Audiophile Neuroscience

I would love to hear a subjective description of these "some pretty strange sounds." ..some things are probably best left unheard !🤫

IIRC JA makes the point that beyond 90 deg the (his) measurement method is inherently unreliable for off axis FR, which is why he doesn't offer it. Perhaps something to do with the acoustic center of the driver not matching the center of mass...I would have to search for it.... Regarding treble roll off, if it does exist in the far off axis response in the upper treble region, in this region mostly the direct sound on axis response dominates room curves anyway, at least as measured by Toole. The tweeter is directional and treble indirect imperfections off axis maximally and easily absorbed.

May I ask do you have any references/articles/sources that deal with the specific issues you have raised that speakers matching the blades directivity plots are dull sounding in typical living rooms? I note you referenced erinsaudiocorner but that guy raved about the measurements, "Incredible on-axis linearity and off-axis is top notch not just horizontally but vertically as well" and he also raved about the sound quality. Kal also raved about the speakers in Stereophile and JA also gave high praise for the measurements for directivity, "The contour lines in this graph are commendably even up to 80° off-axis". A quick google search hit on ASR and even they seem impressed with the (reported) measurements and rave about the sound (possibly because the measurements are so good?).

One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective Your use of a measurement to define "better" is subjective unless you have already *objectively* established that the measure in question is always "better" or desirable . But you are describing your preferred "flavor" and that's ok Happy to agree to disagree Ricardo, all good 🙂

There are some concerns for me here, for example on one hand you say you cannot extrapolate from measurements how it will actually sound and will inevitably fail in the real world, but on the other hand it seems you can extrapolate from measurements how it will actually sound in real rooms in the real world. I am struggling a little with the compatibility of those statements. Sorry, if I have misunderstood. I do (hopefully) understand a little bit about the reasoning behind dispersion patterns and interaction with room acoustics. That is a matter of science. I am still wary of looking at one measurement, like polar plot of dispersion/radiation and confidently predicting how it will sound in any given room or type of room. I am of course interested if there is an uneven and discontinuous pattern which might make the reflected sound voiced very differently to the direct sound. Now, what about the speaker deemed to have great on axis as well as off axis response - lets call that (perhaps) a dispersion pattern wide in lower frequencies and smoothly "narrowing down towards higher frequencies.". I am not at all sure that is "best" but prima facie, I would say okay lets run with that, given wavelengths and driver sizes and practical limitations, laws of physics etc I now have concerns about your conclusions that: There are issues talking about RT60's in small spaces. lets move past that for now. Lets leave DSP out for now.... The characteristics of the speaker also aside for now, the room will need acoustic treatment for any speaker you put in it. You can measure the room but you already know (in some cases where the geometry is more predictable) where the room resonant modes are going to be. You know where the higher frequency first reflections will be. You treat accordingly and as much as needed (for me, by listening). You know where diffraction/diffusers might help. You know if you stuff the room full of a thousand pillows, it will suck up high frequencies etc etc. You know that placing the speaker in a corner will likely not be a good position and there will be other more suitable positions to try. same goes for listening position. So now you take your speaker with a supposedly "great" measured on axis and off axis response which is predictable and you place it into your room. As said, you know where the room will likely need acoustic treatment. That treatment may be different for some speakers. Different but not difficult more or less. If the room is "showing signs of overdamping in the bass and lowers mids", fix the room. If you can't fix the room, and many cannot for obvious reasons, I predict it won't matter what speaker you place in it - you will hear the room to more or less extent. Enter the DSP discussion (but its not my thing)

When I read a review I look for relative strengths and weaknesses in the product. "Comparisons" are useful in looking at relative strengths and weaknesses but as already noted, comparisons have their practical limitations and come in different flavors. Nonetheless, If it is all one way, offering only strengths or weaknesses, it suggests bias of one form or another. Personally, in that one sided situation then, I am more interested in the scathing reviews. I want to hear the worst that can be said about this product before I buy it, like "If you want to travel to the Australian outback, buy a Landrover....if you want to reliably get back home again, buy a Landcruiser". Speaking relative strengths and weaknesses, the review itself should mention the limitations of the review. I realize these are not to the same standards of academic reviews but obvious limitations and potential biases should be addressed. "This manufacturer is a sponsor on this website but...",... "I don't think this review did the product full justice for x reason", ..etc

"better" is subjective person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is better than B* = subjective Ricardo you seem to have very subjective views 😇🙄 (*Typo corrected) person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is taller than B = objective person A is better than B = subjective Taller is better = subjective One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective The last statement is an exercise in circular reasoning unless you have already established that the measure is always "better" or desirable (as determined by who?) in one direction or scale, eg like higher cure rates for cancer. Even then, qualifications may be in order, like the potential cure may kill you for other reasons.

yep its subjective "better" is subjective person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is better than A = subjective Ricardo you seem to have very subjective views 😇🙄

yep

Its subjective Its subjective

measurements may or may not tell you what you think they do - if accurate they tell you no more or less than the measure itself. The rest is interpretation, sometimes valid sometimes not

according to your subjective bias...otherwise its enslaving 😆

All dogmas can be enslaving. tastes can and do change. High end audio pushes the boundaries just as those architects you admire explored unfamiliar possibilities

Possibly a bias thang happenin' here 😅

Hi Ricardo, yep we disagree as we have discussed previously. Even objective measurements of performance will at times involve subjective choices and often involve subjective interpretations and conclusions. I don't understand "intransmissible/unsharable view or opinion, the latter is universal".

Yeh, similar to the food critic, I think a skilled subjective audio reviewer can conjure up a picture which others can relate to from their own experience. That reviewer is constantly making inherent comparisons based on years of experience. I absolutely agree with this but think that it is also possible to accommodate some variances of tastes. If a food critic says the spice balance was a little too hot for their liking and the meat served on the blue side (rare), it still tells me something useful.I don't have to share his/her tastes exactly but do agree, the more you know about their tastes and preferences the better.

I was wondering about that. It perhaps is not representative or generalizable to all/many circumstances of pattern recognition but rather a special circumstance. As with language, if you are not brought up with hearing the sounds, it is difficult to acquire certain phonemes or types of sounds later on

very basically memory can be viewed As types Explicit memory Implicit memory As stages Sensory memory (echoic for sound, iconic for vision) Short-term memory Long-term memory As processes Encoding Storage Retrieval Unsurprisingly, memory for "sound systems" has not been well studied AFAIK so we draw from other models like music recognition/memory, voice recognition/memory, familiar sounds recognition/memory. Either way, Echoic sensory memory only lasts seconds, so is not relevant to long term memory recall. Long term memory involved in familiar voices has been well studied and generally seen as a type of explicit episodic memory event involving pattern recognition based on various different cues or voice characteristics. One study showed that just two words were sufficient to recognize a familiar voice. Interestingly, the cues involved are not set in concrete and do not show a linear relationship - any one of a number of cues can be operational at different times. Like other perceptual patterns like facial recognition/memory, higher cognitive processing is involved sorting the different cues that may be on offer - top down processing. Remember (<--pun), lots of other stuff can interfere with recall as everyone knows. One interesting thing from voice studies is that hearing similar sounding voices can actually impair the ability to recognize/recall the familiar voice in question (voice mimicry studies). The top down processing gets muddled. I find this easy to understand how ABX perceptual tests can get quickly confusing. Perhaps why I hate eyeglasses testing done by optometrists. Even the order that voices are presented can affect the perceived similarity or differences between them. It seems the perceptual set of cues used for the first voice can potentially interfere with what is available for the next. Suffice to say, it is an entirely different proposition to recognize a very familiar voice presented to you in real time than to recall the sound of a DAC heard months ago.

100%

Well, maybe so if judging by my espresso machine ! Then again I recently replaced it with a Flow control valve machine (replacing the need for a lever arm that one could mechanically slow the rise-time to affect brew time) and shot timer - all totally safe! Not sure where the avatar idea came from. I think the shape of the Vivids are quite aesthetically pleasing (many don't) with its beautiful contours. I find the human form perhaps the pinnacle of beauty - maybe a bit biased as to gender, ahem! - a nod to Emerson although quick to point out that he found the beauty of the female was not limited to the physical form, as appealing as it is to artists. In a different life I ran an art nude photography group. The "Beauty in so many forms" (humans, speakers, music) tag is perhaps an homage to one of my heroes, Richard Feynman. I think it was maybe in the 1981 BBC interview about "The pleasure of finding out things", where he explained beauty at different levels. He mentioned he had an artist friend who 'criticized' him for not being able to 'see' the beauty of a flower for what it was, distracted by the scientific technical analysis of a flower. Feynman was puzzled by this as he pointed out that the sensuous beauty of the colors, shape, texture, fragrance etc were not at all lost on him and understanding the inner beauty of how the flower worked only enhanced his overall appreciation of its beauty.

I was really just searching for further comment on the measurement profile of the Blades in relation to supposed difficulties matching them to certain rooms. the https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_blade2_meta/erinsaudiocorner review measurements were offered (not by you) to support this difficulty The review concluded: Exceptional sound quality and objective measurements Incredible on-axis linearity and off-axis is top notch not just horizontally but vertically as well There was no discussion or interpretation regarding directivity or dispersion patterns in relation to any special difficulties. One thing I learned from JA over the years of reading his measurement and listening reviews was to be very careful interpreting any one speaker measurement to predict how it will sound .This includes polar dispersion plots and in room "balance" or voicing of that speaker. He did talk about difficulty predicting effects of discontinuous or uneven radiation patterns especially at crossover regions where driver size and wavelength size may not be optimal. Even more difficult when considering on axis vs off axis voicing of perceived in-room response. I am not saying that the frequency balance contained in reflected sound is not important or that speakers will have a perfectly uniform on and off axis dispersion, smoothly increasing directivity with increasing frequency. So what do you make of the dispersion plots for the Blades when matched to your room and listening experience? Are they well "voiced" to match most rooms or difficult? OTOH do they measure extremely well and, as with any other well designed speaker, room interactions must be controlled and individually tailored?

I think I have figured it out - anyone who is fatter than me is fat, anyone who is skinnier than me is skinny, and anyone who drinks more than me is an alcoholic ! Oh if you're espresso making setup costs more than mine, it is expensive. (the one with a pull down lever that if the group head spits out under pressure the lever arm flies up uncontrolled and could kill you if it strikes you in the head!. Now that IS crazy !

Okay, as mentioned from other threads I think it is fair and reasonable to ask for comparisons, just as it is fair and reasonable to present what findings and experiences are at hand without comparisons made - both styles can be interesting, informative, and entertaining One expects relevant comparisons from a "professional reviewer" or "professional critic" *IF* they offer a ranking or hierarchy of some kind based on whatever criteria. X is better than Y or different from Y because. I tend to gravitate to reviews that do have critical comparisons because strengths and weaknesses are relative. It is interesting how one reviewer might stack it as compared to another. I will also look for polar opposite reviews for the same reason and especially the detractors. Paradoxically, that might be an example of positive bias - I look for the worst criticisms and make sure I have considered them. Realistically no reviewer can cover all the comparisons anyway! Even if they could there is potential for subjective biases such that you would be wise to get a second (or more) opinion , even from doctors. Everybody has their style, approach, and ways of looking at facts and formulating opinions. It also depends on where you derive "value" and reviews without comparisons are useful if done well. I value for example the subjective review of say a food critic I have come to feel mirrors my own findings upon sampling the same cuisine and is able to communicate descriptively in a way that I find meaningful, if it conjures up that experience. There does not *have* to be a specific comparison made, like restaurant A serves better food than restaurant B, the comparison with other chefs or restaurants is implied in the absolute descriptions coming from someone experienced in tasting good cuisine . I use this to narrow down *my comparisons of choice* on what might otherwise be an endless list. IMHO its good to choose to sample, compare and contrast, a variety of styles from different reviewers. The choice to get a second (review) opinion may complement or contradict. Choices abound and that is a good thing!

I have had many similar experiences over the years. Looking back I can't recall a single one where the amazed and astonished person asked if the system "measured well". Go figure ! One or two asked about price....to which I swiftly reply, er....Oh wait to you hear this track!!

I think it is fair and reasonable to ask for comparisons, just as it is fair and reasonable to present what findings and experiences are at hand - just as you do. It is interesting, informative, and entertaining Things change a little if one is a "professional reviewer" or "professional critic" and *IF* they offer a ranking or hierarchy of some kind based on whatever criteria. It depends on where you derive "value" but I value for example the subjective review of say a food critic I have come to feel mirrors my own findings upon sampling the same cuisine and is able to communicate descriptively in a way that I find meaningful, if it conjures up that experience. I use this to narrow down *my comparisons of choice* on what might otherwise be an endless list. One also has the *choice* to get a second (review) opinion that caters to their needs. Choices abound!