Presence speakers - What do you think?

[Hyfi]

What facts?



If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

[StevenSurprenant]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

I agree. I've always believed just that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

This is a purely subjective perspective. This does not address anything scientific, objective or any sort of reference.

And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

There is a logical step that starts the chain of what is good sounding. A speaker to speaker balance(achieved by instruments), a wide band flat frequency response(through design and corrected room response based on instruments), and a ideal dispersion pattern(which is achieved through measurements).

Once you have these things, you can enhance to your taste. Any thing less begins with a distortion, and distortions just pile up after that.

You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

I cannot force anyone to do anything, and that is not my goal in the first place.

Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

This comment is based on the playback system, and cannot be applied to the source itself.

[StevenSurprenant]

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

[Hyfi]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he is trying to say we can't trust our ears as to what sounds good and we should only be trusting measurements from a man made device to tell us what sounds good.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he is trying to say we can't trust our ears as to what sounds good and we should only be trusting measurements from a man made device to tell us what sounds good.

Your limb just broke, and now you have hit the pavement.

I made no mention about what sound good or bad. I made mention that we cannot use our ears as measuring devices. They are not linear enough for that task(see ISO:226), they cannot balance speakers(we have ear to ear deviances personally and from person to person), and each person's ears different from the next in the areas of frequency extension, inter-ear balance, head shape(HRF transfer effects), different pinna sizes(which will result in a different frequency response from one person ear to the next).

Measuring instruments are better at these things, and our own ears and tastes are what establishes personal preferences.

[Hyfi]

I made no mention about what sound good or bad.

Please refer back to post #10
Presence speakers - What do you think?

Where it went like this

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS. I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

So you didn't use the words good or bad, you just told us that it's wrong and that it should not be used.

But, there are people who happen to like it whether it measures up or not as quoted above.

Why do you say they should not use it, need it, or like it just because you have the opposite opinion?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Please refer back to post #10
Presence speakers - What do you think?

Where it went like this






So you didn't use the words good or bad, you just told us that it's wrong and that it should not be used.

But, there are people who happen to like it whether it measures up or not as quoted above.

Why do you say they should not use it, need it, or like it just because you have the opposite opinion?

You don't need it because a properly set up and calibrated setup does not need anything else to be true to the intent of the Director or Sound Designer PERIOD. The only reason to use DSP based matrix processing on the Z- axis it to compensate for shortcomings of ones set up.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

This post is so full of BS I just don't know where to start.......The whole world must have perfect pitch. Well, if ANYONE can whistle at perfect frequencies, then let's just get rid of tone generators...who needs them.

This is not a mistake, this is a bald face lie.

[E-Stat]

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

[Hyfi]

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

I don't totally dismiss science or tools that help with system setup.

This discussion was about what sounds good to someone and Sir T is implying that we all should think the same thing sounds good and only what an SE tells us we should like.

My argument is that MY EARS and BRAIN may like the way something sounds regardless of any scientific measurements. Your ears and brain may not like the same thing.

So who is right? Nobody, we all listen to what WE like and not what someone tells us we should like.

[E-Stat]

This discussion was about what sounds good to someone and Sir T is implying that we all should think the same thing sounds good and only what an SE tells us we should like.

I find that some of my preferences differ with his, too.

With my modest HT, I tried lowering the mains to be closer to the center speaker to improve coherency following his suggestion. The tradeoff is that you lose natural sounding image height - as found at virtually every theatre experience. The underlying issue is not that the mains are too high - the center is too low.

rw

[Hyfi]

I find that some of my preferences differ with his, too.

With my modest HT, I tried lowering the mains to be closer to the center speaker to improve coherency following his suggestion. The tradeoff is that you lose natural sounding image height - as found at virtually every theatre experience. The underlying issue is not that the mains are too high - the center is too low.

rw

I have read many places where putting the center atop the tv is the best spot. I'm looking for a new center and that is why the Usher caught my eye. It is angled up so the sound will go from below the tv up to your ear or close enough in that direction.

[E-Stat]

It is angled up so the sound will go from below the tv up to your ear or close enough in that direction.

So is mine. Works only to an extent.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

Based on how the field sample measures up to the reference. This is why I take my mixes home and listen to them on three comparable two way systems as the reference mixing system.

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

I agree you need both. But you have to start with science first before marching on to the subjective. This is the very foundation of good speaker/room synergy. We may have a love for a specific speaker design, but you need the science of room acoustics to make them sound good in rooms.

[E-Stat]

Based on how the field sample measures up to the reference.

Ok. So what are the metrics and the acceptable value ranges for each of the three scenarios I mentioned? Tell me of the standard ISU procedure(s) for such measurements. What metrics quantify the coherency of single driver speakers vs. multi-ways in meaningful ways? Or the audibility of complex feedback amplifiers vs those with none or minimal amounts? How do you quantify image height and width? Most HTs fail miserably at the natural reproduction of height. What number(s) is/are wrong? Your answer merely spoke of subjective listening.

I agree you need both. But you have to start with science first before marching on to the subjective. This is the very foundation of good speaker/room synergy.

I think there's an echo in here.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ok. So what are the metrics and the acceptable value ranges for each of the three scenarios I mentioned? Tell me of the standard ISU procedure(s) for such measurements. What metrics quantify the coherency of single driver speakers vs. multi-ways in meaningful ways? Or the audibility of complex feedback amplifiers vs those with none or minimal amounts?

These are user playback issues, and as such, out of the realm of what we cover when we field check our mixes.

How do you quantify image height and width?

Based on what we mix in the studio.

Most HTs fail miserably at the natural reproduction of height.

Yours may, but not mine.

Your answer merely spoke of subjective listening.

Maybe because that is all it is.

I think there's an echo in here.

Auralex, Primeacoustics, and Real traps have tools for that.

[E-Stat]

These are user playback issues, and as such, out of the realm of what we cover when we field check our mixes.

Gotcha - no *science* involved here. Entirely subjective.

Based on what we mix in the studio.

Two observations: science uses metrics to quantify characteristics. And any mix can sound profoundly different depending upon the equipment used for playback.

Yours may, but not mine.

This returns to your original assertion that *science* is involved in the process. Clearly, it is not. Instead, It is largely a subjective perspective afterwards.

Maybe because that is all it is.

This conversation has made that emphatically clear - There is precious little *science* used at all beyond simplistic measurements of sine wave frequencies and level.

Auralex, Primeacoustics, and Real traps have tools for that.

Reading my previous comments works, too. You just repeated them. A simpler response would have been "I agree".

rw

[Feanor]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

[Luvin Da Blues]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

LOL, Did you see this on CBC the other night?

Doc Zone - Episode - The Trouble with Experts

[Hyfi]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

I listen to what my ears and brain tell me I like, not what someone tells me I should like, no mater what boner fides they have.

Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.

Sounds like sheep dip to me.

[Feanor]

...
Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.
...

Nope, I didn't say that, nor try to say it.

What I said was we should listen to experts and question our own, more limited knowledge.

[StevenSurprenant]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

I value science over most anything else, and I don't reject anything he says as long as it is science, but he is dwelling beyond that.

As an example, he states that ambiance channels distort the steering in a surround system and I have no doubt that he is correct, but the issue is whether t sounds better, or not. He says that it ruins intelligibility, but I and every one else I've demonstrated it to voiced the opposite opinion. Do I shut off my ambiance speakers and delude myself that it sounds better, or do I accept what I hear as better. Believe me, I tried to do just that. I've repeatedly shut off the ambiance channels and listened intently to verify that I wasn't talking out my butt.

On the other hand, I've used EQ's with stereo systems and while putting a smiley face on the controls did produce a pleasant sound, It ruined the sound as compared to no EQ. Strangely, when I would initially turn the EQ off, it sounded flat, but after listening to it for a short while and letting my ears adjust, it sounded much better without the EQ.

I expected the same thing to occur with the ambiance channels, but it didn't happen.

I'm not just sitting here at my computer just being obstinate. I've listened to what he had to say and I tried it his way. There are moments where DSP is distracting, but the vast majority of the time, the improvement is worth any negative effects it may produce.

I have no disrespect for the man, but when it come to the human factor, he disregards that completely. His viewpoint is mainly from the recording and mixing side of the equation and he totally disregards the end user aspect of the equation. He may be the finest recording engineer that has ever lived, but his focus doesn't seem to include the user portion of the equation. He assumes that his work is perfect and anything that changes that is inherently wrong. I wouldn't use DSP if I didn't feel that the recording was lacking in some way.

He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. The fact is that I did just as I said I did, and I see no reason why most people couldn't do the same. This made me question his abilities, but rightfully so. Another thing is that when we were talking about mixing a mono channel into two speakers he told me that he had to EQ the h-ll out of it. I'm sure there is a good reason for doing it as he mentioned, but he doesn't use science to do it. He does it by ear with no meters to help him. That's hardly science.

The bottom line is that I welcome everything he has to say, but it's not enough for him to voice his opinion and then let us make our own choices. He makes it a point to repeatedly condemn every choice we make. If his condemnations were solely focused on the scientific aspect of our statements, I would not engage him in further discourse, but the majority of what he talks about is opinion and supposition. We have a right to our own opinion and supposition too. Don't you think?

I understand the reason for your post and I commend you on trying to do the right thing, but apparently we are seeing this issue differently. That's okay and understandable.

The last thing is that I have a different view of "experts". They are people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject than the general public, but the fact that all "experts" have other "experts", in the same field, that disagree with them tells me that there is a great deal of opinion floating around and we should take an "experts" viewpoint with a grain of salt.