In a blind test no one could really tell the difference between most brands...

[Ultimateherts]

Just wanted to debunk the myth that all brands sound very similar in a blind test...

[bikinpunk]

Depends on how they really measure among other things. Have you read any of Floyd Toole's research regarding "seeing is believing"? If not, you need to. It'll pretty much shut this thread down itself.

http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/technology/whitepapers/audio_art_science.pdf

Sent from my iPhone. Pardon the grammar.

[simplicityinsound]

i never got this whole argument....it would be relevant if were as a species are all blind...but we arent, so even if its a visual "trick" it is what it is and therefore makes a difference.

[bikinpunk]

At the end of the day, emotion is tied to music. I'm fine with a purchase decision or choice rationale based on emotion. However, few will acknowledge the impact of emotion and psychoacoustics and instead default to making generic statements and conclusions to only fan the flames of those who are uniformed and gullible.

^copied myself from another thread.


The issue, IMO, is people are quick to say something actually sounded 'better' than something else. They use subjective words like "warm, dry, neutral, loud, bright, crisp, transient", etc. It's great you're happy with a purchase. The problem is that others read that and assume you really did hear a change and that in no way was your opinion at all rooted in psychoacoustics (knowing what you're hearing and/or your emotion of the purchase leading to your subjective thoughts on the product). So, then we get threads like "Class D amps are dry"... well, does the user even understand why that is? Is there a reason for it, or did they expect to hear something and therefore used the most penned term they could think of? Did you set the gains the exact same for the amp? Did you measure the speaker system's response (both left and right, individually) to understand what may have changed? These are ways you can identify if what you're hearing is real.
Then, how about the use of those terms being interchanged easily. So, when someone says "dry", the other person relates it to what they know as "warm" and the cycle gets even crazier.

Take, for example, the car you've heard so much about. I've had instances where I expected so much, I was let down. Even though it sounded good... it just didn't blow me away. On the flip side, I've heard cars that I didn't expect to sound good blow me away... were they really that bad/good or was it my preconceived notion that influenced my opinion? Probably the latter. We do this with movies... my buddy says The Avengers is awesome... it better freaking be all that and a bag of chips because the bar has been set by his subjective opinion.
Or another very common example is the one where people want to hide speakers so others' opinion of the system isn't influenced by them seeing either a) the location of the speaker(s) and/or b) the type of speaker(s) used. For example, people often used to say that speakers in the pillars sounded forward... so folks would hide them with cloth or something else. Some have gone so far as to make pseudo installs so that judges in competition would think the speakers were somewhere they were not, in the hopes that the common idea that (for example) speakers in the kicks sound better than speakers in the pillars.

Like I said above, I'm not really a stickler for people's subjective evaluation on a product because I already know they're being influenced by the purchase itself or the reason that led to the purchase (ie: Harry said it made his system warm so I must buy it). I just tread lightly when I read it. And, to be honest, I really don't trust anything subjective anymore because it's all a wash; put it in my car and let my car's environment plague the FR... now, how in the world can I honestly say that everyone else should hear the same thing I heard when it's really all driven by FR - and there shouldn't be any amp/dsp/headunit made today that changes FR in the least bit and I've yet to measure one that does*.
If you can point me to data or some sort of evidence that can show me why you hear what you hear, then it's likely your brain getting in the way of your ears. We all do it. I still do. Hell, that's why I don't even bother listening to speakers anymore. I've done it enough to know what is numero-importante, besides the environment itself. Hint: frequency response.
Distortion is one often used explanation, but let's be real: distortion really isn't an issue with any electronic component anymore. There's really no reasonable explanation for an electronics product to impart it's own sound anymore... it's mainly just people talking out of their butt. Though, there have been some tests that show some products not performing well at all and these certainly lend credence to the possibility that someone can hear something different; whatever that may be.


I just look at subjective opinions based off sighted evaluations as a means to an end. If nothing else, it gets conversation going. The reader and evaluator should just take care to at least address the impact and understand how knowing what you're listening to can absolutely alter what you hear. It's been documented by people waaaay smarter than me. The funny thing is that the real engineers of audio understand this. The hobbyists still cling to the idea they have golden ears and can trust them over their brain. I'm not even trying to sound above it all... I'm just more or less expressing my disdain for the people who ignore it.

*that wasn't faulty and prompted a design change.

[Audiophyle]

I think in a true blind test where listening conditions were exact, equipment placement and volume was identical, and they were played back to back without a hiccup in the sound as it changed back & forth, I doubt anyone would hear a difference as long as the equipment was somewhat similar. I do believe there would be a noticeable difference if the equipment were dissimilar enough, like a low end uber cheap coax vs a high end component (even setup as a coax, with tweeter centered) but the differences would need to be pretty significant in quality, materiality, and design.


I think on a more common level, the idea of auditioning equipment like at a store or in another persons car, is a lost cause. There is an unfathomable number of variances impacting the performance of a speaker in any environment, from acoustic properties, to the "enclosure" the woofer is interacting with, and to the solidity and quality of the installation. I believe there is no way to ever get a fair comparison between any equipment unless one is significantly inferior to the other, and as many other variables remain as constant as possible.

This is why I try to pay as much attention to all of the variables as possible, so no matter what equipment I run the odds of it performing to my satisfaction is as great as I can get it.

[rc10mike]

Nevermind...

[Niebur3]

Originally Posted by Audiophyle

I think in a true blind test where listening conditions were exact, equipment placement and volume was identical, and they were played back to back without a hiccup in the sound as it changed back & forth, I doubt anyone would hear a difference as long as the equipment was somewhat similar. I do believe there would be a noticeable difference if the equipment were dissimilar enough, like a low end uber cheap coax vs a high end component (even setup as a coax, with tweeter centered) but the differences would need to be pretty significant in quality, materiality, and design.

As someone who conducted a 16 driver BLIND midrange test with several people involved and someone who is about to do a midwoofer test using 6 high-end drivers for the test, this couldn't be more from the truth. In the midrange test, the drivers were vastly different from one another, keeping all other variable to a minimum or non-existent. There were some inexpensive drivers, but non were "uber cheap" coaxials. All were 3-4" midrange. If you would like, PM me your email and I will send you a copy.

Now, FWIW, I have a demo board with 3-amps level matched based on voltage at the output and (as it is much closer than speakers) you are still able to hear a difference between the amps. The same with Head Units. Now, one can argue the difference between amps/HU in a car would be VERY hard to hear...but please don't say there isn't a difference.

[Audiophyle]

Originally Posted by Niebur3

As someone who conducted a 16 driver BLIND midrange test with several people involved and someone who is about to do a midwoofer test using 6 high-end drivers for the test, this couldn't be more from the truth. In the midrange test, the drivers were vastly different from one another, keeping all other variable to a minimum or non-existent. There were some inexpensive drivers, but non were "uber cheap" coaxials. All were 3-4" midrange. If you would like, PM me your email and I will send you a copy.

Now, FWIW, I have a demo board with 3-amps level matched based on voltage at the output and (as it is much closer than speakers) you are still able to hear a difference between the amps. The same with Head Units. Now, one can argue the difference between amps/HU in a car would be VERY hard to hear...but please don't say there isn't a difference.

Email addy PM'd, eager to learn what you know.

[TrickyRicky]

Originally Posted by simplicityinsound

i never got this whole argument....it would be relevant if were as a species are all blind...but we arent, so even if its a visual "trick" it is what it is and therefore makes a difference.

Quick and short reply but it left a (woah) look on my face. Your absolutly right, I sometimes wonder if we REALLY can tell a difference in a blind test..... I bet most would probably go for the Legacy/Boss sound, lol.

[Ultimateherts]

See I had never really thought about this till the other day. Most of us on here spend so much time planning and installing our equipment that do we really benefit from such higher end gear... I know certain things you need like processors etc, but at the rate and quality we install is it really worth it to spend the extra money on the higher end stuff???

[Niebur3]

I really don't even get this whole thread. It is purely a statement with no facts to back it up, just more questioning statements. I wish everyone one this forum could have been a tester in the midrange shootout, because each speaker in the test sounded very different. The speakers were all ran through 2x and the testers impressions matched very close both times.

Again, I don't see where this thread has any merit or anything to back up what the OP is stating. I have actually tested and can tell you, this is soooooo not the case.

[Oliver]

The tune of the system may have something to do with the sound

If u can't get it tuned, it don't matter !

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The tune of the system may have something to do with the sound

If u can't get it tuned, it don't matter !

What a revelation!

I don't agree with the topic. In the midrange shootout, didn't everyone pick the same midrange for first place and the same one for second place, Jerry? This is all the proof I need that all speakers don't sound the same. All speakers obviously had the same tune and were level matched.

We all know the car and tuning have a huge influence on sound but why not start out with something that sounds great with a good FR and low distortion so you only have to worry about the room's effects rather than having to compensate for crappy frequency response of the speaker itself as well.

There are some speakers like Infinity Kappa that 99% of the people who have heard them describe them as bright. In my experience no amount of EQ helped. My Massive Audio SK-6 sounded terrible (backed up by the Klippel) no matter what I did. I even tried one in an enclosure as the center channel my my HT and it sounded just as bad there as in the car.

I was short on time when I installed my Dyn342 set so I only got one side done the first day which gave me a ton of time to flip left and right comparing the two comp sets. While I'm sure FR varied from side to side the Dyns were in a different league in all aspects then that ID CTX-65cs. There was enough of a difference that no one in their right mind could not tell the two apart. I just can't imagine it would be possible to use EQ to make the IDs sound as good as the Dyns.

Subs, the sub that stands out the most was the Tempest X. Low end monster, noting above 50-60hz. The MS8 attempted to level it out. I also boosted 10db from 63-80hz and cut 20-50hz -10db. It's a HT sub and it did what it was supposed to do but I don't think there is anything that could be done to make it sound like the 12W6 it replaced or the IB15s that replaced it.

I'm not saying it's totally impossible but each speaker had it's own signature and I can't comprehend how you could make them sound identical. As of late, I've wanted to try a $200 or less set of comps and see how good they can be made to sound but that won't happen until I learn a lot more about tuning and have a processor with more tuning ability.... or maybe the MS8 is the perfect processor to make everything sound the same.

[Ultimateherts]

Originally Posted by BuickGN

What a revelation!


I was short on time when I installed my Dyn342 set so I only got one side done the first day which gave me a ton of time to flip left and right comparing the two comp sets. While I'm sure FR varied from side to side the Dyns were in a different league in all aspects then that ID CTX-65cs. There was enough of a difference that no one in their right mind could not tell the two apart. I just can't imagine it would be possible to use EQ to make the IDs sound as good as the Dyns.

Were you inclined to believe that because they were expensive DYNS or did it actually sound better. Again my gear is all higher end too so I'm in the same boat as you are!

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted by Ultimateherts

Were you inclined to believe that because they were expensive DYNS or did it actually sound better. Again my gear is all higher end too so I'm in the same boat as you are!

No one can experience that large of a difference and have it be in their head. They were expected to sound better, of course, but the actual difference was bigger than I would have expected. I was a bit skeptical that it was possible to get a whole lot better than what I already had.

[Andy Wehmeyer]

Speakers often sound VERY different. Amps and head units? Not so much.

[bikinpunk]

Originally Posted by Andy Wehmeyer

Speakers often sound VERY different. Amps and head units? Not so much.

agreed. that's what the meat of my post was regarding.

however, it doesn't mean that people's opinions can't be swayed by what they see/know about what they're listening to.

[Ultimateherts]

Originally Posted by bikinpunk

agreed. that's what the meat of my post was regarding.

however, it doesn't mean that people's opinions can't be swayed by what they see/know about what they're listening to.

Exactly... To an untrained ear anything is possible like when they did (2) 6.5's and tested average people on the street and most said they thought they were 15's!!!

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted by Ultimateherts

Exactly... To an untrained ear anything is possible like when they did (2) 6.5's and tested average people on the street and most said they thought they were 15's!!!

There could be a million variables in a test like that. Does the person being tested even know what a sub is? Enclosure type the same for both subs? Different speakers sound very different.

[Ultimateherts]

Originally Posted by BuickGN

There could be a million variables in a test like that. Does the person being tested even know what a sub is? Enclosure type the same for both subs? Different speakers sound very different.

I understand that, but to many seeing is believing...

[Andy Wehmeyer]

This is a relatively stupid thread. The reason for blind testing is to isolate a variable. In the case of subjective evaluation of the PERFORMANCE of loudspeakers, amps or what-have-you, the variable we want to isolate is one's perception of sound quality as a function of hearing. After that test, it's credible to say, "listeners prefer the SOUND of speaker A over speaker B. If you're testing whether people will buy the product or whether people "like" the product, then the other variables that may affect one's preference should be added to the test.

Brand is a purchase consideration for many people and I'd guess also influences the "I prefer this product" statement even for people who have no intent to purchase anything, but it's silly to say that brand alone plays a part in sound quality. If I put a JBL logo on a speaker of another brand, would it automatically sound better or worse? Of course not. Would the purchase intent of a person who either loved or hated the brand be affected by the change? Probably, so long as he didn't see me super glue the logo to the grille.

It's equally silly to suggest that all speakers that are made in the same factory are the same or that they are the same because they use the same or similar materials. If I were going to make two pizzas with the same ingredients, would they taste the same? Only if the ingredients were used in exactly the same proportions and the process of making and cooking the pizza were exactly the same.

Different equipment MAY sound different, but only if it sounds different. We can determine this both subjectively and objectively. Thanks to lots of work by Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and others, a correlation between objective and subjective analysis has been proven. If you want to know more about this, read Sean Olive's blog.

[minbari]

Originally Posted by Andy Wehmeyer

This is a relatively stupid thread. The reason for blind testing is to isolate a variable. In the case of subjective evaluation of the PERFORMANCE of loudspeakers, amps or what-have-you, the variable we want to isolate is one's perception of sound quality as a function of hearing. After that test, it's credible to say, "listeners prefer the SOUND of speaker A over speaker B. If you're testing whether people will buy the product or whether people "like" the product, then the other variables that may affect one's preference should be added to the test.

Brand is a purchase consideration for many people and I'd guess also influences the "I prefer this product" statement even for people who have no intent to purchase anything, but it's silly to say that brand alone plays a part in sound quality. If I put a JBL logo on a speaker of another brand, would it automatically sound better or worse? Of course not. Would the purchase intent of a person who either loved or hated the brand be affected by the change? Probably, so long as he didn't see me super glue the logo to the grille.

It's equally silly to suggest that all speakers that are made in the same factory are the same or that they are the same because they use the same or similar materials. If I were going to make two pizzas with the same ingredients, would they taste the same? Only if the ingredients were used in exactly the same proportions and the process of making and cooking the pizza were exactly the same.

Different equipment MAY sound different, but only if it sounds different. We can determine this both subjectively and objectively. Thanks to lots of work by Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and others, a correlation between objective and subjective analysis has been proven. If you want to know more about this, read Sean Olive's blog.

I would argue that if you had two identicle speakers, neither of them made by JBL, but one had a JBL logo on the front and the other had radio shack. people would pick the JBL as sounding better. Perception of quality is just as important as actually quality.

[Niebur3]

^^That is why "blind" testing is relevant. And Andy said the exact same thing you just did, so I don't think he would argue at all....lol!

[trojan fan]

Originally Posted by Andy Wehmeyer

This is a relatively stupid thread.

x2....exactly....pointless and very subjective

[Woosey]

Originally Posted by Niebur3

As someone who conducted a 16 driver BLIND midrange test with several people involved and someone who is about to do a midwoofer test using 6 high-end drivers for the test, this couldn't be more from the truth. In the midrange test, the drivers were vastly different from one another, keeping all other variable to a minimum or non-existent. There were some inexpensive drivers, but non were "uber cheap" coaxials. All were 3-4" midrange. If you would like, PM me your email and I will send you a copy.

Now, FWIW, I have a demo board with 3-amps level matched based on voltage at the output and (as it is much closer than speakers) you are still able to hear a difference between the amps. The same with Head Units. Now, one can argue the difference between amps/HU in a car would be VERY hard to hear...but please don't say there isn't a difference.

I totally agree on that last statement, we also have a demo wall in our shop with the possibility to switch amps without interruptions.. And you could easy tell if the Rf or audio system was playing... Just listening to the Rf was ok, but then switching to the Audio system was like a curtain was removed in front of the speakers.

We also have no prices on our speaker-demo wall, just to let the customer make a decision on sound quality and not on price... Almost every time they choose the higher end of our speakerrange....