can someone please explain level matched tests?

[Brian]

Sorry Brian

Can't really indulge you. For me, it feels like talking to noisy children who keep simply staring into my face and asking "why? at the end of the sentence".

Not that I'm suggesting you childish you understand - just that these threads seem to resemble those types of exchanges and everyone eventually runs out of patience.

All the answers you seek are easily Googled.

to be fair brian....it's pretty obvious now you're virtually trolling....we have been discussing 'perception' across a few threads now....you don't open links, you don't follow discussion in any detail and then you pop out your lovely anecdotes....but you always ignore or fail to understand why these things are important.

why do you think broadcast companies have standards....??? why do you think aes measure stuff very carefully???

why do harman have a massive and strict protocol for their many tests?

it's clear you actually don't want to know anything...just enjoy your gear...let the thread die....

Yes you do - everybody does which is why blind testing is accepted as the gold standard for testing in so many areas, other than audio which contains a large irrational element.

The biggest (proven) factor is the known inability of the aural memory to recall small differences of the type which exist between audio electronics.
Simply listening to a dac in your system for for a few days (or weeks or whatever) and then swapping for another model will guarantee only one thing - that your memory will fail to allow other than a flawed comparison. Longer the gap, worse it gets.
It's fine if you want to compare a Klipsh to a Tannoy where differences are gross, but not dacs.

You can choose not to believe any of this, and the fact that you won't follow forum links tells it's own story there I'm afraid. We've discussed these matters time and time again, yet still you ask the same questions.

My advice is that you do a little research and perhaps follow some of those informative links.

That's an accusation I levelled at Brian over a year ago. I ended up giving him the benefit of the doubt at the time. Not so now.

And there we have it, among the odd snipe here and there we see yet more insults from the objectivists.

I ask the same questions because none of you has yet come out with an answer in over a year. All I've done is put forward an opinion that doesn't match that of the objectivist regarding long term listening versus short term, blind and level matched testing, both have a place depending on the aim of the listener imo but saying so apparently = troll. I've described truthfully some personal experience of trying out new kit in my system and this apparently = troll.

I guess you think if you shout "troll" at me often enough it'll become true? Well it won't, but if you genuinely believe I'm trolling then seriously, please hit that report button and get the opinion of people who don't have your agenda. Trolling breaks the AUP so Tony and the moderation team will be interested. If the opinion I've posted looks like trolling to people other than that small group of objectivists I will look at how I've written my posts in this thread.

 

[Steven Toy]

I no longer have a problem with objectivism or objectivists per se.

 

[Brian]

I no longer have a problem with objectivism or objectivists per se.

Nor do I, but it seems some objectivists have an issue with people who are not just like them.

 

[darrylfunk]

Nor do I, but it seems some objectivists have an issue with people who are not just like them.

so you are just trolling....well done brian....

all of us wished you happy listening and thanked you for your input...but you, yes you refused to read links, discuss propositions and generally check the science for yourself....

there is no problem with us....it's the faithful.

enjoy your hi fi.

 

[GTM]

It's the subjective vocabulary that causes more confusion that measurements ever could IME.

Forward for instance could equally mean a prominent midrange, or peak in the presence area to some Serge. Quips about "modern loudspeakers" are in the large part misguided.

Here's

the Stereophile comparison between LS3/5a and LS50. Note the more modern speaker is both smoother and less tilted up in the treble.

As I say, the main problem is interpreting graphs like this and using the right subjective language to explain it. Listening tests are a must IME, but they must be controlled to be anything other than pure folly that can result in long term dissatisfaction.

Care to make that assessment again??

Frequency comparison graphs can be very misleading depending on how they are "levelled".

Now the blue curve looks the more level/smoother in the midrange through treble.





Also the ear/brain works relativistically not in absolute terms. Barring the 3.5/4db peak at around 1.2khz the blue curve is within +/- 1dB 600hz to 18khz (approx) and so is likely to sound the smoother of the two through this frequency response.


This is what they look like levelled at 1khz

 

[darrylfunk]

Care to make that assessment again??

Frequency comparison graphs can be very misleading depending on how they are "levelled".

Now the blue curve looks the more level/smoother in the midrange through treble.





Also the ear/brain works relativistically not in absolute terms. Barring the 3.5/4db peak at around 1.2khz the blue curve is within +/- 1dB 600hz to 18khz (approx) and so is likely to sound the smoother of the two through this frequency response.

interesting that....

current research is showing evidence that the music itself will be 'digitally' divided up by the brain into useful 'pockets' of info....so that the brain can interpret the music in preference to the actual sound it hears...the ear/brain also naturally tunes music to our memory, hence the existence of the audio illusions in the other thread. the brain doesn't treat music as a 'whole' at all but interprets 'bits' and uses them as it sees advantage.

this is probably why so many people like so many different styles and sounds of music and how easy it is for the brain to get used to even quite gross distortions.

 

[GTM]

interesting that....

current research is showing evidence that the music itself will be 'digitally' divided up by the brain into useful 'pockets' of info....so that the brain can interpret the music in preference to the actual sound it hears...the ear/brain also naturally tunes music to our memory, hence the existence of the audio illusions in the other thread. the brain doesn't treat music as a 'whole' at all but interprets 'bits' and uses them as it sees advantage.

this is probably why so many people like so many different styles and sounds of music and how easy it is for the brain to get used to even quite gross distortions.

Just as with the visual sense, where the brain is constantly trying to "match" (or recognise) what it sees with known (previously experienced) objects. The auditory system does the same. Ever noticed how you can still tell a violin from a cello even on a very cheap kitchen radio?(rhetorical question) Despite truly horrendous frequency distortions from the sound of the real instruments your brain is still capable of recognising the two instruments from "memory". IMO this the the main reason that auditory perception is unreliable and why often even gross (let alone subtle differences) don't get "heard". Your brain processes what is actually heard and then matches the sound against it's internal "database" of recognised sounds. It's the matched sound you "hear" in a lot of cases rather than the true physical acoustic sound, IMO.

 

[merlin]

Care to make that assessment again??

No thanks GTM - I stand by what I said.

There is an excess of treble energy in the older speaker however you analyse the graph or a lack of energy in the lower midrange. Either way, you end up with an airy loudspeaker that lacks body and drive in most circumstances.

Added to that, the peak right in the heart of the midrange will result in a colouration, most likely sounding a little cuppy.

I would expect the newer speaker to sound smoother, less coloured overall and to offer more body. I would expect the older loudspeaker to some more airy and to appear voiced from the top down.

 

[darrylfunk]

No thanks GTM - I stand by what I said.

There is an excess of treble energy in the older speaker however you analyse the graph or a lack of energy in the lower midrange. Either way, you end up with an airy loudspeaker that lacks body and drive in most circumstances.

Added to that, the peak right in the heart of the midrange will result in a colouration, most likely sounding a little cuppy.

I would expect the newer speaker to sound smoother, less coloured overall and to offer more body. I would expect the older loudspeaker to some more airy and to appear voiced from the top down.

although it will depend on the inputs freq response too and the room, as all distortion can be additive so output will be a sum of the inputs.

 

[merlin]

One assumes the input and location are the same. You have to for comparison purposes.

 

[darrylfunk]

One assumes the input and location are the same. You have to for comparison purposes.

if it were speakers only an anechoic chamber would really do....as speakers with different response curves will interact with a room differently....plus we don't really have enough data to make a really strong judgement on how they will sound...i agree with a bit of both points of view.

if we had the waterfall plots and off axis data it would be more conclusive i think.

i don't really like guessing how stuff sounds....least of all speakers....good points being raised.

 

[GTM]

No thanks GTM - I stand by what I said.

There is an excess of treble energy in the older speaker however you analyse the graph or a lack of energy in the lower midrange. Either way, you end up with an airy loudspeaker that lacks body and drive in most circumstances.

Added to that, the peak right in the heart of the midrange will result in a colouration, most likely sounding a little cuppy.

I would expect the newer speaker to sound smoother, less coloured overall and to offer more body. I would expect the older loudspeaker to some more airy and to appear voiced from the top down.

I agree that the blue graph shows a classic stepped response centred around approx 500hz. Likely to make the speaker sound "lean" with an even but "dry" bass. Ironically though, (ref 1khz) it has approx 10dB more output at 20hz, so is very likely to sound more extended.

The red curve has a very audible 5dB downward tilting curve from 2khz through to 20khz which could lead the speaker to sound "shut in" to some. Taken in isolation the red curve is centred through the mids and may sound "shouty" to some.

I don't think it's easy to say how the two would be perceived in a group comparison for example. A lot would depend on how the given individual listens to systems. Some people are bass focused others, mid and others treble. Even people that may well be bass focused may have different expectations and analysis.

 

[darrylfunk]

I agree that the blue graph shows a classic stepped response centred around approx 500hz. Likely to make the speaker sound "lean" with an even but "dry" bass. Ironically though, (ref 1khz) it has approx 10dB more output at 20hz, so is very likely to sound more extended.

The red curve has a very audible 5dB downward tilting curve from 2khz through to 20khz which could lead the speaker to sound "shut in" to some. Taken in isolation the red curve is centred through the mids and may sound "shouty" to some.

I don't think it's easy to say how the two would be perceived in a group comparison for example. A lot would depend on how the given individual listens to systems. Some people are bass focused others, mid and others treble. Even people that may well be bass focused may have different expectations and analysis.

yep! i think you both make good observations about the speaker graphs.

 

[IanW]

"But Brian is giving real examples with real results, " JKenny

Yes but Serge addressed that. He stated the following:

"That's fine, but I hope you accept that you're not only comparing the sound quality of the two DACs, you're comparing the whole ownership experience, if you will. You're deciding which makes you happier, not which sounds better. " Serge

Which is not an example of how to select components (that are similar) for the best sound, or indeed the same sound.

Arguably what makes you happier is the more important choice (it is for me).

 

[Paul R]

And of course Brian's real examples with real results are that the widely divergent DACs he's tried sound the same. Which contrasts somewhat with JKeny's real examples and results where USB cables affect the sound.

Paul

 

[Robert]

And there we have it, among the odd snipe here and there we see yet more insults from the objectivists.

I ask the same questions because none of you has yet come out with an answer in over a year.

I've answered you more times than I care to remember Brian - you specifically, as have others. You choose not not listen or do any of the suggested reading.
Instead you continually ask the same questions on the same subject in which you have previously stated you have no interest.

That's trolling.

I don't like trolls so I shan't be engaging with you further on this subject.

 

[Robert]

And of course Brian's real examples with real results are that the widely divergent DACs he's tried sound the same. Which contrasts somewhat with JKeny's real examples and results where USB cables affect the sound.

Paul

No controls = no consistency.

That's fine-ish at the individual level where a person can elect not to care, but it makes wider discussions such as those on forums around sound quality pretty pointless, and the harm comes from following potentially misleading advice.

 

[Tony L]

In fairness I can understand exactly where Brian is coming from: he tries some stuff, and then buys the thing he likes. That's exactly what I do! There does seem to be a trend of late to turn what is fundamentally a hobby / pastime into something that should take place under formal exam conditions and then be marked by an online authority afterwards. I'm certainly still driven entirely by what I like - I buy hi-fi exactly the way I'd buy a guitar, camera or bicycle, i.e. driven almost entirely by personal taste with a bit of scientific theory, history, and brand-credibility / longevity thrown in. I like to try and understand what I like to some degree for the sake of knowledge alone, but that's a another thing,

 

[GTM]

In fairness I can understand exactly where Brian is coming from: he tries some stuff, and then buys the thing he likes. That's exactly what I do! There does seem to be a trend of late to turn what is fundamentally a hobby / pastime into something that should take place under formal exam conditions and then be marked by an online authority afterwards. I'm certainly still driven entirely by what I like - I buy hi-fi exactly the way I'd buy a guitar, camera or bicycle, i.e. driven almost entirely by personal taste with a bit of scientific theory, history, and brand-credibility / longevity thrown in. I like to try and understand what I like to some degree for the sake of knowledge alone, but that's a another thing,

To be honest I don't see much of an issue either. As I stated before, it's all well and good stating things like (within specific parameters - level matching being one of them) all amps are the same, but that's not how people actually listen/use their equipment.

For example I see no issue what so ever with doing a comparison between two amps in a demo with a given set of speakers at a "comfortable" level that would approximate how I would use the amps at home. If under those circumstances one of the amps is performing worse in an audible way because it happens to be trying to drive a load it can't cope with within it's capabilities (i.e. it's clipping) then I've achieved a perfectly valid observation in order to be able to discount that amplifier from my purchasing decision. Given that walking in to such a demo room with a set of multi-meters and scopes would be unfeasible I see no other way that normal consumers can make such a choice. They may not have the finances to just buy "more power" to ensure the amp they buy can deal with all future speakers that they may own. The alternative to level matching in such circumstances would be to ensure both amps are listened to louder than the other to discount (or at least mitigate) the "it's louder so sounds better" psychology.

 

[Brian]

Nor do I, but it seems some objectivists have an issue with people who are not just like them.

so you are just trolling....well done brian....

all of us wished you happy listening and thanked you for your input...but you, yes you refused to read links, discuss propositions and generally check the science for yourself....

there is no problem with us....it's the faithful.

enjoy your hi fi.

Errr...you do like to provoke an argument darryl but as I've no idea (once again) what on earth it is you're on about I guess you're going to be out of luck.

As I said, I'm not trolling. Have you hit the report button yet to see if you can drum up some support for your absurd accusation?