2. misc-audio
  3. 157436-20253

In Defense of Audiophiles, Bose, Pass, Toole and Science

I don’t know why I look at Audio Science Reviews equipment reviews, they usually make me bang my head against my desk. The claims they make of being scientific is pretty half-baked. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate measurements, and the time it takes to conduct them, along with insights into the causes, but judging all electronics based on 40+ year old measurements which have not really become closer to explaining human perception and enjoyment, they claim to be objective scientists. They are not. Let me tell you some of the people who are:

  1. Bose
  2. Harman
  3. Nelson Pass
  4. Floyd Toole


This may look like a weird list, but here is what all these have in common: They strive to link together human perception and enjoyment of a product to measurements. Each have taken a decidedly different, but very successful approach. They’ve each asked the question differently. I don’t always agree with the resulting products, but I can’t deny that their approach is market based and scientific.


Floyd Toole’s writing on room tuning, frequency response and EQ combines exact measurements with human perception, and as big a scientist as he is he remains skeptical of measurements, and with good reasons.


The process Nelson Pass uses is exactly right. His hypothesis is that a certain type of distortion, along with other important qualities, are what make for a great sounding amp, and lets face it, the process, and his effectiveness cannot be denied as not being scientific or financially successful. Far more scientific than designing or buying an amp based on THD% at 1 watt alone.


Bose is also very very scientific, but they come at the problem differently. Their question is: What is the least expensive to manufacture product we can make given what most consumers actually want to hear?" Does it work? They have 8,000 employees and approximately $4B in sales per Forbes:


https://www.forbes.com/companies/bose/#1926b3a81c46


Honestly, I don’t know how your average Bose product would measure, but you don’t get to these numbers without science. Assuming they measure poorly, doesn’t that mean measurements are all wrong?


The work Harman has done in getting listening panels together, and trying out different prototypes while adhering to previous science is also noteworthy. Most notably and recently with their testing of speaker dispersion which has resulted in the tweeter wave guides in the latest Revel speakers. They move science forward with each experiment, and then put that out into their products.


Regardless of the camp you fall into, crusty old measurements, perception measurements or individual iconoclast, we also must account for person to person variability. It’s been shown for instance that most people have poor sensitivity to phase shifts in speakers (like me), but if you are THAT person who has severe sensitivity to it, then all those studies don’t mean a thing.


My point is, let’s not define science as being purely in the domain of an oscilloscope. Science is defined by those who push the boundaries forward, and add to our understanding of human perception as well as electron behavior through a semi-conductor and air pressure in a room. If it’s frozen in 40 year old measurements, it’s not science, it's the worship of a dead icon.


Best,


E

erik_squires

Showing 18 responses by erik_squires

erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
I am still surprised by how many judge science by whether it is used for their own preferences or not.

You cannot judge science by whether it is used to further an end you particularly want to have happen or not. You judge it by whether the following occur:

  • investment in research
  • discovery
  • hypothesis testing.

Having goals that suit you does not make it science, or lack of science.
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
Could not agree more, but isn’t that what Toole, Olive and co have been doing at Harman for the past 30 years or so?

It seems I am defending a point I’ve never made, which is that no one does audio science.


Of course big corps are using science to drive product development, but we in the consumer side should not assume that a handful of tests alone should determine the desirability of a product. The only reason to buy a DAC based on measurements alone is if you are building test equipment, or using a DAC to drive motors.


If you plan on listening to a DAC at home this is foolish and lacks the scientific merit you think it does.



Best,
E

erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
However, loudspeaker testing and analysis has come a very long way with the advent of computer software and can be deemed a true science.


My point was never that science does not occur. My point was that judging products by an oscilloscope alone, when you have not done the work of measuring user preference, or listening for yourself, is _not_ science. It’s a mechanical process of measurement, or quality assurance at best.

When you are designing a piece of equipment to go in a car, air conditioner or computer, yes, that's all you need. Set the parameters, set your tolerances, and attempt to achieve those values for the least amount of money.

Judging a product for human consumption on that basis alone is where the term science is misapplied, unless you have previously worked to establish those were desirable. 


Best,
E
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
If memory serves, and this is a long time ago, CR also tested Allison, and gave them a very high rating, after which Roy Allison criticized their testing and evaluation methodologies.


erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
I’d say Bose’s science is going to be more like mini-oreos. It’s junk food, but you can’t deny they spent hundreds of thousands taste testing them, and ramping up for production.

Like it or not, Bose does NOTHING without extensive measurements, and listening panels as well as quality control. They may not be producing the product you or I would buy, they are producing the products that will sell the most to the widest audience for the most money. That is effective science, as well as marketing and advertisement.

Truthfully, I know of no audio company who does as much science and R&D as Bose.


Best,

E
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
I'll throw in a measurement which may go the wrong way.  Linearity of a DAC.  The linearity is basically that as the signal level changes (and this can be sample to sample) is the output correctly matching the input?  Much like the linearity of a transistor or tube. 

The measurements would indicate that a more linear DAC is a better DAC, right?  Well, what if a little compression actually sounds better?  For instance, as the notes decay, and we are left with the acoustics of the room, it's quite possible we prefer these ambient cues to be exaggerated so we can better hear them.  I think I do, though I've not confirmed this via measurements. 

It is merely engineering or QA to ascribe value based purely on best linearity.  It is science to compare different linearity DAC's or signals and see which is preferred by listeners. 

Does this help others see the gap I'm talking about?

Best,
E
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
I am not sure what kind of science and measurements Bose are using to build their speakers, but I find most of them absolutely amazing in terms of size/price/sound ratio.


And you just answered your own question, and why people buy them.
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
The Concorde was a fabulous aircraft. Unfortunately it kept crashing.


To be clear, only one crashed.  The remaining fleet flew off the edge of the world and were never found. Same happened to my uncle's family.  That flat earth is a killer.
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
In my opinion, one of the concepts Amar Bose got right was this: The spectral content and amount of energy in the reverberant field matters.

His measurements of typical ratios of direct to reflected sound in a concert hall led to the Bose 901, which has one front-firing driver and nine rear-firing ones.


Yep, but to be fair, Bose product development has moved on greatly from this point in time. They have practically reinvented themselves, and while desktop/kitchen top devices, sound bars and headphones may not be for the audiophile's target audience, there's no doubt that they keep designing and delivering products which sell at a premium markup.
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
Another pair of mistakes quasi-scientists make are the following two, related points:

  • Equating absence of evidence as being equal to evidence of absence, something no beginning researcher or statistician would do
  • Believing that we know everything already, something constantly disproved in all branches of science and engineering.
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
In summary, again:

"Don’t call buying audio equipment scientific just because you hooked it up to a scope. It isn’t scientific at all, it’s just your personal, and very emotional, buying choices."

In fact, buying from a scope's output is irrational, unless that scope's pleasure brings you joy.

Does this mean every a
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
Toole advocates ...

@austinstereo

I really don’t mean to turn this into a pro/con for each person/brand, or hero worship of anyone I mentioned. I don’t agree with everything anyone says. What I wanted to say was that science is more than a number you read off a gauge.

But, to talk about this particular practice, in an R&D setting, the statement Toole made is completely correct, and one used by many renown speaker makers. In particular it is a great way to find out what is audible and what is not. What is bias vs. what works.  Roger Rusell wrote about this in his site re McIntosh speaker development and he makes a strong case for it.

In the context of a showroom looking to buy your living room pair, no, this is not how I’d do it.


Best,

E
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
Look, I have never bought Bose, but NO ONE spends more money on R&D, including measurements and consumer preference than Bose, which they pursue in a very organized and scientific fashion.

I think what many are missing can be summarized:

  • Science includes measuring psycho acoustics and user preferences
  • Science may not lead to the same preferences you have
  • Science can be used to come up with a product you personally dislike

Regardless of your taste or desire to own Bose or Pass, you cannot deny their organized methodology based on experimentation, measurement and discovery.  That. Is. Science.


What is not scientific is recommending a product for humans to buy based on ancient measurements. To make a car analogy, buying based on MPG doesn't tell you anything about your enjoyment or comfort while driving, but those ARE measurable too.  Just like the food analogy introduced above, there are plenty of food scientists who work every day in figuring out how to make a tastier cookie, and only some of their work involves the chemistry lab.

And that's my problem with ASR.  They stop at the chemistry lab and ignore the mouth feel, crunchiness, and taste of blends to the point where they have no correlation between the two, unlike a food scientist who would constantly be connecting the two.


Best,

E
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
Hey d2girls always a pleasure.

I am active on ASR but I am trying to be less active. It’s hard because it’s one of the nicer communities that exist in this hobby

Seems like that to me!!

I disagree with you about their measurements and claim that they are unscientific. They are more scientific then Nelson Pass.

I think you missed my whole point. Here's the thing, if you define "scientific" as "measurement driven" then you are right, ASR is "scientific."  However, science does not end at the oscilloscope, nor should oscilloscope measurements ascribe value or desirability. That's kind of my point. 

Pass is involved very much in research and development.  He has a target sound, behavior and distortion profile. His approach is very much to experiment, listen and measure. He's doing real life science. It may not be to achieve the targets the folks at ASR think he should, but he's actually pushing the state of the art in matching electronic devices to human experience.  That's science.

If I measure things defined 40 years ago, and give those measurements power to define how I spend money, well, unless I'm buying paint, or lubricant, that is not really scientific. 
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
My impression of Toole is he’s basically your garden variety old school gum flapper.


Toole is a giant and our ability to buy and enjoy the best in audio reproduction rests on the shoulders of men like him.  I don't agree with everything he says, but his engineering skills are top notch and his willingness to pass that to others is priceless.
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
There was a post at the bottom of one of the reviews: listening impressions?


Which, IMHO they are doing wrong and with bias.

You should listen before measurement, or in the absence of knowing what those measurements are. If you measure, analyze and listen, in that order, you are actually creating confirmation bias. 
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
@mikelavigne


I generally agree with you, but as I've been looking into driver measurements I think there's a big divide between what the top level scientists and engineers use for speakers vs. what's available for the general press. In particular, measurements of IM distortion never make it to the consumer rags, but they seem quite prevalent in the professional literature, and I think you correctly state how limiting these static, one number measurements are.

Best,

E
erik_squires OP
15,657 posts
 
how your average Bose product would measure, but you don’t get to these numbers without science. Assuming they measure poorly, doesn’t that mean measurements are all wrong?


To clarify, I meant that I don't know how Bose products would measure given the popular, magazine style measurements we are all familiar with.  I'm sure Bose has their own set of standards and targets.
More to discover