![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16 |
Anechoic chamber testing and data analysis are necessary for the designer to determine a base line and give them further data points to help understand what it is that they are doing when they change something.
It is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. Just like the finish is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. If I like black, and the speaker is black, my metal tally gives it another point over the white speaker.
One thing to remember with regards to Axiom, is they use the anechoic chamber quite a bit, but they also follow up with blind listening evaluations.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
Yup. And studies by the likes of Dr. Olive show exactly that there is a correlation to the Anechoic measurements and listener preferences as shown here. ______________________________________________________________ Do High School Students Prefer Neutral/Accurate Loudspeakers? Given that the high school students preferred the higher quality music format (CD over MP3), would their taste for accurate sound reproduction hold true when evaluating different loudspeakers? To test this question, the students participated in a double-blind loudspeaker test where they rated four different loudspeakers on an 11-point preference scale. The preference scale had semantic differentials at every second interval defined as: 1 (really dislike), 3 (dislike), 5 (neutral), 7 (like) and 9 (really like). The relative distances in ratings between pairs of loudspeakers indicated the magnitude of preference: ≥ 2 points represent a strong preference, 1 point a moderate preference and ≤ 0.5 point a slight preference. The four loudspeakers were floor-standing the models (slide 22): Infinity Primus 362 ($500 a pair), Polk Rti10 ($800), Klipsch RF35 ($600), and Martin Logan Vista ($3800). Each loudspeaker was installed on the automated speaker shuffler in Harman International’s Multichannel Listening Lab, which positions each loudspeaker in same the location when the loudspeaker is active. In this way, the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test. Each loudspeaker was level-matched to within 0.1 dB at the primary listening location. Listeners completed a series of four trials where they could compare each of the four loudspeakers reproducing a number of times before rating each loudspeaker on an 11-point preference scale. Two different music programs were used with two observations. At the beginning of each trial, the computer randomly assigned four letters (A,B,C,D) to the loudspeakers. This meant that the loudspeaker ratings in consecutive trials were more or less independent (slide 23). Results: High School Students Prefer More Accurate, Neutral Loudspeakers When averaged across all listeners and programs, there was moderate-strong preference for the Infinity Primus 362 loudspeaker over the other three choices (slide 25). In the results shown in the accompanying slide, as an industry courtesy, the brands of the competitors’ loudspeakers are simply identified as Loudspeakers B,C and D. As a group, the listeners were not able to formulate preferences among the three lower rated loudspeakers B,C, and D, which were all imperfect in different ways. For an untrained listener, sorting out these different types of imperfections and assigning consistent ratings can be a difficult task without practice and training [5]. The individual listener preferences (slide 26) reveal that 13 of the 18 listeners (72%) preferred the Infinity loudspeaker based on their ratings averaged across all programs and trials. When comparing the student's rank ordering of the loudspeakers to those of the trained Harman listeners (slide 27), we see good agreement between the two groups. The one exception is Loudspeaker C, which the trained listeners strongly disliked. The general agreement between trained and untrained listener loudspeaker preferences illustrated in this test is consistent with previous studies where a different set of listeners and loudspeakers were used [5],[6]. As found in the previous study, the trained listeners, on average, rated each loudspeaker about 1.5 preference rating lower than the untrained listeners, and the trained listeners were more discriminating and consistent in their ratings[5],[7]. The comprehensive set of anechoic measurements for each loudspeaker is compared to its preference rating (slide 28). There are clear visual correlations between the set of technical measurements and listeners’ loudspeaker preference ratings. The most preferred loudspeaker (Infinity Primus 362) had the flattest measured on-axis and listening window curves (top two curves), and the smoothest first reflection, sound power and first reflection/sound power directivity index curves (the third, fourth, fifth and sixth curves from the top). The other loudspeaker models tended to deviate from this ideal linear behavior, which resulted in lower preference ratings. Again, this relationship between loudspeaker preference and a linear frequency response is consistent with similar studies conducted by the author and Toole [9],[10]. Finally, sound quality doesn't necessarily cost more money to obtain as illustrated in these experiments. The most accurate and preferred loudspeaker - the Infinity Primus 362 - was also the least expensive loudspeaker in the group at $500 a pair. It doesn't cost any more money to make a loudspeaker sound good, as it costs to make it sound bad. In fact, the least accurate loudspeaker (Loudspeaker C) cost almost 8x more money ($3,800) than the most accurate and preferred model. Sound quality can be achieved by paying close attention to the variables that scientific research says matter, and then applying good engineering design to optimize those variables at every product price point. Conclusions A group of 18 high school students participated in two double-blind listening tests that measured their sound quality preferences for music reproduced in lossy (MP3 @ 128 kbps) and lossless (CD quality) formats, as well as music reproduced through loudspeakers that varied in accuracy. In both tests, the high school students preferred the most accurate option, preferring CD over MP3, and the most accurate loudspeaker over the less accurate options. While this study is still in its early phase, these preliminary results suggest that these teenagers can reliably discriminate among different degradations in sound quality in music reproduction. When given the opportunity to hear and compare different qualities of sound reproduction, the high school students preferred the higher quality, more accurate reproduction over the lower quality choices. The audio industry should not discount the potential opportunities to provide a higher quality audio experience to members of Generation Y. The popular belief that they don’t care about or appreciate sound quality needs to be critically reexamined. This data suggests there are opportunities to sell good sounding audio products to Generation Y as long as the products hit the right features and price points,. The audio industry should also provide these consumers the necessary education and information (i.e. meaningful performance specifications) to identify the good sounding products from the duds. Science can already do this (review slide 28), it’s simply a matter of making the information more widely available. References [1] Joseph Plambeck, “In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back,” New York Times, May 9, 2010. [2] Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, “Could a Pair of Headphones Save the Music Business?” Financial Times, June 12 2010. [3] Robert Capps, “The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine” Wired Magazine, August 24, 2009. [4] Dale Dougherty, “The Sizzling Sound of Music,” O’Reilly Radar, March 1 2009. [5] Nora Young, Full Interview: Jonathan Berger on mp3s and “Sizzle”, CBC Radio , March 24, 2009. [6] The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse, from All Things Considered, NPR Music, December 31, 2009. [5] Sean E. Olive, "Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study," J. AES, Vol. 51, issue 9, pp. 806-825, September 2003. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [6] Sean Olive, “Part 1 - Do Untrained Listeners Prefer the Same Loudspeakers as Untrained Listeners?” Audio Musings, December 26, 2008. [7] Sean Olive, Part 2 - Differences in Performance of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners, Audio Musings, December 27, 2008. [8] Sean Olive, “Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences”, Audio Musings, December 28, 2008. [9] Floyd E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 1" J. AES Vol. 23, issue 4, pp. 227-235, April 1986. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [10] Floyd E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2," J. AES, Vol. 34, Issue 5, pp. 323-248, May 1986. (download for free courtesy of Harman International).
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16 |
I've love to participate in a blind listening test with cool equipment like that one in the study where everything is controlled, level matched, etc.
I also find it funny that some folks don't think a teenager has any preference to sound quality. I think they forget that teenagers usually have better hearing as they have not been exposed to those things in life that cause irreversible hearing loss.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
Looking into the notion of cross-cultural preferences to sound quality is interesting as well. This is a good read. --------------------------------------------------------- Are There Cross-Cultural Preferences in The Quality of Reproduced Sound? Do we need a new user menu where you dial in your nationality to match your taste in sound quality? [click on image to see a larger version]. The field of audio is ripe with myths and unsubstantiated opinions. One of the most enduring opinions is that there are cross-cultural preferences in the sound quality of reproduced sound. Some of the more common cross-cultural assertions I hear repeated among audiophiles, audio reviewers and audio marketing executives include these: 1. Americans prefer more bass than Europeans and Japanese 2. Japanese prefer less bass and more midrange (and listen at lower volumes) 3. Germans prefer brighter sound 4. The British prefer “tighter” or more over-damped bass To my knowledge, these statements are anecdotal, and have not been tested in any rigorous scientific way. Marketing has already given us misguided menus in media players and automotive head units that adjust the equalization based on music genre (e.g.jazz, classical, hip hop, rock, country music, Christian music, and heavy metal, etc). Do we really need another one based on where we were born? What could the “Canadian” sound have in common with a predisposition towards liking cold long winters, hockey, Molson beer, maple syrup, beaver tails, national health care, and the music of KD Lang and Celine Dion? While it is easy to dismiss the importance of cross-cultural preferences, the subject is gaining serious attention from audio manufacturers expanding into new markets like China, India, Russia and South America. Now the same age-old questions are being asked: Are there cross-cultural preferences in the quality of reproduced sound or is good sound universal and transcend cultural differences? Possible Reasons Why Cross-Cultural Preferences in Sound Quality May Exist Very little research in cross-cultural sound quality preferences exists. Nonetheless, here are some proposed reasons why they may exist according to various sources. Language, Dialect, Music Certain spectral balances may compliment and enhance the timbre and intelligibility of different languages and dialects. Similarly the culture’s ethnic music and its instrumentation may be enhanced from certain loudspeakers or EQ. Wouldn’t this enhancement be added to the recording by the artist or the producer when it was mixed? If so, why do we need to duplicate in the playback chain? Is there such a thing as too much enhancement (think Dolly Parton)? Influence of Regional Building Construction and Room Acoustics One explanation for regional tastes for certain types of loudspeakers is related to the design and construction of the region's homes and apartments. This would affect the noise isolation and acoustical properties of the room, and its interaction with the loudspeaker. Massive, rigid plaster walls commonly found in older construction in Europe would provide more noise isolation and less absorption of bass than less massive and rigid walls used in typical American construction today. It is argued that a loudspeaker with less bass might sound better in the European room. It should be pointed out that if the different rooms and loudspeakers combine in ways that in the final analysis produce the same sound, this doesn't really constitute a difference in preferred sound quality. Different means are being used to achieve the same end goal. Fortunately, there are technological solutions for dealing with loudspeaker-room interactions at low frequencies so that decent bass performance can be achieved regardless of the room’s size, dimensions and stiffness of its walls. Influence of Social Norms and Practices Cultural practices and norms may influence how much bass people like, and how loud they listen to their music. For example, Japanese apartment dwellers may prefer to listen to reproduced sound at lower volumes to avoid disturbing their neighbors, which is a serious social infraction. On the other hand, American urban apartment dwellers may be more tolerant of bass and higher playback levels due to better noise isolation from the wall construction. Tolerance to your neighbor's subwoofers and loud music comes more easily if you know they own a handgun. The right to listen to loud music and bass in America is sort of protected under the second amendment (i.e. the right to bear arms). ![smile smile](/boards/images/graemlins/default/smile.gif) Possible Reasons Why Cross-Cultural Preferences May Not Exist or Matter The following arguments do not directly prove that cross-cultural sound quality preferences do not exist. They do provide evidence that the cultural entertainment, broadcast, recording and audio industries have largely decided to ignore cross-cultural preferences. Either they don't believe they exist, or if they do, catering to them doesn't make sense from a business or philosophical viewpoint. Audio Manufacturers: One Product, One Sound Most audio companies sell the same model of product in every country, only changing the language of the packaging/owners manual and the power supply voltage to meet the local requirements. Measurements of loudspeakers from different countries of origin tend to aim towards the same performance target. There is nothing in the objective measurements or the listening test results that indicate a unique sound, voicing or preference that can be attributed to the country of origin whether the loudspeaker is British, German, Canadian, American, French, Italian, Danish or Japanese [1]-[3]. Accurate sound seems to be the common universal attribute that matters most. These studies did not formally or systematically study the culture or race of the listener as a factor in loudspeaker preference, so the definitive study remains to be done. Recording/Film Industries: One Product,One Sound To my knowledge, record companies do not release different mixes of their recordings to satisfy different cultural tastes in sound quality. Fans of Lady Ga Ga apparently equally like (or dislike) her sound on the recordings whether they are in America, Europe or Asia. Similarly, there is no option in the iTunes store where you indicate your nationality or culture before downloading your music. Universal Loudspeaker / Audio Standards in Broadcast If you look at international audio standards for broadcasting (AES, IEC, ITU, EBU), and read the loudspeaker papers written by researchers within the BBC (British), CBC (Canadian) and NHK (Japanese), you will find a common set of performance criteria: flat on-axis response, extended bandwidth in bass and treble, smooth off-axis response and low distortion. At the broadcast level, the playback chain in different countries is not being influenced by cross-cultural preferences in the targeted audience where the content will be heard. Concert Halls and Live Music Performance Acoustical design of concert halls have generally followed well established standards and practices based on research using international listening panels. Qualities such as spatial envelopment, reverberation, clarity and richness of timbre are universally accepted as desirable qualities. The classical and romantic composers specifically wrote their music for these particular acoustics, and to radically alter the acoustics would not well serve the art. The Global Economy In the new global economy, the political, cultural, socioeconomic and technological barriers have been largely removed. As communication between different cultures improves, this will likely influence their attitudes, tastes and perception towards culture, music and sound reproduction. If there are cross-cultural differences in sound quality preferences, it seems likely that in the future these differences will converge, and taste in sound quality will become more homogeneous (hopefully, in a positive way). Audio is science in the service of art This philosophy assumes that music, its performance and recording are part of the art, and the goal of sound reproduction is to accurately reproduce the art. To serve the art, there is no room for cultural preferences or individual tastes in the design of the audio equipment used for reproduction of the art. It is presumed that any cultural sound quality preferences will be encoded in when the music when it is performed and recorded, and doesn’t need to be added again in the playback chain. Here is a parallel analogy in painting: When a Monet art exhibit travels to different countries, the art is not altered, transformed or "improved" to suit the local tastes of the country. Art lovers want to see the original Monet, not a new and improved version with edge enhancements, higher contrast and 3D effects. The same is true of the sound of Vienna Philharmonic when they do a world tour. When they tour Japan, they don’t leave half the bass section at home because the Japanese do not supposedly like bass. So why would we want to tamper with the original sound of the Vienna Philharmonic when playing recordings of them through our audio system? Research in Cross-Cultural Preference in Sound Quality of Recorded and Reproduced Sound In the realm of perception there is an essential pan-human unity, and that most differences among cultures is only a “fine tuning” [4]. To date, very little cross-cultural research has been done in the perception of sound quality. One of the challenges in cross-cultural research is ensuring that the listener instructions, sound quality descriptors and semantic definitions of the scales have the same meaning across cultures. Fortunately, there are methods for removing language from the perceptual task. Multidimensional scaling allows listeners to judge different pairs of sounds based on their similarity. Then the perceptual attributes of the sounds (e.g. timbre or spatial related) can be identified through multivariate statistical methods like principal component analysis. In a study of different guitar timbres, Martens et al. found that native speakers of English, Japanese, Bengali, and Sinhala perceived the same underlying dimensions, but used different adjectives/semantics to describe the attribute [5]. In another study that compared Japanese and English speaking listeners’ perception of music recordings made with four different 5-channel microphone techniques, the authors found a common understanding of three critical dimensions in which the quality of the recordings differed [6]. Recently, we have begun testing cross-cultural sound quality preferences of music reproduced through different loudspeakers, equalizations, and automotive audio systems using American, Japanese and Chinese speaking listeners. While this work is still ongoing, the preliminary results do not show any evidence of cross-cultural preferences among the different groups. Accurate sound reproduction seems to be the common link across the preferences of the different cultures. Conclusions Very little research has been done in cross-cultural preferences in the sound quality of reproduced sound. What we know is that differe Preliminary investigations by the author in preferred spectral balance of music reproduced through loudspeakers have not revealed any significant differences in cross-cultural preferences to date. If cross-cultural preferences exist, the music and audio industries have largely ignored catering to them, instead distributing products that are optimized for a single universal audience. Finally, an important question is whether audio companies should even be catering to these cross-cultural preferences if research eventually finds that they indeed exist? If the audio industry takes an “audio science in the service of art” philosophy where the goal is to faithfully and accurately reproduce the art as the artist intended, the question of cross-cultural preferences becomes moot. If certain cultures don’t like the sound of the art, then that becomes an issue between the artist and the recording producer/record executive - not the audio manufacturer. For more discussion on this topic, please head over to WhatsBestForum. References [1] Floyd E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 1" J. AES Vol. 23, issue 4, pp. 227-235, April 1986. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [2]Floyd E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2," J. AES, Vol. 34, Issue 5, pp. 323-248, May 1986. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [3] Sean E. Olive, "Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study," J. AES, Vol. 51, issue 9, pp. 806-825, September 2003. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [4] John W. Berry, Ype H. Poortinga, Janak Pandey, Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 1 Theory and Method, 2nd edition, Aug. 21, 1996. [5] Martens, William L.; Giragama, Charith N. W.; Herath, Susantha; Wanasinghe, Dishna R.; Sabbir, Alam M.” Relating Multilingual Semantic Scales to a Common Timbre Space - Part II,” presented at the 115th Audio Engineering Convention, preprint 5895 (October 2003). [6] William L. Martens, Sungyoung Kim, Atushi Marui,”Comparison of Japanese and English Language descriptions of piano performances using popular multichannel microphone arrays,” J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 May ;123 (5):3690
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,471
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,471 |
It's hard for me to know which parts of that post were your contributions and which parts were the copied article. Can I offer some constructive criticism helpful advice? A little bit of work with formatting such a big post goes a long way and is much appreciated. For me, it made the difference on whether I was able to read the whole thing (I was not).
Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,471
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,471 |
You know, like editors do in magazines, put your ideas in italics in brackets [like this].
And separate the sections with line spacing and bold headlines.
That way, I bet you get a lot more people reading your post.
Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
That's why I added the line separation, not to confuse the two. If you want a more comprehensive look at the studies in proper format they can be found here with a variety of other excellent readings. http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
Ahh, it's much nicer to read in the blog format. Plus, if I don't want to read it now I don't have to scroll past it to get to more forum ports.
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
You will also have the ability to click on the links present within the study with the blog format that is missing on the forum post. BTW, the studies from the link are not isolated, you have to search (scroll) down for them. While you are there, you should check out all the history. A wealth of information is contained within that blog.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
![](/boards/images/icons/default/book.gif) Re: I just ordered a pair of M3 v3 Bookshelf Speakers
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 463
devotee
|
devotee
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 463 |
Yup. And studies by the likes of Dr. Olive show exactly that there is a correlation to the Anechoic measurements and listener preferences as shown here. ______________________________________________________________ Do High School Students Prefer Neutral/Accurate Loudspeakers? Given that the high school students preferred the higher quality music format (CD over MP3), would their taste for accurate sound reproduction hold true when evaluating different loudspeakers? To test this question, the students participated in a double-blind loudspeaker test where they rated four different loudspeakers on an 11-point preference scale. The preference scale had semantic differentials at every second interval defined as: 1 (really dislike), 3 (dislike), 5 (neutral), 7 (like) and 9 (really like). The relative distances in ratings between pairs of loudspeakers indicated the magnitude of preference: ≥ 2 points represent a strong preference, 1 point a moderate preference and ≤ 0.5 point a slight preference. The four loudspeakers were floor-standing the models (slide 22): Infinity Primus 362 ($500 a pair), Polk Rti10 ($800), Klipsch RF35 ($600), and Martin Logan Vista ($3800). Each loudspeaker was installed on the automated speaker shuffler in Harman International’s Multichannel Listening Lab, which positions each loudspeaker in same the location when the loudspeaker is active. In this way, the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test. Each loudspeaker was level-matched to within 0.1 dB at the primary listening location. Listeners completed a series of four trials where they could compare each of the four loudspeakers reproducing a number of times before rating each loudspeaker on an 11-point preference scale. Two different music programs were used with two observations. At the beginning of each trial, the computer randomly assigned four letters (A,B,C,D) to the loudspeakers. This meant that the loudspeaker ratings in consecutive trials were more or less independent (slide 23). Results: High School Students Prefer More Accurate, Neutral Loudspeakers When averaged across all listeners and programs, there was moderate-strong preference for the Infinity Primus 362 loudspeaker over the other three choices (slide 25). In the results shown in the accompanying slide, as an industry courtesy, the brands of the competitors’ loudspeakers are simply identified as Loudspeakers B,C and D. As a group, the listeners were not able to formulate preferences among the three lower rated loudspeakers B,C, and D, which were all imperfect in different ways. For an untrained listener, sorting out these different types of imperfections and assigning consistent ratings can be a difficult task without practice and training [5]. The individual listener preferences (slide 26) reveal that 13 of the 18 listeners (72%) preferred the Infinity loudspeaker based on their ratings averaged across all programs and trials. When comparing the student's rank ordering of the loudspeakers to those of the trained Harman listeners (slide 27), we see good agreement between the two groups. The one exception is Loudspeaker C, which the trained listeners strongly disliked. The general agreement between trained and untrained listener loudspeaker preferences illustrated in this test is consistent with previous studies where a different set of listeners and loudspeakers were used [5],[6]. As found in the previous study, the trained listeners, on average, rated each loudspeaker about 1.5 preference rating lower than the untrained listeners, and the trained listeners were more discriminating and consistent in their ratings[5],[7]. The comprehensive set of anechoic measurements for each loudspeaker is compared to its preference rating (slide 28). There are clear visual correlations between the set of technical measurements and listeners’ loudspeaker preference ratings. The most preferred loudspeaker (Infinity Primus 362) had the flattest measured on-axis and listening window curves (top two curves), and the smoothest first reflection, sound power and first reflection/sound power directivity index curves (the third, fourth, fifth and sixth curves from the top). The other loudspeaker models tended to deviate from this ideal linear behavior, which resulted in lower preference ratings. Again, this relationship between loudspeaker preference and a linear frequency response is consistent with similar studies conducted by the author and Toole [9],[10]. Finally, sound quality doesn't necessarily cost more money to obtain as illustrated in these experiments. The most accurate and preferred loudspeaker - the Infinity Primus 362 - was also the least expensive loudspeaker in the group at $500 a pair. It doesn't cost any more money to make a loudspeaker sound good, as it costs to make it sound bad. In fact, the least accurate loudspeaker (Loudspeaker C) cost almost 8x more money ($3,800) than the most accurate and preferred model. Sound quality can be achieved by paying close attention to the variables that scientific research says matter, and then applying good engineering design to optimize those variables at every product price point. Conclusions A group of 18 high school students participated in two double-blind listening tests that measured their sound quality preferences for music reproduced in lossy (MP3 @ 128 kbps) and lossless (CD quality) formats, as well as music reproduced through loudspeakers that varied in accuracy. In both tests, the high school students preferred the most accurate option, preferring CD over MP3, and the most accurate loudspeaker over the less accurate options. While this study is still in its early phase, these preliminary results suggest that these teenagers can reliably discriminate among different degradations in sound quality in music reproduction. When given the opportunity to hear and compare different qualities of sound reproduction, the high school students preferred the higher quality, more accurate reproduction over the lower quality choices. The audio industry should not discount the potential opportunities to provide a higher quality audio experience to members of Generation Y. The popular belief that they don’t care about or appreciate sound quality needs to be critically reexamined. This data suggests there are opportunities to sell good sounding audio products to Generation Y as long as the products hit the right features and price points,. The audio industry should also provide these consumers the necessary education and information (i.e. meaningful performance specifications) to identify the good sounding products from the duds. Science can already do this (review slide 28), it’s simply a matter of making the information more widely available. References [1] Joseph Plambeck, “In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back,” New York Times, May 9, 2010. [2] Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, “Could a Pair of Headphones Save the Music Business?” Financial Times, June 12 2010. [3] Robert Capps, “The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine” Wired Magazine, August 24, 2009. [4] Dale Dougherty, “The Sizzling Sound of Music,” O’Reilly Radar, March 1 2009. [5] Nora Young, Full Interview: Jonathan Berger on mp3s and “Sizzle”, CBC Radio , March 24, 2009. [6] The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse, from All Things Considered, NPR Music, December 31, 2009. [5] Sean E. Olive, "Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study," J. AES, Vol. 51, issue 9, pp. 806-825, September 2003. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [6] Sean Olive, “Part 1 - Do Untrained Listeners Prefer the Same Loudspeakers as Untrained Listeners?” Audio Musings, December 26, 2008. [7] Sean Olive, Part 2 - Differences in Performance of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners, Audio Musings, December 27, 2008. [8] Sean Olive, “Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences”, Audio Musings, December 28, 2008. [9] Floyd E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 1" J. AES Vol. 23, issue 4, pp. 227-235, April 1986. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). [10] Floyd E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2," J. AES, Vol. 34, Issue 5, pp. 323-248, May 1986. (download for free courtesy of Harman International). One of the most interesting articles I have read so far.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,958
Posts442,560
Members15,628
|
Most Online2,699 Aug 8th, 2024
|
|
0 members (),
2,259
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|