5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY) (04/23/85)
Andrew, what you were attempting to perform was a comparison of two sources using your ears as a metric -- a noteworthy task. As a scientist, you must know the importance of a controlled experiment. You demonstrated this by matching levels, using the same recordings, and comparing via the same system -- so far, well done. The main problem lies, however, in the playback system, especially the speakers. Recording engineers and producers perform critical listening tests as part of their jobs -- ABSOLUTELY NO ONE (THAT I KNOW OF) IN THE INDUSTRY USES BOSE 901 SPEAKERS AS MONITORS. The Bose 901 loudspeakers, simply, do not perform at the level required for a monitor speaker. (This is not to say that one has to spend a mint for speakers that image well.) In my judgement, to perform a meaningful listening test comparing the D/A and filtering methodologies of two CD players, speakers of known, justifyable integrity should be used, or the appropriate disclaimers noted. (The technical integrity of the Bose was more than adequately challenged by Herb Chong in his recent posting.) However, Andrew, if you feel that the Bose are adequate for you listening tests the burden of proof is on you as the experimenter (you should know this -- for shame). Since I know of no such documentation, it looks as though you're going to have a busy day in the lab. Craig Dory AT&T Bell Laboratories
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/23/85)
> However, Andrew, if you feel that the Bose are adequate for you listening > tests the burden of proof is on you as the experimenter (you should know > this -- for shame). Since I know of no such documentation, it looks as > though you're going to have a busy day in the lab. I have never claimed that it is impossible for anyone to hear the difference between the two particular CD players tested under any circumstances. I merely made the claim that five specific individuals heard no differences under specific, carefully-documented conditions. I completely agree that the test we conducted does not prove that using different speakers would reveal differences we could not formerly here. In fact, in order to prove that, we would have to try at least one of every make and model of loudspeaker in existence -- an impossible task! In part, our experiment was performed in an attempt to suggest that others should try similar experiments in different circumstances: a positive result using the same two models of CD players and different ancillary equipment would be interesting indeed. Of course, an experiment that produces a positive result in this sort of test must be controlled far more carefully than one that produces a negative result, so that we can be sure that the difference is real, and not just apparent. For instance, our test was single-blind. If one of us had been able to hear a difference between the CD players, we would have had to devise a double-blind test to make sure that the listeners were not being biased by the knowledge of which machine was which. And so on, and so on. By the way, I can think of lots of reasons people might not want to use Bose 901's as studio monitors. The most obvious one is that the equalizer ahead of the power amp makes it impossible to mix 901's with anything else without getting more amplifiers. Also, monitor speakers tend to be excessively bright, to compensate for the high-frequency hearing loss that comes from years of 90-db mixdowns.
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (04/24/85)
Well, you've all convinced me that Bose 901s are not ideal monitors. Good for you. I still liked Andrew's posting, it was well written and informative EVEN IF its only technical revalation was the proper use of cats during A-B comparison. I could go on complianing about manners and such but you all either have gotten the point, or you won't. Peter B
peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) (04/25/85)
Please, enough already!!
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/25/85)
> Well, you've all convinced me that Bose 901s are not ideal monitors. Good > for you. > I still liked Andrew's posting, it was well written and informative EVEN IF > its only technical revalation was the proper use of cats during A-B comparison. Thanks for the compliment, but it's only fair to point out that Steve Bellovin (ulysses!smb) actually posted the original article. The writing was a cooperative effort, with Steve doing the lion's share.
daveb@rtech.ARPA (Dave Brower) (04/26/85)
> Also, monitor speakers tend to be excessively bright, to compensate > for the high-frequency hearing loss that comes from years of 90-db > mixdowns. Now hold on there! By and large *good* studio monitor systems are not ``excessively bright'' in and of themselves. They tend to be more carefully controlled than most listening environments because: o The room can be acoustically controlled. o Environmental EQ tends to be done to specified curves, e.g., -3dB/octave > 2|4|8 kHz. Nor do I think that hearing loss has a lot to do with the percieved brilliance of playback in control rooms. I observe that professionals who are afraid of hearing loss (for good reason!) are VERY carefull about protecting the instrument of their livlihood. I offer the following theories for control room brightness: o The quiet room lets you hear more real high end since there is less masking environmental noise. o The sources are first & second generation, and really have high end to hear. One of the things to observe in the progress from neophyte to aural hedonist is that pilgrims tend to want more high end DESPITE THEIR HEARING and musical taste. Perhaps this is because: o Everybody ``knows'' thats where the ``interesting'' parts of the sound are. o They want to hear the ``interesting'' parts of the sound. Now can we have some more A/B testing between CD players? ----- JBL bookshelf speakers != *good* monitor systems -- "That way looks nice. But then again, so does that way. I guess it depends on where your're trying to go." - Scarecrow in 'The Wizard of Oz.' {amdahl, sun}!rtech!daveb {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!daveb
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (04/29/85)
In article <320@rtech.ARPA> daveb@rtech.ARPA (Dave Brower) writes: >> Also, monitor speakers tend to be excessively bright, to compensate >> for the high-frequency hearing loss that comes from years of 90-db >> mixdowns. > >Now hold on there! > >By and large *good* studio monitor systems are not ``excessively >bright'' in and of themselves. They tend to be more carefully >controlled than most listening environments because: the key here is GOOD. does anyone know how many studios still use Altec Lansings and old JBL's for monitoring? Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
mohan@uscvax.UUCP (Rakesh Mohan) (05/01/85)
> the key here is GOOD. does anyone know how many studios still use > Altec Lansings and old JBL's for monitoring? > > Herb Chong... WHAT is wrong with JBL speakers? R. Mohan
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/08/85)
In article <249@uscvax.UUCP> mohan@uscvax.UUCP (Rakesh Mohan) writes: > >> the key here is GOOD. does anyone know how many studios still use >> Altec Lansings and old JBL's for monitoring? >> >> Herb Chong... > >WHAT is wrong with JBL speakers? > >R. Mohan notice that i said *OLD* JBL's. new ones are fine speakers with good efficiency, extended response both in the lows and the highs. i don't think that phase linearity is as good as some of the best so imaging suffers somewhat, but many people would not notice either because of quality of source material or transducers. OLD JBL speakers are another story. it was not unusual to have a measured listing room peak of some 20 dB below 250 Hz and a high frequency peak of up to 10 dB around 12 to 14 kHz and a rapid roll off above 16 kHz. in between was nowhere near flat either, and phase was a word that was barely heard of in the speaker design business. to say that they were less than accurate is an understatement. of course, there were literally hundreds of speakers like them at the time. the origins of the terms 'west coast' and 'east coast' sound came about because of the comparisons between the two types of speakers that were commonly available at the time. the west coast sound was typified by JBL and Altec-Lansing speakers. the east coast sound was literally created by Advent. springing from people who left Advent were companies like Allison, Acoustic Research, and Boston Acoustics. west coast speakers were known as "rock" speakers because of the punch in the bass and sizzle on the high end. east coast speakers were synonymous with classical music tradition. while the fallacy is still propogated by some dealers, speaker systems in general today are much better systems than only ten years ago. there is really no such thing as a rock speaker or a classical speaker except with respect to efficiency and power handling. a speaker that reproduces all music the best is the best speaker. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/08/85)
Herb Chong doesn't quite have his facts straight: > the east coast sound was literally > created by Advent. springing from people who left Advent were > companies like Allison, Acoustic Research, and Boston Acoustics. AR came first, not Advent.
mohler@druxu.UUCP (MohlerDS) (05/08/85)
Herb,
Did you ever get my mail re: speaker studies at the U of Waterloo ?
I have been having intermittent service with my mail, so I thought I would
use the net to check. If you didn't receive it please let me know via the
net or by mail. Thanks,
David S. Mohler
AT&T - ISL @ Denver
!druxu!mohlerdaveb@rtech.ARPA (Dave Brower) (05/09/85)
> > WHAT is wrong with JBL speakers? > > R. Mohan With the big serious ones, not much, accounting for taste. The little bookshelf ones, eg, the old L100 (`Century' in civilian garb) are horribly colored in a way usually described unflatterningly as ``west coast sound.'' The problem is not that the big ones are bad, only that there are probably thoushands of 4 and 8 track stdios still using L100's as `accurate' monitors; their owners/user often wonder why things sound funny when they take them elsewhere :-). -- {amdahl, sun}!rtech!daveb | "Why do we have to live in boxes? I hate {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!daveb | boxes." "Calm down, the 60's are over."