Question re: limitations of Frequency Response measurements (you there Sir Terrence?)

[Quagmire]

I think the larger question that you raise in your post, whether intentional or not, is if the science can accurately quantify not only the listening experience, but the equipment responsible for bringing us that experience as well -- not just limited to speakers but to the entire audio chain. I believe this is at the heart of the disagreement between the objectivist subjectivist groups. Though traditionally, speakers have been one area where there is little disagreement over the measured and perceived audible differences of audio equipment, I remember encountering a self proclaimed objectivist on these boards who's position was that there was no such thing as speaker "timbre". Even when I agreed with him that timbre is in a sense "distortion" in that it does distort the original audio signal, he absolutely refused to accept that any good quality speaker could have timbre. It didn't seem to matter to him when I pointed out that his much touted use of an equalizer was correcting for frequency response problems which, according to him, shouldn't exist in good quality speakers. It also didn't matter when I pointed out that no amount of EQing was capable of making horn loaded speakers sound like say... electrostatics, and that this was due to the specific timbre of each type of speaker. He wasn't hearing any of this. As far as he was concerned timbre was just a fancy way of saying "distortion" and that from his point of view any distortion of the source signal, save for output levels, was undesirable and shouldn't be tollerated by those buying speakers. So he was understandably pissed when I pointed out that his use of an EQ was a direct alteration (distortion) of the source signal prior to it every arriving at the speakers; and that unless he was using a very expensive EQ, he was like creating other sonic anomalies that he wasn't even aware of. From his objectivist point of view, everything he needed to know about his system and the listening experience could be evaluated and quantified by "correcting" the frequency response of his speakers. I doubt that there are many objectivist here who would agree with him, but IMO it is an example of how we get locked into our positions and simply won't budge. My position is that the raw data may not ALWAYS be able to quantify the experience or the equipment; and that because of this, we shouldn't sumarily dismiss all "claims" of perceived differences as being false. I understand that the reasonable response is to say "then why not use some objective test method to determine this instead of relying of subjective "biased" means?" -- and I agree. But I also believe that it is possible for the test methodology to be insufficient to completely evaluate the experience and the equipment, even though on face value, it may seem obvious that it is. I just raise the posibillity that it may not be and that in the future, as even better test methods are developed, some of the things which have been dismissed as pure audio myth may find some scientific foundation. Personally, I think it would be beneficial for those in both "camps" to get a healthy dose of humility and to say "We just don't know for sure."

My rant for the day.

Q

[kexodusc]

Q, I agree, just because we can't develop tests that capture all the info we hear and measure everything, doesn't mean there aren't differences.
I used the whol bumble-bee analogy and got flamed big-time...Scientists can't explain, replicate, and understand how a bee flies...yet it does....the only proof we have is our sense of sight.

But, I wasn't really headed in that direction with my post. Just wondering how much of a speaker's sound is captured by frequency response...good points though.

[Monstrous Mike]

Q, I agree, just because we can't develop tests that capture all the info we hear and measure everything, doesn't mean there aren't differences.
I used the whol bumble-bee analogy and got flamed big-time...Scientists can't explain, replicate, and understand how a bee flies...yet it does....the only proof we have is our sense of sight.

But, I wasn't really headed in that direction with my post. Just wondering how much of a speaker's sound is captured by frequency response...good points though.

Here is an interesting quote on this subject:

"That difficulty (explaining bumblebee flight) has even made its way into an urban legend of science, typically recounted as "a scientist 'proved' that a bumblebee can't fly" and often cited as an inspiring example for persevering in the face of overbearing dogma.

The fact is that the scientist in 1934 who claimed it is impossible for bees to fly used a steady state dynamic model, i.e. fixed wings like an aircraft. But bumblebees and hummingbirds have wings that move. So over the years, this myth has been conclusively disproven.

However, it is still referred to today when people claim something (like sonic differences in wires) that science cannot "prove" or says should be impossible. Like author of the qoute stated, myths like this are invoked by people with a dogmatic approach to life.

[kexodusc]

Monstrous Mike, I'm no scientist, but I do have several Biology textbooks (for example: Biology, Campbell and Reece, 3rd edition, Benjamin / Cummings Publishing Co.) from the late 90's (a very common 1st and 2nd year textbook in most US universities). At that time there was still no conclusive explanation explaining how the geometry, displacement, and mass of bee's body can allow for it to fly.
All it said was that scientist "assume it has something to do with the movement of the bees wings". Duh!
It goes on to say the US military is even studying it (as of that date) and hope to be able to incorporate some of natures wonders in future designs.
Assuming these folks aren't liars, I wouldn't call this an urban legend. So they've disproved one theory that claimed a bee "couldn't fly". They haven't not adequately explained the physics and reasons as to why a bee "does fly".
A difference you can surely accept.

[kexodusc]

Hey my thread got moved...D'oh! Old habbits die hard I guess.
I s'pose this is a better place for it, but I suspect the hit count will drop dramatically.

[E-Stat]

... but I suspect the hit count will drop dramatically.

I don't understand that perception. Am I that unusual by looking through most of the forums and threads, even if I don't have anything in particular to add?

rw

[kexodusc]

It's quite easy to understand, my question was about something quite relevant to the performance of speakers, not of a derogatory, or inflammatory nature. Though it was technically based, it is quite logical to think that the hit count could be higher in a forum dedicated to speakers specifically.

After all, as eric has stated, the purpose of the audio lab and moderators was to cut down on the nasty posts, and to allow hobbyists to post in the relevant forums (in this case speaker forum) worry-free, without being asked to "prove anything", without it degenerating into a naysayer-yeasayer argument.
As has been posted by several people, some will refuse to view the Audio Lab, for varying reasons. First, it's new, and often forgotten about by myself...bad habbit, as I said in my post. Second, some people avoid it because they rightfully don't care about the super-technicalities of this.
Posting my thread in the Audio Lab would make it more likely that these people would not see it. Undeniable.

Besides, it was my understanding from Eric himself that merely talking about speakers in a technical nature was not reason enough to post this in the Audio Lab. In fact, if you READ my first post, I was pointing out how scientific measurements DON'T necessarily capture everything.

Besides E-Stat, look at the traffic in the speaker forum compared to this one...even a completely compulsive liar wouldn't dare suggest it's even close.

But anyway, that's just my thinking. Now it's linked in the Speaker forum AND here...which I would never have done (dual posts) on my own. Thanks E-Stat (or whoever moved it)