Here we go again...Not knowing what you don't know vs Measurements. a pseudo-sarcastic rant.

[welldun]

Hello folks,
It seems like this hobby and Al Pacino's line from The Godfather 3 ("Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.") have a lot in common.

What I'm getting at is that for the most part, many consumers (and their spouses) are perfectly happy with the default settings on their gear, be it a tv, or a sound system. Many are oblivious to how much better it could look or sound if only they spent some time tweaking.
But this really doesn't apply to many of the folks reading this. We are tinkerers! And therefore, despite things seeming fine, we can't help but go back and look under the hood to see what else we can get out of it.
In my case, I was perfectly fine enjoying the most recent calibration of my 7.4.4 setup... But a few forum chats and Youtube videos later, here I am once again tinkering with the system

Over the years I've heard "trust your ears" as advice when setting up audio. Good advice, but one problem with this advice is that without a reference point, I might not know if I'm hearing the correct thing to begin with. I'm sure that if someone with a "trained ear" listened to the system, they could point out the good and the bad in the system, but to the average joe most systems (regardless of accuracy) will probably sound OK.

So along comes REW, and now I'm doing measurements and saying "AHA" when I see a big peak or a big dip in the graph. This discovery is bittersweet because it introduces yet another issue... according to experts, our ears and brain don't process sound the same way that a microphone does (since the brain can filter out certain reflections etc.), while the microphone picks up everything which the REW graph then converts into a visual representation of it. And the problem with this is that supposedly not every peak or dip on the graph is audible to our ears/brain. Therefore, something like a very narrow but deep dip on the graph can sometimes be ignored... or can it??
I mean, even if you ignore some of those things, there are others that one should address, but how do we know which to address and more importantly where and how do we do it??
So then they say, use a mirror to find the first reflection points and treat those... But then someone like Dr. Floyd Toole says don't treat all of the early reflections! So now it seems like we need both a good set of trained ears as well as an expert at interpreting graphs... the problem just doubled!

So back the forums I go, looking for who has a good walkthrough on how to best interpret these graphs so that we can better understand what to ignore and what to treat and how.

I know I'm not the first to go through this, and in the forums I see a lot of pretty rooms with different types of treatment mounted in what seems like the same "standard" locations, this makes me wonder... how much of this is real vs placebo?

Anyways, that's my rant. Hopefully at some point I will either wave the white flag and surrender under the notion of "it is what it is!" and enjoy the system as is, OR keep tinkering and learning with the help of others.

 

[JStewart]

Nice rant @welldun

Lots of most excellent points

Anyways, that's my rant. Hopefully at some point I will either wave the white flag and surrender under the notion of "it is what it is!" and enjoy the system as is, OR keep tinkering and learning with the help of others.

Or grab a copy of Dr. Toole’s book, if you don’t already have it, and join the similarly afflicted IN THIS THREAD.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Well... it is what it is! There ya go! lol

Toole does use the term "circle of confusion" that could be used here as well. Do read Toole's book... it's really good info. He admits more testing needs to be done on some things, and it's a fact he has not tested all things.

One thing I believe everyone is in agreement with is that the low-end (below 500Hz) needs to be dealt with, and at least that portion of the range can be measured and equalized without getting any grief from anyone. The portion above 500Hz is where you have more controversy. I say try to be honest with yourself and try everything you can afford to try and go with what you believe sounds best.

As for treatments... read the book again... more preferred no treatment, but it wasn't like all that many more, just more. He further says it depends on a lot of things, and if you can try them all, try them all.

I can tell you that my tinkering never ends, and I pretty much always like what I hear after tinkering. It's not necessarily any better, but it's all still good.

 

[welldun]

Thanks fellas! I'm definitely going to grab a copy of Dr. Toole's book, and I will probably also pick up a copy of Paul McGowan's (from PS Audio) book and CD "The Audiophile's Guide" which he recently released. Paul has a series of videos on Youtube where he answers audio related questions that are mailed to him from around the globe. This new book and companion CD are supposed to help the reader properly set up their 2 channel setup. Paul is one of only a few who have the Infinity IRS-V speaker system which he claims are the best speakers ever made. They are supposed to release some speakers in the future to rival the IRS-V... must be nice!

Here is a link to the site where he answers a question about the new book and CD https://www.psaudio.com/askpaul/the-audiophiles-guide-cd/ or you can find many of his videos on Youtube.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I'll have to check those out. Seems like I've read some of his articles on their website a few years back maybe.

 

[Grarea]

nice rant.
Excellent timing for me.
I am just starting out and I like to think i will be happy with a chunky improvement on what i have.
However, I am concerned about getting dragged down with you all.
I need to keep reading comments like yours to try and top me swallow diving down into the rabbit hole.

I can see it being difficult knowing where the 'that'll do' point is.
I think mine will be a financial and time ceiling.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I'm definitely going to grab a copy of Dr. Toole's book, and I will probably also pick up a copy of Paul McGowan's

Polar opposites. One is a PhD who has spent a lifetime debunking audiophile myths with controlled, repeatable, perceptual listening tests from across the globe, the other a audiophile businessman who spent a lifetime creating them. Both nice folks though.
YMMV.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...udio-noise-harvester-ac-cleaner-review.14122/

 

[FargateOne]

@Sonnie I completly understand what you say here. I read Toole, thousands of blog pages here and elsewhere, made a lot of DIY broadband absorbtion panels and some bass trap, trusted me hears , trusted REW measurements, changed manytimes speakers placement and sub etc. and still searching for the nirvana of SS&I...we are doomed...

 

[AJ Soundfield]

still searching for the nirvana of SS&I.

What does that sound like for all the (stereo aka SS&I) recording constructs you weren't present for?

 

[welldun]

Polar opposites. One is a PhD who has spent a lifetime debunking audiophile myths with controlled, repeatable, perceptual listening tests from across the globe, the other a audiophile businessman who spent a lifetime creating them. Both nice folks though.
YMMV.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...udio-noise-harvester-ac-cleaner-review.14122/

I agree, two different approaches by them. My interest in the PS Audio book is driven by the claim that the book and CD will give specific points (notes in the music cd, etc.) that are supposed to let you know if you are close to the mark or way off. I'll probably look for some review of this combo before I buy it, but if it's legit, I would consider it another tool that will help get me better understand what to listen for and calibrate for.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

My interest in the PS Audio book is driven by the claim that the book and CD will give specific points (notes in the music cd, etc.) that are supposed to let you know if you are close to the mark or way off.

Ah, I see. So kind of like Tooles book and the corresponding Harman "How to Listen" ear training (and Klippel, Philips, etc) I linked previously, but minus the science, global peer review and double blind listening test verification across many groups.
Cool.
Should be a fun read.

cheers

 

[welldun]

With regards to Dr. Toole's book, are there any benefits to getting the hardcopy book vs a digital version?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Trees would like you better w the digital.
Can also zoom on graphics etc

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Copy and paste is much easier with the digital version, no scissors required and you save on glue too.

 

[Coy Ramsey]

I need to get Toole's book as well but right now I'm wading through Mark Waldrep's (Dr Aix) 850 page Music and Audio book. Another character in the world of objective measurements vs subjective "golden" ears. Fortunately, or not, with my old and damaged hearing this hobby doesn't cost me nearly as much as the people who claim to hear differences in wires, resistors, capacitors, connectors, and even speaker brands.

 

[highstream]

welldn, two thoughts come to mind re your discussion:
- Trust your ears (feelings) is good advice. If you don’t like it, it’s no good (for you). If you can hear it and it bothers you, then either live with or fix it.

- You appear to have accepted an assumption, for some an ideological one, that contradicts trust your ears: frequency response needs to be flat

 

[what bass]

Polar opposites. One is a PhD who has spent a lifetime debunking audiophile myths with controlled, repeatable, perceptual listening tests from across the globe, the other a audiophile businessman who spent a lifetime creating them.

I too have watched many of Paul's videos. I enjoy them and if I'm ever in Boulder Co. I plan on stopping in to hear those Infinity RS V's. Most, well, all of his gear is pretty much out of my price range though.

 

[what bass]

With regards to Dr. Toole's book, are there any benefits to getting the hardcopy book vs a digital version?

The hard copy looks better on your bookcase with other tomes of knowledge on your expensive hobby that most no one else who visits will find interest in.

Digital copy is great but I've lost too many files due to hard drive crashes, sd cards going blank and various other problems created by the marvelous wonder that is technology.

 

[ELOJR]

I've been in the audiophile game since I was a teen, meaning way too many decades, and have watched it grow from home brew gear to outrageously priced equipment and (ofttimes) equally outrageous claims.

I guess I straddle the line between the ears-only and measurments-rule camps. I recently read Toole's book and it gave me some valuable insights and (re)opended up my thinking re:measurements...especially after years of reading purple prose of the "we don't need no stinking measurements" variety.

I believe that both play an important role: a point with which Floyd agrees...despite many hobbyist's claim to the contrary (most of whom, I suspect, have not read his book closely and completely).

Onward into the future!

 

[highstream]

I haven’t read Toole, but agree measurements can help inform, provide useful information about what one hears, and help in making adjustments that please one’s ears. The catch is if the music is not flat, recordings are not engineered flat, speakers are not designed to be flat, and human hearing is not flat, then trying to arbitrarily impose flat on a room doesn't seem to make much sense.

I have also not read Paul McGowan’s guide, although his company gives great customer service and I have gotten some useful specific product advice from him over the years, and his video clips are often helpful (I used to have a couple of Directstream dacs and still have a couple of his power cords and a P15 regenerator). I have noticed, though, some very critical reviews of the book on Amazon. Speaking generally, in addition to being a self-taught engineer — no college — he’s very much a salesman, one who likes to promote as an expert things about which he knows and understands little, including unfortunately in a sense himself (to wit, his autobiography). And if one reads his daily posts, some of his knowledgeable readers frequently take exception to many of his claims and arguments. So, caveat emptor.

 

[welldun]

welldn, two thoughts come to mind re your discussion:
- Trust your ears (feelings) is good advice. If you don’t like it, it’s no good (for you). If you can hear it and it bothers you, then either live with or fix it.

- You appear to have accepted an assumption, for some an ideological one, that contradicts trust your ears: frequency response needs to be flat

Like I said, I was perfectly fine with things as they are, the system sounds as good as it ever has. I actually added the Harman Curve to my last calibration (and others in the past). I've tried it both ways, flat and with the curve, and I prefer the curve. Here are two graphs to illustrate the two frequency responses for the subs at my main listening position. I used a program called MSO get the most consistent seat to seat response at my 5 seats (two rows). This graph just illustrates the MLP but the other seats are all pretty much the same within 3-4dB.

My next challenge is getting the area between 80Hz and 500Hz to be equally as good as the graphs attached. Right now I'm reviewing the Spectogram view in REW using the Wavelet view settings that Matthew Poes suggested to me a while back. With this view I'm comparing areas of the FR and looking for Room Modes and Reflections to correct, but it is all a work in progress. I calibrate, listen, measure, listen again.... leave it for a week or months, then just when I thought I was out... it pulls me back in!

 

[Johnnie]

Hello folks,
It seems like this hobby and Al Pacino's line from The Godfather 3 ("Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.") have a lot in common.

What I'm getting at is that for the most part, many consumers (and their spouses) are perfectly happy with the default settings on their gear, be it a tv, or a sound system. Many are oblivious to how much better it could look or sound if only they spent some time tweaking.
But this really doesn't apply to many of the folks reading this. We are tinkerers! And therefore, despite things seeming fine, we can't help but go back and look under the hood to see what else we can get out of it.
In my case, I was perfectly fine enjoying the most recent calibration of my 7.4.4 setup... But a few forum chats and Youtube videos later, here I am once again tinkering with the system

Over the years I've heard "trust your ears" as advice when setting up audio. Good advice, but one problem with this advice is that without a reference point, I might not know if I'm hearing the correct thing to begin with. I'm sure that if someone with a "trained ear" listened to the system, they could point out the good and the bad in the system, but to the average joe most systems (regardless of accuracy) will probably sound OK.

So along comes REW, and now I'm doing measurements and saying "AHA" when I see a big peak or a big dip in the graph. This discovery is bittersweet because it introduces yet another issue... according to experts, our ears and brain don't process sound the same way that a microphone does (since the brain can filter out certain reflections etc.), while the microphone picks up everything which the REW graph then converts into a visual representation of it. And the problem with this is that supposedly not every peak or dip on the graph is audible to our ears/brain. Therefore, something like a very narrow but deep dip on the graph can sometimes be ignored... or can it??
I mean, even if you ignore some of those things, there are others that one should address, but how do we know which to address and more importantly where and how do we do it??
So then they say, use a mirror to find the first reflection points and treat those... But then someone like Dr. Floyd Toole says don't treat all of the early reflections! So now it seems like we need both a good set of trained ears as well as an expert at interpreting graphs... the problem just doubled!

So back the forums I go, looking for who has a good walkthrough on how to best interpret these graphs so that we can better understand what to ignore and what to treat and how.

I know I'm not the first to go through this, and in the forums I see a lot of pretty rooms with different types of treatment mounted in what seems like the same "standard" locations, this makes me wonder... how much of this is real vs placebo?

Anyways, that's my rant. Hopefully at some point I will either wave the white flag and surrender under the notion of "it is what it is!" and enjoy the system as is, OR keep tinkering and learning with the help of others.

After being in audio for 40 or 50 years I thought I finally got to a place with my system with Audyssey tinkering and running REW scans for five years but now you have me thinking... I need to make some acoustic bass and ceiling panels, thanks lol

 

[huskydriver]

I have a comment about Floyd Toole and Paul McGowan. Please don't take this wrong, but Paul McGowan and Floyd Toole are different animals. I have seen many of Paul's video's and he presents many legitimate points, but some of his ideas and products have little to no science behind them. In fact, some of the products that he sells are quite suspect. He does appear to be sincere and affable.

I have been to a few lectures by Floyd Toole and have always found him science based and "down to earth" regarding acoustical information, etc. He has never said "this is the way it should be done", at least in my limited experience. He attempts to think "outside of the box" and presents concepts that are based on double-blinded, randomized, controlled studies. That being said, I have chosen not to follow all of his acoustical recommendations, because I found that some of his ideas did not agree with my preferences. During many of his studies, educated listeners had different preferences regarding speakers, acoustical treatment, etc.

Also, I do believe measurements are important (I use REW myself), but in the end, you must like what you hear! I rarely post on forums, but I follow many of them and would like to thank "almost" everyone for their thoughtful comments and helpful information. Have a great day.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I have a comment about Floyd Toole and Paul McGowan. Please don't take this wrong, but Paul McGowan and Floyd Toole are different animals. I have seen many of Paul's video's and he presents many legitimate points, but some of his ideas and products have little to no science behind them. In fact, some of the products that he sells are quite suspect. He does appear to be sincere and affable.

I have been to a few lectures by Floyd Toole and have always found him science based and "down to earth" regarding acoustical information, etc. He has never said "this is the way it should be done", at least in my limited experience. He attempts to think "outside of the box" and presents concepts that are based on double-blinded, randomized, controlled studies. That being said, I have chosen not to follow all of his acoustical recommendations, because I found that some of his ideas did not agree with my preferences. During many of his studies, educated listeners had different preferences regarding speakers, acoustical treatment, etc.

Also, I do believe measurements are important (I use REW myself), but in the end, you must like what you hear! I rarely post on forums, but I follow many of them and would like to thank "almost" everyone for their thoughtful comments and helpful information. Have a great day.

Welcome to AV NIRVANA and thanks for posting.

The good thing is we do have our own ears and get to choose what we like best. As you say, even in Toole's blind testing, not everyone liked the same thing. Some may have liked one thing more than the other, but that doesn't make it a mandate... it just makes it another choice.

 

[ddude003]

As @Sonnie says "we do have our own ears" is often a missed point... We all have different fingerprints, retina and iris as well as ears... As a consequence we all hear differently... Doubt it... Cup your hands behind your ears as you listen to your favorite bit of music... If you think your room makes a difference what about your ears... Ok, just grab the tip of your ear and pull it forward or back a half inch... Still a discernible difference yea...

Just wondering... How does Toole or anyone scientifically account for this variation... What is the shape of his ears...