Listening Tests on Room Correction Products

[Gag Halfrunt]

Please stop making assumptions that the 'best of the bunch' is the Lyngdorf. Sean Olive has been remarkably careful to extricate the product data from the test. For all we outsiders know, the Lyngdorf might be the one that performs worse than the room itself.

 

Also, you never answered the question; on what data are you basing your statement that TacT is the industry leader? Were I planning a test that has relevance internationally, I'd want to make sure the products were available in enough countries to replicate the test successfully. Judging by TacT's pitiful availability outside the US, I'd deselect the brand in an eyeblink.

 

 

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Maybe if Chris would develop some industry posting guidelines, like they have over at Audio Circle it would help us all work out what is acceptable posting and what is not.

 

For example:

- if you work for a company within the industy you must disclose your position and the company you work for within your signature

- you are allowed to have a short tagline about your company and a link to the website in your signature

- you may not post information about your company, its products, any articles or research it is doing unless in response to a question asked by others on the community

 

[cfmsp]

Chris,

 

When does a post like Sean's cross over the bounds of promotional literature being presented here unsolicited by a manufacturer? While I can certainly respect Sean's work product here, it still seems to me like a thinly veiled advertisement for Harman's yet-to-be-released products.

 

With regards to the not-yet-released nature of the product, far from allowing HK a pass for that reason, I would call that double jeopardy, given that it could 'freeze' (a la the software industry's vaporware announcements) the market, by inducing potential customers not to purchase currently available products due to a belief that the HK product is being endorsed by CA (due to allowing it's posting here).

 

As you & I know, I have much more sensitive antenna than most when it comes to allowing manufacturers to post unsolicited material on forums. It is NOT my site, nor my rules, nor even my place to enforce them, BUT... I still have to ask, am I incorrect to view this as thinly veiled advertising?

 

Or perhaps you want to encourage CA as a place for these kinds of 'studies' to be posted?

 

I'll stand down now.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Clay - The possibility that this is a backdoor advertisement has crossed my mind. I've been following Sean's work for a while and have encouraged him to post some of the things he is doing (not this one specifically). I don't think this is a case of promoting one's products in a roundabout way. If you analyze the patterns of people posting to promote their own products (I have and it's not something I would do for fun), you'll see a number of things that tip you off right away. I won't go into the details as I don't want to give away the methods that will allow people to circumvent my "hidden agenda radar." I like to think people just no the right thing to do. If I have to tell them they are either new and a bit inexperienced at this stuff, or they may lack the character of most readers of the site.

 

Again, I hear your concerns and think they are very valid. If you are writing it here, chances are pretty good others are thinking this as well.

 

As far as a written set of site rules goes, I've steered clear of such items so far. I'm not a fan of rules. They usually just keep honest people honest and provide a roadmap for people seeking to get around the rules. Sure there are times when people new to the industry, like Nyal, inadvertently post questionable content, but it doesn't happen too often. Without a set of rules it's actually easier to spot the wolf in sheep's clothing :~) All of this may sound counterintuitive, but I think it's working so far (for the most part).

 

Putting one's affiliation in their signature line is a must, but there's a thin line between being open about an affiliation and leaving comments just because it gets one's name and company out there with each post. There have been a few of those people here in the past and they too are pretty easy to identify.

 

Nyal - I got your email but haven't had a minute to respond. No worries.

 

[cfmsp]

"Again, I hear your concerns and think they are very valid. If you are writing it here, chances are pretty good others are thinking this as well."

 

Chris, as always, I totally respect your position here. It's rather more well thought out than I had imagined.

 

As a moderator on a couple of other sites (in the past), I'm well aware of the effort involved, use of discretion and knowledge (tricks) used to ferret out the not so innocent posters.

 

As always, your moderating style is agreeable to me, and is one of the main reasons this site is as great as it is. That and the wonderful groups of posters here, that is.

 

EDIT:

"Putting one's affiliation in their signature line is a must, but there's a thin line between being open about an affiliation and leaving comments just because it gets one's name and company out there with each post."

 

On this point, I rather like the way it's done at AA. There's an indication that the poster is a manufacturer, dealer, etc., but NOT the exact affiliation (which avoids the automatic advertisement on each and every post). Personally, I'm annoyed to see the 'advertisement' in the signature line.

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"I rather like the way it's done at AA. There's an indication that the poster is a manufacturer, dealer, etc., but NOT the exact affiliation (which avoids the automatic advertisement on each and every post)."

 

I haven't been over there in a while and totally forgot about that. I think it's a really good way of doing this.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I haven't been over there in a while and totally forgot about that. I think it's a really good way of doing this."

 

Without a specific feature added to your site, you'd need to require those with vested interest to signify such in their signature line.

 

something like: "caveat emptor" or a simple indication of the type of provider, e.g., manufacturer, services provider, dealer, etc.

 

clay

 

[salwani]

Does the lack of knowing how each product (or indeed, just the HK products) fared, make the original post more neutral ?

 

One doesnt need to read between the lines to know how the HK products fared. (One just has to read below them)

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Clay - I'm thinking of a couple ways to do this. One is to change the user badges for manufacturer, services provider, dealer, etc... The headphones may be replaced with snake oil bottles (oops, did I just say that). Only kidding about the snake oil bottles. We have some really great contributors from the industry.

 

[kana813]

My comment that the Lyngdorf was the best of the bunch, has to do with the number "voicing filters" or target curves it offers.

 

From the test conclusions:

 

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a downward slope with increasing frequency."

 

This proves the units tested were all running different target curves, so who cares which unit was preferred.

 

There are thousands of TacT units in use all over the world. The TacT users group has over 2000 members.

If there's no dealer or distributor in your area, you can purchase TacT equipment from their website.

 

BTW- you could replicate Sean's test results using one TacT RCS programed with five different target curves.

 

Aloha,

 

Dan

 

 

[tonmeister86]

Hi Clay:

 

Just a few corrections:

Regarding your comment about the double jeopardy: We already have an available product that came out of this research. However, in the AES preprint and Blog posting I kept the brands and models off of the results to avoid any accusations that my research is nothing more than thinly veiled advertising. If you have ever read my papers, product identities are always removed from the double-blind tests and the published results. I am an audio scientist and educator first, and I leave the marketing and sales to other people.

 

It was not my intention to offend anyone. In the future, I will refrain from talking about my research in this forum if it offends people. If people are interested in audio research and education, these discussions can take place on my blog, or some other audio forum.

 

Cheers

Sean Olive

Director Acoustic Research, Harman International

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Maybe we should refrain from posting links to our own work or that of our affiliated companies.

 

If we think something is worthy of attention then maybe we should send a 'press release' type thing out and let the moderator of each site determine if it is worthy of publishing.

 

Just an idea

 

[cfmsp]

 

"It was not my intention to offend anyone."

 

I doubt you've offended many here (other than those who objected to details of your test setup), certainly not me.

 

I respect your intent - education and research - but am also well aware of how 'research' might lead to unintended consequences (see Oppenheimer & Co for exhibit A).

 

Since the horse is already out of the proverbial barn on this one, perhaps you can provide us a link to what the HK sales & marketing folks have done with your research?

 

thanks in advance,

clay

 

 

 

 

[watchnerd]

kana, he didn't say he didn't know about TacT, he's just asking by what criteria you consider TacT to be the leader.

 

As for your microphone comment, did you even read the more detailed and downloadable PDF?

 

[watchnerd]

Sean, please don't cease posting your research here just because of a few who are cranky about it.

 

There are plenty of us who find it interesting and are discriminating enough to be able to know when we're reading research that happens to be sponsored by a corporation vs. being sold to.