Golden Ears.

So when they cant be arsed, do you reccomend spanking your monkey?

 

:lol:

Michael.

 

What do you think Lowrider?

Are these possible?

Maybe they are influence by the brand name and the price tag.

Or perhaps they are influence by the books/magazines they read. Their friends or internet forums inform them certain designs should be better then others.

Big macho american loudspeakers cannot surely sound the same as small plasticky looking japs stuff right?

 

Not to mention the huge influence of the room they hear them in. Most people's opinions of speakers are formed from hearing them often with different source and amp and in different rooms and different setups.

Antonio,

You only need to look at the difference in comments on the CdA forum between when people heard the SF Stradivari at the Meridian and then later at the Marriot. People can prattle on all they like about the different sources and the different amplification but the overwhelmingly dominant factor was the room and positioning. FWIW, when they were at the Marriot the room and/or their positioning was causing a horrible resonance at around 50Hz.

Michael.

 

Cammon guys, you are not telling me that all speakers sound the same...

Michael,

I didnt notice that resonance at the Marriot, only at Le Meridien...

 

Nobody's saying that at all . Speakers are without a doubt the element of a hifi system with the greatest variation in how they sound. The test showed that aswell.

However, the test also showed that in the same (blind) conditions a large number of trained and untrained listeners all (on average) ranked the speakers in the same order of preference - what's more, the same relative order of preference (ie speakers P and I close to each other near the top and speaker M distinctly worse than all the others).

To me it's a somewhat surprising result at it would seem to indicate there's a certain level of absolute sound quality

Michael.

 

OK, I will put it another way, do you think we all prefer the same speakers...

 

Lowrider,
I have no idea. That is why I find the article interesting. When I first read the abstract I have the impression the author suggest that most people do seem to have an idea what they like from loudspeakers when the comparison are fair. The result do not seems to be distorted by training or should we say indoctrination by peers as to what is the ideal. You could also put it the other way round. It seems people who are not exposed to hifi also agrees with experts that some loudspeakers design are better then others. Therefore, it is good news for designers of loudspeakers since there are finally real evidence that certain designs are better then others.

 

Sorry Wolfy, it indicates nothing like that, and that is where the interpretation of the test is so totally flawed.

All it shows to me is that a large number of everyday people were able to identify the best setup - although some had no idea and some would have scored in the reverse.

So maybe we should all audition components by consensus? Oh I forgot, it's how it sounds to you that matters

 

My interpretation is that with a lot of switching, people get confused, or earing adjusts, and in the end only major frequency or level differences are identified...

 

I am looking at it from this way. When a group of people listen to 2 performances of a Violin concerto they says the more famous violinist was better then the college final year student as the soloist. I wonder if it could be that they are simply influenced by the fame of the well-known violinist.

So I ask 2 groups of people to compare them again. They are given 2 CDs without knowing the identity of the lead violinists. There is a greater consensus among the experts' make up by professional musicians that the famous violinist is better. This group is a small panel. However, when we ask the general public made up mostly of people with no classical music training there is also a consensus that the famous violinist is better. However, this time the consensus is not as great. Consensus is more obvious if more people are asked to join in the test.

With this we could conclude that classical music has substances beyond just accurate techniques. Even untrained ears think so. If the comparisons were not done by blind tests I would not be as convinced. We could never be sure they are not just dazzle by name of the famous soloist.

Maybe since you have read the whole article you could interpret the findings better.

 

I think we're now just going around in circles and neither side is going to convince the other so I'm out of this thread

Michael.

 

Michealab,

That certainly kills the thread stone dead.
Maybe I should stop before some people start behaving like this baby. :baby: