I got it. This is a reply to the several comments above. For my having to spend time on all three separately would have created several strings of argument
ad infinitum. According to some here sentimental about club music and it's kind, A's mixdown of whatever artificially produced sound; B's mixdown of whatever so on; and C's mixdown of whatever so on, all the way to Z's mixdown of whatever electronica and headbanging made for teens will be henceforth our standard.
In other words, according to the referred-to "literature" which is nothing but opinion, not a scientific study - and which does not cover at all what I was talking about - a common speaker made for a common audience of untrained high school students can be the standard. Your "literature" not only ignores in its entirety the subject of the discussion, but covers exactly what I find unscientific - comparing a non-standard component to another non-standard component by people who were indoctrinated by the testers beforehand: "
After running Robert and Sam through a few trials of listener training using our software "How to Listen",.." In other words, AFTER the teens were told what to choose and HOW to choose it. Scientific isn't it? Moreover, the speakers were grossly off-base sounding compared the Harman's reference, as I am well-aware of the silly tests as well as many other far better run tests that happen to be scientific. However, unlike Harman's test which were meant to establish itself as the standard - its own standard as the standard - a HUGE logical fallacy to begin with; there are many other tests throughout the history of the art that attempted to establish at least a modicum of scientific integrity. By the self-same words of the author, it is clear that Harman made no attempt at all.
Then Harman's writer continues with...more indoctrination for what the untrained listeners
should expect:
"We talked about
differences in the tastes and performances of trained versus untrained listeners, and how Harman is able to accurately
predict subjective preference ratings of loudspeakers (emphasis on PREDICT is mine, and that too, is the operative word.)
Which winds up with Harman's tester's need to self-validate their preconceptions to achieve the results they wanted beforehand and knew what results would happen...
...with the conclusions reached BEFORE the test had begun! "
and how Harman is able to accurately predict subjective preference ratings of loudspeakers."
There's that PREDICT again. Scientific testing does not predict. Scientific testing is off-hand. If any manufacturer would be able to predict preferences of its targeted audience, than every manufacturer's product would be a best seller, a standard by which others could not logically exist. I predict this:
Harman's testing was meant for MARKETING purposes - to sell the self-same speakers to its high school and college dorm audiences.
If Harman's testing and hypotheses were correct to begin with and would confirm their case in the REAL WORLD, than Harman's loudspeakers would have become the reference STANDARD in studios and the homes of well-heeled audiophiles worldwide. Harman's problem is my case, and I have nothing but respect for the company and its enviable legacy: Harman's speakers are not the reference standard worldwide, not even in one country or one district or even for one of the top studios I am familiar with - though it is possible that some "studios" in someone's mother's basement or garage may use them. Harman's is not the reference standard in the homes of well known audiophiles and reviewers I happen to know personally - and more likely of those
you happen to know.
For your information, not that it should have any weight for this discussion, we had similar discussions after a long dinner and drinking night with Kevin Voeck's, Harman's speaker designer. Accordingly, I'm not exactly new to this scene or the subject. And no, I did not drive myself home those nights. I've known Kevin for over three decades, way before his company was bought by Harman, and he happens to be one of the finest designers of conventional speakers out there with an enviable history, as well as a good-natured, mature, funny, and solid man.
Normally neither Kev nor I are especially sensitive to, or ignorant about, marketing hype in which pseudo-scientific test are used to bolster the hype. Business is business, Harman's business IS, business.
Next.
All steaks taste the same; all suits are made the same, a Casio is the same as a Patek Philippe...anything YOU choose or LIKE on Facebook will henceforth be the standard. In other words, there is no standard at all and there is no reason at all to even discuss a standard. Meaning that some of the respondents for whatever reasons having little to do with logic, missed my entire point - which is MY fault for failing to communicate better. Meaning. I had failed to keep up to standards reasonably expected of me.
In our new alternate reality, what genuine trained musicians play, had practiced on every day for many hours for many years throughout their lives: real instruments that have a known sound and sonic signature, should not be the reference any longer. Rather, we employ synthesized electronic sounds through any brand of synthesizer, electronic drums played through anyone's choice of earbud or Harman speaker, and we shall henceforth call that the reference no matter how recorded, which, after all, matters not, since there is no recorder or recording technology that is a reference either.
What has now become THE reference is an earbud or headset that you happen to LIKE on Facebook. Whatever you
prefer then, is the reference. If you like hamburgers and I like the best steak at Peter Luger (a standard by the way) matters not. The burger at Burger King or MacDonalds, whichever, shall henceforth be a standard. Anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. So get to the bottom line according to the LIKEs on FACEBOOK...
There you have the real reference: BEATS by Doctor What?
The preference that someone likes club music does not make someone an expert on real music (and yes, I also like some club music because I had spent years playing in clubs - though I don't call it that), yet I know the difference between what I hear in a club, jazz or disco, and what I hear at Carnegie Hall and the Concertgebuow; places which apparently many untrained listeners who think their own earbud is the standard are wholly unfamiliar with.
Philosophy has NOTHING to do with this discussion or the
scientific requirement to secure repeatable measurements - what science is based on: independent testing of theory. In other words, if I can measure Y under controlled conditions, Y measured elsewhere under controlled condition should measure the same. A number of you deny this reality and the need for standards, because it's inconvenient to address the necessity, permitting yourself the liberty to avoid dealing with it, and permitting yourself the liberty to argue among yourselves about Gizmo's earbud being more accurate than Kudo's earbud. I say accurate to what measure and which standard?
You say it doesn't matter.
And that is precisely what those who dispute what I wrote earlier cannot answer and would prefer one-upsmanship in
lieu of providing evidence or logic to support his argument. Disco music, philosophy, or the mic feed has nothing to do with it. A known standard has EVERYTHING to do with it.
To make it clear once more: I never said the mic feed is
a or
the reference - unless you would take my words out of context about what role the mic feed and other equipment in the testing scheme have. I said that LIVE music is the reference period... and next, as live heard through controlled systems and testing methods - represented FOR TESTING PURPOSES by the studio monitor and the engineer who sets up the mic feed test itself. In other words, by an experienced person familiar with both the sound of the live because he was there to hear it and has heard it many times before, meaning he is familiar with it; and as the live is played back directly - meaning not from a recording; and for comparison the music from the recording of the live. In other words, I am clearly not speaking about Harman's testing of high school students taken off the street at random with a few minutes of indoctrination, er, I meant, "training."
Does anyone reading this seriously think that an untrained teen who buys his stuff at Best Buy or eBay for his college dorm is the same as a highly-educated, highly experienced with many kinds of gear and technology writer, musician, and possibly scientist?
No one can play back the LIVE in the real world. To play back live is an oxymoron. We play back recordings. Those recordings are the comparisons TO, the live. As in appraising, you have the subject and the comparisons that are adjusted in economic terms to the subject. The standard is the subject, the comparisons are the variables - they will be different than the subject.
With respect to SPOOK's comment:
"A lot of music is NEVER recorded by a band together at one time but over many months in different places. There is no magic moment when one can hear it live. With processors and overdubs added later and assembled by the recording engineer with the imput of the band. So where are we to find the "ruler"?"
I am left speechless. OK, not really, I'll give it a good 'ol boy "heave ho."
1. What you say is correct. 2. What you said however, has nothing to do with what I wrote about live musicians playing in real time on acoustic instruments in a controlled room/setting. Lastly, I can't add anything to what you wrote but a friendly recommendation that you attend a few chamber orchestra recitals and world class halls where large orchestras play. Or even to go hear jug bands, jazz bands, and "unplugged" groups playing popular music using genuine acoustic instruments at a small jazz club.
Jelt2359's intolerance and hateful comments however would require ignoring as he tells me to leave the kitchen because it is too hot in it. Sorry Jelt, you don't own the kitchen, you're not even the chef! I can say this though Jelt: The kitchen may be too hot for you perhaps, for nothing aggravates the low information voter more than the facts, and, accordingly, I wonder if Jelt, so offended by the facts, might consider taking his own advice? None of his comments BTW, and obviously, addressed mine.