electroacoustic where all ´measurement-only´-believers are exemplarily and always wrong.
If ASR wants to be the candle in the dark, they should for example highlight the limits and flaws of DSP room correction systems and especially automatic routines. They should provide people with reliable data and knowledge on loudspeaker quality, room acoustics and which strategies are successful when trying to match the two. They should highlight when a flat frequency response is the guarantee for flawed sound and in which cases certain measurements including frequency response absolutely do not matter. And which aspects of sound quality are not measurable.
That’s what I would expect from a candle in the dark.
To me, confirmation bias is so common that it happens to all of us without our notice (even you know it so well that it can exist). You may not agree that it happens to you even when people point it out to you explicitly like I did in my post What’s confirmation bias in objective experiment? I am pretty sure we all have it. Why? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
To be honest, I am really surprised and disappointed to find out that even the supposed-to-be objective audio science based review forum (ASR) doesn’t even know what confirmation bias is as they use the term many many times to defence their beliefs.
They misuse the term in order to protect their beliefs. A few posts from them actually show that they don’t even know the usage difference between the verb “indicate” and “prove” in peer-reviewed research paper (I can provide the link to you if you want to see).
Some topics are taboo to them. Whenever people bring out such topics (e.g. Hi-Res music, upsampling, etc…), they simply give out misleading pseudo science claims to support their wrong beliefs or just stop you right the way to avoid any more meaning discussion about the taboo topics.
Have a look of this link What’s confirmation bias in objective experiment? I am pretty sure we all have it. Why? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum on ASR. The post was stopped just a few minutes after I posted it earlier yesterday as they don’t want too see any more discussion about it.
They even attempt to insult people (who have different view points with supporting facts) and block them from the thread in order to these people feel unease and hope these people would go away. This is a good example: Serious Question: How can DAC’s have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused? | Page 438 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum)
I am not sure if they really think I am mentally blocked or they just demonstrated another psychological phenomenon known as Cognitive Dissonance, i.e. just to deny any fact that is not compatible with their beliefs.
However, one thing for sure is that, unfortunate, I am not such a guy who give up easily. I just created my blog (Debunk Pseudo Scientific Claims a few days ago to see if I can be any help to fix this issue in ASR. I knew the chance is close to zero but I will keep on doing it until I can’t.
I have no objection with what they did to their site. It is THEIR site. They can delete my posts or even my account. However, given their status, I don’t want them to keep on distributing wrong concepts, ideas, and interpretations based on so called unbiased scientific claims.
We already have way too many pseudo claims in the world we need to debunk. Why they keep on creating more and more daily especially from a supposed-to-be “objective scientific base” discussion forum. To me, a lot of groupthink: is happening in ASR. It is the source of all these pseudo science claims in ASR.
I understand some people couldn’t think critically and independently (sorry to say that but it is a fact IMO), they love to look for help from experts. Why these so-called experts keep on giving these people with biased information and attempting to repackage these biased information under the “unbiased objective science umbrella”? Do they have any hidden agenda? I don’t know…
I have no problem if they state that’s their views but not as facts. Really, please don’t, it is just your view.
I think the problem there is that you want to play, but you don’t want to ante up. That is, from what you’re saying in those threads, you don’t seem to understand what you’re talking about (even if you do), and you didn’t want to read and understand the recommended literature. Particularly about how to formulate an experiment. I see nothing wrong with the moderator cutting off those threads quickly.
There are so many detailed discussions about this by so many clever people , on ASR forum
You clearly haven’t made any effort to look.
Perhaps you could point to at least one that you feel is relevant to the discussion. It is difficult to find the signal from the noise on ASR.
I really wish this thread would stay on the topic of what is considered authoritative in terms of science and what is considered up for debate (the hard problem of preference correlation seems the most striking) rather than about ASR.
First and foremost I was referring to the review and measurement threads initiated by Amir which contain verdicts about products. These clearly show the main problems of a speaker´s directivity, RT60, how humans percept direct and indirect sound as well as what room correction can and cannot do, have not been understood on a very basic level.
I do not doubt there are other opinions on the board but I did not read a single one showing deeper understanding for the aforementioned ´elephant in the room acoustics´. Even in the Floyd Toole discussion it looks as if the main point is not really discussed although I believe Toole himself knows it pretty well but stays on the rather vague side.
So, could you point me to a thread please where a reader can understand most important things about choosing speaker directivity, placing speakers, tuning rooms and optimizing aspects which you cannot use any DSP for?
After reading your blog, I concur with @Bill_Janssen, in that you don’t seem to understand what you’re talking about. Indeed, your reluctance to read the scientific papers referred to in the links you posted is an example of confirmation bias, i.e., not considering other information.
This is a better example of confirmation bias than comparing two trivial numbers.
I also agree that when listening with high resolution headphones, distortion and noise become more apparent. I find headphone listening to be unrealistic so only use them when laid up in bed or for monitoring.
You are asking if your unique ideas of acoustics is covered not only broadly, but in a specific thread. Naturally that doesn’t exist. Your views are yours and you can write a blog and talk about that.
The topic of acoustics is extensively covered in ASR. We have a dedicated forum for it as a matter of fact:
There, you find sticky threads by me on articles I have written on the topic that have been published elsewhere. Here is an example:
While you have your ideas of why DSP is not useful, it is the most powerful tool in our arsenal to deal with impact of our room on the sound we hear. I have done reviews of automatic versions of those:
My speaker reviews both in text and video routinely include explanation of directivity, impact, etc. Here is just a quick example of KEF LS50 Meta where that is mentioned fair bit:
Net, net, you are not aware of 1% of what we discuss on ASR. And, are looking for validation of your unique point of view which naturally doesn’t exist. You are welcome to join ASR and advocate for them and see the reaction and sea of literature/research provided in return.
And no, I am not going to talk about acoustics when I am reviewing amplifiers, headphone amps, DACs. Generic, product independent talk goes in discussion threads.
These are not my unique ideas but it is common knowledge among pro audio people who are dealing with loudspeakers and rooms, may it be sound reinforcement or in a studio environment. Several pretty successful loudspeaker manufacturers took that as the main idea of their product line, and if I recall it correctly, there are even measurements of one of these on your site.
I do not expect a particular thread to cover exactly my thoughts on that topic. As far as a judgement on speaker directivity and other related parameters seems to be a part of every loudspeaker review on ASR, I expect that to be a part of every single review thread. I find it highly misleading to read about ´superb´ or ´bad´ directivity when actually both would not help anyone placing such a speaker in a living room.
See, the problem is again your verdicts like ´good directivity´ or ´perfect´ about the isobaric plot of a speaker when actually for most of people’s rooms the opposite is the case. It seems you are not understanding how speakers of different directivity sound in a given environment but rather base your verdicts on how smooth the graphs and how straight the imaginative line in the graph looks like.
That is not science nor about sound quality but rather hi-fi astrology masquerading as geometry. The straighter the line the better the verdict. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the real world of reproduction quality. And - no - these verdicts have not base in the research Floyd Toole has done.
There is a lot of text indeed. But I have not found anything that would be helping a reader to understand what he or she should do when it comes to choice of speakers and speaker placement in his or her room. The sticky thread you have linked seems to accumulate some very old research on the topic of reflexions in a room but again nothing really helpful. Maybe I have missed a thread and you might want to give me a link.
No and No.
I did not say DSP is not useful, I strongly recommend to use one if two vitally necessary conditions are met: at first you have to have the sound quality optimized to a level that non-EQable flaws are eliminated already by choice of speakers, placement and room treatment. Secondly during setting and optimizing filters you have to know what you are doing and hearing, understanding the impact on sound of every single DSP filter you are setting. By ear and not by microphone.
And no, DSP is not the most powerful tool to achieve excellent sound quality in hi-fi environments. Most of acoustical flaws occurring in a typical living room cannot be corrected with DSP. If might be possible to reduce negative impact of the room so it does not sound annoying anymore. That is what many people sell as the miracles of automated room correction, they simply reduce the level of problematic frequency bands (such as the 3-5K region or peaks caused by room modes). But that is not a powerful way to achieve really good sound quality and it comes at a cost usually.
I have used all the three methods of automated room correction which you are suggesting in your links, at numerous occasions and in different rooms. They are all textbook examples of how room correction does not achieve excellent sound quality but rather is trading sonic flaws for different ones. You forgot to mention DIRAC in that category!
Funny sidenote: The in-room measurement of your Odyssey and Lyngdorf experiment threads are clearly showing that something is fundamentally wrong with the modes, the speaker placement and the way speakers are interacting with the room (which will inevitably lead to non-EQable flaws and bad sound quality). Yes, I mean the dips around 50-65Hz and the peaks around 110Hz with the Revels as well as 100 and 180Hz regions with the Genelecs.
Any room correction method which I would consider to be useful MUST stop at this point and give advice to alter the speaker placement or treat the room in the affected frequency bands as the first step. In contrary all three are proceeding, most probably making things worse from the perspective of sound quality (with Audyssy and Genelec showing the most ridiculous algorithms, behind Lyngdorf´s method there is at least a strategy).
But again, the question is if you want the best sound quality in a given environment, or if you prefer hi-fi astrology and hunt for nice-looking curves instead?
Thanks for the LS50 meta video link as it is exemplarily showing the contradictions when it comes to judging a speaker’s directivity. In the video you mention direct and indirect sound should ideally have the same or similar tonality - that is exactly my point, and I agree to that statement.
But a minute later you explain that tweeters are usually narrowing down the radiation pattern resulting in an increasing DI towards higher frequencies and just comment ´that is fine, you want to see that´, ´very smooth line´ and ´very good directivity´. NO, IT IS NOT! It is the utmost contradiction to the previous statement on direct and indirect sound both supposed to show similar tonality.
Do you understand how an increasing DI (or decreasing RT60) towards higher frequencies sounds in a living room environment compared to a constant directivity or decreasing DI? Or are you again hunting for nice graphs and straight lines instead of optimizing sound quality?
Pretty fair, and I did not expect that. But I expect you to apply your own standards of scientific evidence on what is audible and what not when you formulate verdicts solely based on amplifier and DAC measurements. It seems that you this time are not hunting for straight lines but for specs well below audibility (like -110dB of noisefloor) and again clean-looking graphs like in jitter plots. According to your own standards this is clearly inaudible but you dare to either praise or condemn products which should sound the same if your measurements tell the truth.
This is what I call hi-fi astrology and highly misleading. Could laugh about it if there weren’t people out there believing that stuff and buying speakers which surely will create bad sound in their living rooms, listening to badly EQed systems in an unsuitable room if only the response looks flat and disparage electronic components of other listeners which clearly sound excellent.
I absolutely support the idea of basing hi-fi verdicts on science, solid experience and measurements while fighting esoteric beliefs. But it looks like ASR has moved to rather the opposite, i.e. creating its own esoteric beliefs, just the name of the gods is different.
This was always one of my concerns about the purported science at achieving the best sound. When subjective preference is so fundamental and we’re all different, how would you know that someone’s eqed preference towards what they perceive as a flat or “original” sound or “best” produces better results for you for a given headphone or speaker conditions? You could do the double blind test, which should help. It’s surprising you don’t see such data on reviews in ASR and instead lots of discussing about likely inaudible measurement data points considering the overall quality level in general of gear today.
We are not remotely “all different.” We are far more alike than not in our preferences for neutral sound. Tons of research shows this, a lot of which I have posted about here and elsewhere. This is the foundation of four decades of research into what makes good sound in a room or in a headphone. Just like the fact that majority of people like ice cream and chicken, majority of people like sound that is not colored.
There are some people who are different but your starting point should be that you are the same unless proven differently. If so, then you can use DSP to adjust to taste. This is all written and talked about in ASR in numerous threads, articles and discussions.
That couldn’t be more wrong. We not only discuss such topics, but we do so with the very people who have performed such research, such as Dr. Sean Olive, and Dr. Floyd Toole. Here is a short article I have written on this very topic:
I appreciate the response, but you are continuing to misunderstand me and my preferences, and perhaps the human subjective experience in general. This may be part of the confusion that you continue to have in dialogue with others. There truly does seem to be a world-view problem here that is being outlined for you if you could listen.
I have many different headphones that produce sound differently across the FR range. There is more bass or treble, or some do sound more “neutral” vs. more bass heavy vs. more clear on the high end. They sound different with different genres and depending on the quality of the sound recording. Some have switches or filters, so you can modify the FR. I even have a custom one that someone tuned in a specific way that would not be considered neutral at all, but I love listening to it especially for certain genres or types of music. DSP is not a solution that is necessarily helpful for these experiences I have with music.
But isn’t DSP a way to achieve custom switches, filters and tunings? Isn’t that what Amir is saying? I’m not sure I get your point.
Nope. Your statement was clear. Research shows just as clearly that your assumptions are wrong that we are all different. That in a controlled tests, listeners mostly prefer similar headphones and speakers with neutral frequency response. There is room for some variation in bass and treble for which, DSP can easily provide, obviating the need to spend money on multiple headphones/speakers to get there.
Sounds like you haven’t used one to know. I have EQed more that 400 speakers and headphones. The power it provides to both correct response errors and shape it to what you want is beyond measure, pun intended. And the way it is integrated into Roon is superb as you can create as many profiles as you like and switch on demand. I have a massive list for all the speakers and headphones I have tested.
Please take the time to read and understand the research and spend quality time with equalization. You will not get a better education in audio fidelity than this. It is all there for free if you are a Roon user.
@Amir_Majidimehr Take a look at the last post in this thread (Are Our Preferences Different in Audio? | Page 4 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum) that you shared. There are so many factors including eartips and pads that can matter. DSP tweaking in Roon has not resulted in improvements in my listening experience.
To be honest, the fact we all have a different perception, is not as relevant for aspects like tonal balance, at least when it comes to judging a loudspeaker setup. Reason being we all have a similar calibration mechanism for natural sounds and those reproduced by loudspeakers. What is perceived as natural in an acoustic concert by two completely different listeners is basically the same sound field to which the individual senses are calibrated. So both listeners would perceive the same reproduction system as natural being similarly balanced in direct sound, early reflexions and diffuse sound field compared to the live event (although two-channel stereo and live sound field vary in the angles from which different fractions of the sound field are hitting the listener but that is not really relevant in terms of perceived tonal balance).
Please note this is not the case with headphones and earphones as these are bypassing a significant part of the individual hearing process such as the HRTF (Head related transfer function) or even parts of the auricle and ear canal transfer function in case earbuds are used. What is perceived as well-balanced with headphones or earphones is a matter of individual perception.
Would should also be emphasized is the fact a sound field reproduced by loudspeakers will only be recognized as tonally balanced if direct sound, early reflexions and diffuse components are all equally balanced, roughly coming from the expected angles and keeping the level ratio between each other.
That is the reason why referring to in-room frequency responses is utterly pointless as they usually show only a sum of all of these or a fraction thereof plus they discard all information about angles. A huge fraction of flaws created by automated or frequency-response-based room correction methods originates from the same phenomena as these cannot affect the aforementioned ratios and cannot keep the different parts of the sound field into account. And, no, the early reflections are not being perceived as a part of direct sound or in a similar way. That is one of the fundamental errors of early psychoacoustical research.
A double-blind listening test is possible but it is quite an effort as you have to compare two pairs of speakers of different directivity being calibrated to either identical on-axis response or in-room response. I have done such experiments in the past and it is really eye-opening.
Could you please give an example of a controlled test in which the majority of listeners have preferred similar headphones in terms of frequency response? What was the definition of ´similar´ in dB?
This ist not very credible, as headphones are bypassing the HRTF which could be called some angle-dependened, interchannel EQ created by our head and auricles. Similar headphones do not remotely result in a similar frequency response at the eardrum if shape of the head and auricles differ.
And they differ from person to person. Otherwise all HRTF-related technologies would work flawlessly with all listeners equally, such as binaural recordings, virtual Dolby Atmos and alike. And no, they do not.
Every time I discuss sounds of headphones, particular in-ear monitors, with other experts, I am surprised about the variety of what people personally find tonally well-balanced.
With loudspeakers, there is a certain truth to people having similar preferences, but it is pointless to narrow this down solely to a linear frequency response in an anechoic chamber while other factors defining sound quality of a speaker are ignored. In controlled environment, consumers tend to prefer a little more (lower) bass than linear response would suggest. And without taking direct and indirect sound (and other factors defining perception of tonal balance) into consideration separately, there is not much point in the whole experiment as you can only test which particular flaws people find less annoying.
And even if many people prefer a more or less balanced loudspeaker reproduction, there is still significant room for personal taste or at least judging with your ears as most of aspects of sound quality are not covered.
You meant a different poster but I had to grin. I can tell you I understand all research I have read so far on the topic but I find it difficult to spend quality time with equalization. I use EQ on a professional level. Do you also tell your gardener to spend quality time with his shovel? I thought he knows how to handle it…
You claim to have used EQs extensively, but it seems not much of understanding has evolved regarding what they do and what they cannot. Ask a recording engineer or mastering engineer or PA technician! They will tell you the same I tell you: EQs are tools to encounter certain problems or manipulate certain aspects of a mix or a reproduction system. They are good for that and used on a daily base. But they help little to nothing when it comes to achieving superb sound quality, solve room-induced problems or altering the character of a mix. Most aspects of perceived music reproduction have little to nothing to do with what can be manipulated using an EQ. Same is true to sound quality of loudspeakers in a room.
Funny sidenote: the only thing EQs are really almighty in is manipulating the frequency response on loudspeaker axis. So as you advocate the extensive use of EQ, what point is there in judging loudspeakers by their frequency response? Even if the latter looks like flawed - no problem, we EQ it to 0.1dB per 1/3 of an octave band! So why judge speakers by frequency response?
I would not recommend to use roon´s DSP for the purpose you are claiming to use is. Professional solutions work much better. Solely for the reason roon creates a little gap when altering parametric EQ parameters and there is no possibility for seamless and stepless adjustments. So it is very difficult to make a direct comparison or judge the temporary bypass of one filter. But that is exactly what you need when making room correction adjustments or manipulating headphone response to your taste.
Of course not if you are not using your ears to compare but instead of that stare on frequency response graphs and make videos about why a little dip or peak should be corrected or not.
@Arindal I get some of the points you are trying to get across, but as stated before your methods/solutions are not practical for the average home listener.
Have a look at the Roon showcase thread to see how far from reality your ideas are. See what your average Roon user is doing.
Performant speakers and Roon DSP is going to be the limit for most.