I’m running my rig with some loudness only for psychoacoustic compensation. BTW; my sweet spot:
View attachment 140631
Domestic tranquility has a new mascot.
The universal fragrance is "open a window!"
I’m running my rig with some loudness only for psychoacoustic compensation. BTW; my sweet spot:
View attachment 140631
I turned off half way through his first straw man.
However I'd disagree strongly with the previous poster, all that matters is that listener likes the sound, how that is arrived at, by measurement of or sheer luck, is moot. The pragmatic amongst us will take a measurement lead approach, others may like to feel like they've had their hand held by their dealer as they undertook a fantastical voyage of discovery leading ulimately to a beautiful climax where they opened their wallet, most likely, for whatever the dealer had in stock...
It's just hifi
Domestic tranquility has a new mascot.
The universal fragrance is "open a window!"
I am not judging the person nor what else he does and has done. I am merely reacting to the video itself.
And no he isn't questioning properly conducted measurements. Nor does he give examples.
It is just a video addressing that speaker measurements have to be done properly. You can do this in various ways. There are good and less good and improper ways.
He indeed isn't explaining why measurements don't matter to him because he says properly made measurements matter. He also says that (obviously for acoustical measurements) they don't tell the whole story. Certainly not to the general public and measurements made by the general public say nothing unless those are accompanied with essential info.
Why should he show a blind test in a video that broadly addresses why measurements matter and that on the web you can find good and poor ones.
I have not looked at his many other videos and frankly I don't care because I don't watch any (watched Amir's and a few others to see what they say)
Only adressing this particular video about this particular subject where he tries to convey this isn't an easy task.
The comment regarding blind testing was just in regards to previous videos of his, some that have been posted here. I just found it amusing that one who claims to have studied and researched neuroscience would shrug off the veracity of blind testing or not participate in a proper one with the claims he has made. Blinded experimentation is the bread-and-butter of research in studies of the brain and cognition, and it is this very discipline that pioneered this type of testing methodology in other scientific fields in the first place- its use psychoacoustics included. I wonder if he ever told his neuroscience professors that we don't know enough about how the human brain works so he was going to conveniently dismiss a measurement in a paper with no justification. Or that he was going to conveniently dismiss a common metric in his field because a peer had used poor metrological methods in the past causing them to make ignorant conclusions.
Having watched the video in a relative vacuum, I think your overall opinion on it is relatively fair and there is not much to say there. The title of the video is "... Hi-Fi Measurements that SHOULD Matter to you !". I suppose titles of videos can be like titles of books, but at the end of the day he still failed to explain what measurements should matter to me or even his target audience. Even if he happened to be correct about a particular measurement (of the quality thereof) not mattering, or mattering very little compared to another with respect to a certain goal, a broken clock is still right twice a day. One mustn't use a broken clock to tell time.
I’d say that measurements is all that matters in the room in which the speakers are placed, however not only the direct path, add in the first, second and third reflection. After all, the hearing and biological DSP seem fully capable of doing some pretty sophisticated 3D-mapping, EQ:ing and spatiotemporal correction seemingly effortless and by default.
IMO.
Having watched the video in a relative vacuum, I think your overall opinion on it is relatively fair and there is not much to say there.
Is this guy ever gonna settle on a hairstyle?
You know he spent more time thinking about how he looks in the video than the content. He just needs to zoom in on random objects in his room and he can be like Darko.Is this guy ever gonna settle on a hairstyle?
I guess all the subjectivists reviewers are going to post stuff like this as they feel their turf is threatened. Completely information-free video showing such shallow knowledge of audio research, measurements, or even what some of us are doing. I had watched some of Jay's videos in the past. It is clear he hasn't read a single review here, watch any of my videos or look at my background or he would change his tune.
Most run much longer because some people like to hear themselves ramble and assume that others will be equally impressed.
Very nice idea!I wish we'd stop talking about youtubers who do this, it's so boring.
I used not to like hearing myself too but over the years it got fine. You need the burn in time.I’m the opposite; I can’t stand hearing myself on camera.
Nope. Post the measurements of said room and then we can talk.Not necessarily. This depends on room, speaker concept, how listening setup i.e. speakers and listener locations are adjusted and of course personal tolerance; how high peaks sound unnatural and bass notes too difficult to follow. For example EQ at any frequency has not been mandatory in our house, but possible locations for traditional boxed speakers are quite limited.
Are we talking about the same video ?
The video was not about an opinion of a product nor its sound. There was no technical info presented.
He also did not say science is an opinion and values measurements. He questions how people interpret measurements and how the measurements come about.
Man still has his hair.Is this guy ever gonna settle on a hairstyle?
Now I watched all of this, and what I see here is an attempt to justify and give credibility to this yt-channel as a review site, by trying to tell the story that any measurements not done by a (large) manufacturer can not be trusted, and claims that even if the measurements are valid, those measurements do not say anything about the sound of the product that could be useful for a customer.
Both statements are wrong.
The Danish magazine High Fidelity did measurements of speakers using a combination of near-field and gating some 40 years ago. They showed useful information about the performance of the speakers tested. Today, there are several reviewers that do quite accurate measurements of speakers, and some of them now use instrumentation (like the klippel - that Amir uses) that is capable of giving more accurate and more extensive information than those typical measurements performed in an anechoic chamber.
You do not measure a subwoofer by elevating it 100ft (30m) up into the air - as suggested in the video. On data-bass there is an extensive database of measured subwoofers, and a description of how those measurements are performed. Before that, there was one from Finland, who measured many subwoofers, and now there are several reviewers and review sites that does similar tests. Those tests give useful information to customers, because they tell how low a subwoofer can play, and how loud it can do that. This is information that most customers will be able to take advantage of, the technical knowledge required to understand this is well within reach for a typical enthusiast.
The speaker measurements of the type that are presented on this site - performed using the Klippel - presents lots of information about the sound of a speaker - including how it will "sound in your room." They can also give a good indication to whether a speaker design is flawed.
Interpretation of speaker measurements can be difficult, it requires knowledge. But that does not mean those measurements are of no value.
How to interpret speaker measurements, and what the most ideal response looks like, is still debated. But to have any meaningful contribution to that debate, it is necessary to first understand the basics - how measurements are done, what the mean.
In the video, it is claimed that audio as science is lagging far behind other areas. For some parts of the audio world, that may be true. For me, and many others, we see significant progress - we now have sonically transparent amplification and signal processing at very reasonable cost, there has been some quite interesting advancements in loudspeaker technology in later years, we know how to fix room acoustics. This, combined, gives a potential for very significant improvements in sound quality.
I have watched a few of them as I research other products I am testing. In that context, I am pretty confident he has zero use for measurements. In this video, he attempts to elevate measurements to something that only likes of NRC, Paradigm, Apex can do and so you should ignore anything from the rest of us. Not once does he acknowledge that professionally done measurements exist online that are actually superior to all the examples he gave by those companies. I am pretty sure he is aware of us and is attempting to downplay who or what we are.That was my point. I'm not going to watch his other videos though.