Why We need Audiophiles..

[MiTT]

Personally I think it's just silly to posit an opinion on one reviwer or anothers listening room in this forum. Short of actually listening to something on their equipment in their room any position any of us might offer here is nothing more than speculation. You also have to remember that when a professional reviewer offers an impression on one piece of equipment or another it is most often within the given context of their own system. Being familiar with the ins and out of my own system I would certainly be able to describe the sonic merits or shortcomings of one piece of gear over another.

I don't discredit the advantages of a properly treated room, only the notion that we, here can accurately critique another person's room without experiencing it for ourselves.

 

[amey01]

I think we should talk about everything audio - reviewers included.

My take is that his view (or any reviewer's view) is worth something if they are comparing apples to apples - that is, as long as Mikey is using the same room to evaluate each and every component then all those components are on a level field. Sure - a perfectly treated room might be better, but at least this approximates the sort of room in which 99% of the purchased equipment will be placed.

 

[JonFo]

... You also have to remember that when a professional reviewer offers an impression on one piece of equipment or another it is most often within the given context of their own system. Being familiar with the ins and out of my own system I would certainly be able to describe the sonic merits or shortcomings of one piece of gear over another.
...

Tim, you bring a point I wanted to make as well. And that's the fact that many reviewers are essentially doing relative comparisons between new gear in for review and what was there previously. So if an amp sounded 'warmer' in that room, then it's likely to sound that way in other rooms.

So one of the things we all could do is remember that whether from a professional or just us hobbyist types, when we read a review of anything, the context in which it is done is highly relevant, and that more often than not, the evaluation is indeed relative (vs absolute).

However, comments on bass-bloat, extension, frequency harshness, etc. of speakers would be highly suspect, as more often than not, the room influences those to such a high degree, that where they are placed will improve or hurt those elements.


For instance, I agree with Rich's comments on that reviewers room, and would add the observation that the seats being back against the wall puts the listener in a high-pressure bass mode zone, which will make for very 'lumpy' or one note bass effects.

While I don't really know what the sound might be like in that room, I do have enough knowledge and experience to make pretty educated guesses about the possible macro effects based on the observable dimensions, placements and surfaces.

This is analogous to an experienced car nut looking at a picture of a car with an underinflated right-front tire. They could probably accurately predict that the vehicle will pull to the right, stop in much longer distances (and not in a straight line) and have much reduced cornering capability when taking left turns. All just from looking at a picture, and they'd be pretty much right.

 

[Rich]

Personally I think it's just silly to posit an opinion on one reviwer or anothers listening room in this forum. Short of actually listening to something on their equipment in their room any position any of us might offer here is nothing more than speculation.

Much of what we do on this forum is speculate, so I don't see how that's a problem. It engenders interesting discussion, if nothing else. You are correct that until we actually listen to his room, or at least see some good acoustic measurements of it, we only have so much to go on. But you can certainly make a fairly accurate educated guess if you understand some of the basic laws of acoustics. If an apple drops from a tree, I can pretty accurately guess that it is going to end up on the ground based on my knowledge of the laws of gravity. For that reason, I don't think we are way off base to make such speculation.

Tell me, if he was reviewing the CLX and comparing it to his own speakers, but only using an Ipod with lossy mp3's as his source, and a cheap sony receiver as his amp/preamp, would you speculate as to the quality of the sound he was hearing, and whether he was really experiencing what the speakers are capable of producing? Would you give his opinions any credibility? Yes, the room is that important.

 

[Rich]

What if a reviewer has extreme hearing loss at high frequencies, to the extent that room treatment to absorb highs is unnecessary?

If he has such hearing loss, then I would say his credibility as a reviewer would be greatly diminished. That's like a blind person acting as an art reviewer. But you are right, that unless they get tested and make the results public, we would never know.

But absorption of first reflection points is important for a lot more than just the very high frequencies. Smearing and comb filtering happen in the midrange frequencies too.

 

[User211]

If he has such hearing loss, then I would say his credibility as a reviewer would be greatly diminished. That's like a blind person acting as an art reviewer. But you are right, that unless they get tested and make the results public, we would never know.

This is a great point. All hi-fi reviewers, one could legitmately argue, should be subject to hearing tests, and the results published in the magazines themselves. Otherwise, how can we attach any credibility to their findings - not that many of us attach that much credibility to reviews anyway.

I think this is flawed, though, because of the "trained ear" aspect. Indeed, I believe a well trained hi-fi listener (self-trained, in most cases) can discern more than someone with measurably better hearing, but no "hi-fi" experience, within reasonable parameters.

Then again, given that most reviewers should have a lot of "training", doesn't the hearing aspect point become relevant again?

I wouldn't be surprised if some reviewer's hearing actually isn't that good anymore. Certainly, many UK hi-fi reviewers are of an age where any claim to great hearing must certainly be a dubious one.

 

[tonepub]

The point you are missing is that unless your hearing is exactly the same as mine, it's pretty pointless. If I have a 1db bump up at 10k and you have a 1db bump down at 10k, the speaker, cartridge or whatever that I find slightly bright you will find recessed.

Just as our man Spectral finds the Nagra VPS to have a "depressed midrange"...

I don't hear that at all, nor does anyone else that has heard it or reviewed it. But if that's the way his perception of sound is, that's his reality. So any components have to get through that filter to be of use to him, or anyone else's perception.

 

[User211]

I fully agree.

Additionally, in some ways it makes a bit of a mockery of engineering flat frequency responses, when in reality the frequency response of human hearing is far from flat in a lot of cases.

With so many variables in the pot, it's amazing hi-fi works as well as it does.

We should all be thankful for it.

Ultimately, we're in a situation where none of us directly knows what Michael's system actually sounds like, and we don't have his ears. But we all have preconceived notions of what the inadequacies are, and what it will sound like.

But none of us knows what it sounds like to Michael.

So, while we can all discuss it, none of us actually know. Interesting, hey?

 

[tonepub]

Yep that's the toughest part.

If I could come over to every one of your houses, and listen to your system, it would be a lot easier to suggest where you should go next.

 

[FOUNTAIN]

Yep that's the toughest part.

If I could come over to every one of your houses, and listen to your system, it would be a lot easier to suggest where you should go next.

C'mon over!!!!!!!!! I'll even throw in a nice southern meal.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Great discussion gentlemen.

I suppose in the ideal world, one would have access to hearing tests to verify the acuity or weaknesses for each reviewer's auditory abilities as well as information on their listening room, including room size, furniture / listening position, room treatments, etc.

This would allow those with sufficient knowledge about room acoustics to determine, from an anecdotal perspective, what would influence the findings / conclusions for each individual reviewer.

I, for one, have seen very few pictures of reviewers rooms and little detailed information about room dimensions, etc.

Another variable, at least for me, would be the volume level preferred by each reviewer since, in my experience, this can effect how one responds to and describes the overall musical presentation. I do know it has a substantial impact on being able to "hear the acoustic signature of the venue" when listening to classical music.

As Justin said, with all the variables in play, it is quite amazing that we can reach some sense of unanimity on certain aspects of reproduced music.

GG

 

[amey01]

Will do--but why incandescent rather than LED? I'd be using it as a light, not a strobe light.

So it is just for general lighting - in that case it doesn't matter. LED or otherwise. I still prefer the light generated by incandescent, but your choice!

 

[RichTeer]

So it is just for general lighting - in that case it doesn't matter. LED or otherwise. I still prefer the light generated by incandescent, but your choice!

Ah, OK. I'll check out that company you mentioned. Ta muchly!

 

[JonFo]

...
As Justin said, with all the variables in play, it is quite amazing that we can reach some sense of unanimity on certain aspects of reproduced music.

GG

No kidding, I find this great quote by Blesser and Salter [2007], to sum up the whole performance / recording / reproduction chain rather well:

Acoustic engineers determine the physical properties of the recording environment; design engineers develop the recording and reproduction equipment; recording engineers place the microphones, mixing engineers prepare the final musical product for distribution; interior decorators select furnishings for the listeners’ acoustic space; and listeners position themselves and the loudspeakers within that space. Often acting independently, these individuals are members of an informal and unrecognized committee of aural architects who do not communicate with each other. With their divided responsibility for the outcome, they often create the spatial equivalent of a camel: a horse designed by committee.

Which sort of deflates many claims about the ultimate accuracy of any listnening room, gear or, for that matter, recording

But standards are emerging. Today, they are mostly from the film industry, which does have a decent standard (still not where it needs to be) that can be followed.

 

[User211]

I've kept meaning to raise a thread to discuss "what is accurate?" or "does accurate replay exist?" given all the variables etc.... but we seem to be covering it here to some extent.

 

[Rich]

I've kept meaning to raise a thread to discuss "what is accurate?" or "does accurate replay exist?" given all the variables etc.... but we seem to be covering it here to some extent.

Ultimately, accuracy is in the ear/brain of the beholder. Even if you and I listen to a live acoustic set, ultimately we are each hearing a slightly different performance based on numerous variables. Jeff makes a great point that everyone's hearing is different, and for that matter, everyone's preferences and conditioning is different. What I consider neutral and accurate, someone else may consider cold and lifeless.

 

[tonepub]

Ultimately, accuracy is in the ear/brain of the beholder. Even if you and I listen to a live acoustic set, ultimately we are each hearing a slightly different performance based on numerous variables. Jeff makes a great point that everyone's hearing is different, and for that matter, everyone's preferences and conditioning is different. What I consider neutral and accurate, someone else may consider cold and lifeless.

Agreed. Because again if we all have different hearing, we will have the same different tonal anomalies even when hearing live music...

So, if we get the same two people with slightly different hearing curves in the room with a couple of violin players, each will have a different take on the sound. I'm guessing that's why one pianist swears a Steinway is the best sounding piano, while another prefers something else.

That's why at the end of the day, I feel all a review can do is point you in a direction. Most of the people that read our magazine closely know that each one of our reviewers have a certain "taste" if you will. Because we tend to keep our gear longer than many of the other reviewers, it can then stay a constant for you as much as it does for the reader.

I always hope that we can describe a component, its operation and its sound enough that it will pique your interest. The rest is really up to you.

The only advantage I bring to the table is that I get to spend 12 hours a day listening to a lot of different gear, so chances are if someone is looking for something, we've had a chance to give it a listen, or we make it a point to get it in the door.

When someone asks me whether I like speaker A better than speaker B, that's a different question than what do speaker A and speaker B sound like...

And then the heated discussions always begin.

 

[TomDac]

I get to spend 12 hours a day listening to a lot of different gear,

:bowdown:

would love to do that for a living... sigh.

 

[akm3]

My analogy for this is that it’s like a car magazine that only tests cars on bumpy gravel roads. The Subaru is likely to beat the Porsche or the Ferrari in their tests.

Hey hey hey you've gone too far, when you factor in price the Subaru always beats the Porsche or Ferrari, bumpy roads or not. And, often will beat it even when you DO factor in price.

THOSE are the automotive equivalent of 'audio jewelery'

(OK I'm just being contentious, but I love Subaru)

 

[akm3]

:bowdown:

would love to do that for a living... sigh.

Think twice about that wish, even the most beloved hobby can become unpleasant when it is your JOB.