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
erik_squires OP
15,643 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.
mikelavigne
2,142 posts
 
science serves music reproduction, but does not and cannot define it.

it’s up to human hearing to pass the final approval.

the best designers are most able to determine what tools science offers that get’s them the closest to the sonic vision they have.

when i read about measurements of my personal favorite pieces of hifi gear there is typically a slight disconnect between the surface evidence of apparent measurements and the intent preference of the designer.

and a major problem with measurements is that they use static states and points in time and are not able to reproduce relevant measurements for a dynamically changing result like music. our ears are trained by our lifetimes to do a much better job of reality checking.

products like Bose are just not relevant to what we do here. not much to learn from that process. 
erik_squires OP
15,643 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
petg60
1,486 posts
 
Hi,
i enjoyed some part of it, feels a bit old fashioned, but shows some involvement and has an authoritative name. Single ended triodes will suffer and the majors will prove supremacy. No it is not a conspiracy theory but any conclusion for recommendation based only on measurements will definitely have its fans. Why should a listening perception be justified or otherwise, has to be proven on paper (or a measurement device)? What it would change?
There was a post at the bottom of one of the reviews: listening impressions?
erik_squires OP
15,643 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. 
More to discover