Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Greetings from WA State

Tags
state wa
1K views 10 replies 11 participants last post by  Prof. 
#1 ·
Hello Everyone,

My name is Bob and I hail from WA State, (the state of too much rain ;-)

Just as a introduction to me:

- I've been an audio nut for decades now;

- In the past I've been a member of both the Audio Engineering Society (AES) as well as the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) but I've let both memberships expire (simply cost too much to join every year...now I only rejoin if I'm attending an AES convention that year, etc.);

- I own a TON of different loudspeakers of vastly different radiation topologies, and my keen interest is investigating the relationship between loudspeaker radiation topology vs. subjective listener preference ratings. Perhaps someday I'll get off the dime and publish some research in this area, (life sometimes keeps one too busy with other things as is often the case);

- I'm a firm believer that the biggest audible differences in audio systems are directly linked / attributable to the following: (1) The room one plays the loudspeakers in, e.g., room's dimensions, furnishings, any room treatments, etc.; (2) The position within the room of both the loudspeakers and the listener(s) relative to each other (loudspeaker vs. listener) as well as each of these to the room's boundaries; (3) The quality of the audio recording itself, e.g., multi-mic'ed vs. more purist techniques (coincident pair, mid-side, etc.) as well as the acoustics of the venue the recording was made at (except in the case of most pop multitrack music);

- I'm not a big believer in the huge, unbelievable, humungous (insert your own adjective here) differences between speaker wire, interconnects, D/A converters, amplifiers / preamplifiers, etc. I own a QSC ABX double blind comparison box and I've ran too much trials with many people over the years and if the audible differences were really that big, subjects could identify correctly in level matched (within 0.1 dB) differences between such things in a properly conducted double blind comparison between two devices under test at a statistically significant level, (verify of course at the outset that the two devices under test being compared against each other are both operating in a linear manner, e.g., frequency response, etc.). Bottom line is that people who say they can hear such differences can't do so in well controlled scientifically run double blind comparison tests and then they oftentimes tend to blame the ABX box, the test design methodology, etc. I tend to advise people to spend time focusing on things that "do" made a real audible differences (please see bullet comment directly above);

- I tend to be a lurker on many such forums since I hate to get into endless arguments (on things like the bullet directly above). I'm willing to let others have their opinions on such things and live and let live. This whole hobby is suppose to be "fun" after all - - no need to get too serious and attack each others' beliefs or resort to unwarranted character assassination, etc.

- In keeping with the above philosophy, I tend to have a lot of objective measurement gear, e.g., MLSSA, TEF 25 USB with all the various Windows TEF software modules, Bruel & Kjaer 4133 free field and 4134 pressure response ANSI Type I mics, mic multiplexers, etc. I tend to believe that if audible differences can be "proven," that we can find a way to measure such audible differences (or if not, we're simply measuring the wrong parameter / thing).

- I also like to use professional binaural recording heads in my audio (psychoacoutic) investigations, e.g., my Neumann KU-100 diffuse equalized recording head and my HEADAcoustics HMS II.I (switchable free field vs. source independent of direction equalization). These types of heads are very important (to me) to conduct research on small room acoustical parameters (think of the massive research in concert halls..large rooms) compared to the little research that has been done in comparison to that of small room acoustic parameters and their relationship (or lack thereof) to that of subjective listeners' sound quality (SQ) preference ratings. Example of such being the Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC) or Lateral Reflection (LR) measurements, etc. how their usefulness (or lack thereof) to that of predicting small room acoustic listeners' subject SQ preference ratings, etc.

- I have five kids and thus far, two grandchildren (which explains why I don't get around to doing the aforementioned research as much as I'd like).

- In keeping with my "lurker status," I probably won't post too much on this or other audio forums, (again, it's the time commitment in answering others comments, postings, etc.). I, like I'm sure many of you, am very limited in my free time to commit to such endeavors.

From what I've seen on this site thus far, I've been very impressed with some of the posters postings and I applaud their dedication and commitment to excellence in this regard. Please keep the great postings coming!

Best regards,

Bob

P.S. We're starting a new audio club in WA State that's hosted at a local church in Olympia, WA the last Wednesday of every month. It's free to join / be a member and if you're interested in joining, please give me a call at (206) 984-9845 (my office).
 
See less See more
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top