Where is Audio Truth ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Participants were asked to rate the physical attractiveness of the contestants. Physical attractiveness was not related to winning above the random level (i.e., more attractive won at the same rate as less attractive).....If it was merely "better looks get better reactions," that would hardly be a particularly incisive or curious result, would it?

 

The answer here is easy, they lied ! :-) Seriously that's like asking an audiophile whether the price tag is important and expecting him to admit it (or be aware of it).

 

 

Still photos gave participants no advantage in selecting winners, while six second videos did give an advantage. Thus there must be something beyond looks or anything else that can be discerned from a photo (e.g., gender) in those videos that is responsible for the advantage they give.

 

IMO something beyond sound, not looks. Looks, sex appeal, total package marketability, the way they move. It may also relate to inferred personality factors ( smiling frequently (as opposed posed in a static photo), manner, etc). Various communication of emotional factors can also be conveyed visually.

 

From my brief read (so maybe unfair) I dont think the study really controlled the variables well enough.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I think that show is more about who is more marketable with the talent they have..

 

The 'Voice' starts off with the judges picking contestants by sound only (not visual) but then follows the same path once people see the contestants.

 

Sight vs sound: perfect example: Britain's Got Talent ( Susan Boyle) when the judges and audience pre-judged her based on looks only. Boy where they wrong.

 

 

 

I think Susan Boyle is a good example suggesting how the sound is more important than the sight and therefore opposed to the 'experimental' results presented by "sight over sound in the judgement of music". In truth however, I believe people enjoy the unexpected, the incongruity of voice and vision....even a bit of a 'freak show' element.......so the vision was still an integral component.

 

I agree, "The Voice" starting with chairs turned away from auditioning contestants does at least initially counter any visual influences like looks or other factors associated with seeing them.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

@audiophile neuroscience....

We are trained to problem solve in specific ways, and we tend to apply these skills and knowledge into other fields. Typically where this becomes a problem is where it leads to insistent reductive thinking, typically to debunk what is clearly such a ridiculous topic that is not even worth discussing. Certain fields and professions are trained to see things in very concrete terms, certain parameters are ruled out very early in order to focus on areas that are more important. In certain professions I'm sure this is advantageous, but I would hope this isn't the mindset used to design hifi components, or anywhere really.

 

So true, we so often 'specialize' in the part, or reduce and isolate to study something, losing sight of the whole. Our backgrounds and training I believe can blinker how we approach audio vs music and like you hope this mindset doesnt totally govern new designs.

[Kal Rubinson]

This is the way inaccurate tropes get started and become accepted common wisdom that "everyone knows." The article said two things that specifically contradict this notion (which certainly was top of mind as a possible explanation for me, too):

 

(1) Participants were asked to rate the physical attractiveness of the contestants. Physical attractiveness was not related to winning above the random level (i.e., more attractive won at the same rate as less attractive).

 

(2) Still photos gave participants no advantage in selecting winners, while six second videos did give an advantage. Thus there must be something beyond looks or anything else that can be discerned from a photo (e.g., gender) in those videos that is responsible for the advantage they give.

 

It's precisely these facts that make the study interesting to me. If it was merely "better looks get better reactions," that would hardly be a particularly incisive or curious result, would it?

 

However, there is no control for this study unless the original competition was judged "blind." (I apologize if this has been mentioned but I have not yet had time to read the entire paper.)

[Robert Hutton]

However, there is no control for this study unless the original competition was judged "blind." (I apologize if this has been mentioned but I have not yet had time to read the entire paper.)

 

I could easily judge physical attractiveness blind, would actually love to do it, but probably it would be inappropriate.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

When you ask me to think in quality, and I know our brain is the processing unit, quantity is the quality. The brain doesn't do a super high quality version of processing for hearing, and a poor job of processing for vision. Don't be ridiculous.

 

 

I agree, I think, lol :-)...just not sure about the "quantity is quality" part...we're not talking phallus substitute here are we, if so an interesting analogy to the brain ?? (kidding)

 

I haven't commented in this thread on the recent 'neuroanatomical' arguments of visual vs auditory horsepower or which is superior. From photons or sound waves, the processing steps to and from the cortices and all interconnecting areas are amazing. Beyond looking at gross anatomical features it is sometimes useful to look at the topographical/ somatotopic mapping concepts of a sensory homunculus or better still functional based assessments. However I think even this would not be really all that informative to the discussion as to whether sound or vision is more easily 'misled'….which is the more reliable system. Perhaps you would need more to rely on limbic connections, frontal lobe executive connections and a billion other things.

 

Why is it so difficult for people to admit the genuine limits of hearing?

 

I don't think it is. It is more the objection to the statement or as otherwise implied, that audiophiles are unlikely to be genuinely hearing real differences. I believe there is ample neuroscience to support and explain how they might hear things that others do not. Its real, no trick, and not delusion...although not discounting the influence of expectation bias either. The problem is it can't be objectified in a meaningful way. More relevantly, it is the contemporaneous assertion that measurements of the audio signal, a surrogate value many steps removed from where perception is occurring, is a better guide to said perception. That assertion remains dubious even if one accepts that the measuring equipment is technologically perfect, fool proof and measures exactly what you think it measures….all of which in turn can be challenged separately.

[sandyk]

I could easily judge physical attractiveness blind, would actually love to do it, but probably it would be inappropriate.

 

Perhaps you could be a judge at the next Mr.Naked Universe Pageant ? (grin)

[Don Hills]

Hi, Don. We certainly knew the build we liked was more recent than previous ones. However, we'd known that about all the preceding ones we didn't like as well. ...

 

Yep. I saw where you explained that. I realise you're comfortable with your procedure and results, and I don't have a major issue with them (you don't appear to be trying to persuade me to try Audirvana), I was just using it as an example to illustrate the wider issue of how hard it is to set up "blind" tests.

[Don Hills]

... Remember, there is no visual input in the test that Jud and SuperDad ran. ...

 

There certainly is visual input. They could see which version of the software they were running at any time.

[Jud]

Yep. I saw where you explained that. I realise you're comfortable with your procedure and results, and I don't have a major issue with them (you don't appear to be trying to persuade me to try Audirvana)....

 

Only in service of the greater good, Don.

[Jud]

There certainly is visual input. They could see which version of the software they were running at any time.

 

Mostly. Can't speak for Superdad, but at some points during the weeks of listening I had three different A+ versions up, repeatedly switching among them, and I'd have to look in the A+ menu after hearing a song/selection to be sure of which one I'd just listened to.

[Robert Hutton]

Perhaps you could be a judge at the next Mr.Naked Universe Pageant ? (grin)

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I feel qualified only on the opposite, although I respect all those who embrace alternative lifestyles.

[mayhem13]

................., and I'd have to look in the A+ menu after hearing a song/selection to be sure of which one I'd just listened to.

 

????

[justM]

Forgive me for jumping in like this or to repeat things that are already said. Since this thread is already well on its way and I haven't read all of it.

 

 

I think an important question to ask would be what an audiophile truth would look like. Is that a system that always scores a 100% in some kind of a measuring benchmark or a system that 100 out of a 100 people will pick as their favourite setup or something else.

 

 

And what if we find this audiophile truth and I don't like it. Do I have to tell my brain to like it because it's the truth or do I strive for a different truth that I personally like better. I think it is most important to have clear for yourself what your personal audio nirvana will look like and try to achieve this following what ever path necessary.

 

 

Even science is some kind of a religion (for me at least) because in no way am I able to verify the findings from scientist's and check if the really are telling the truth. I just believe that they do or don't. All I can do is try to verify things for my self wherever I can, or else to take a leap of faith in the hope to reach my audio truth.

 

 

I do enjoy these kind of discussions because it shows there is more than just the hardware at play. A most important factor is the personal experience when listening to music.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Hi justM, welcome to this wonderfully crazy thread.

And what if we find this audiophile truth and I don't like it. Do I have to tell my brain to like it because it's the truth or do I strive for a different truth that I personally like better.

Kaffee: *I want the truth!*

Col. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*

Seems like only "a few good men" can handle the truth, ;-)

Audio/musical truth appears to be about reproducing what's happening at the recording venue/studio.There may be some argument depending on whether that be acoustic, electronic, amplified, where the recording engineer sticks the microphone, others mix it and yet others alter the sound with EQ or whatever. The final product, whatever the artists/engineers have produced should be truthfully (faithfully) reproduced in your living room. If your HiFi can do that I would give it "100%". Now all is left is for perfect transmission across the room and perfect hearing and perceptual skills. If you get that far then you can decide whether you like 'the truth' or not.You can fiddle with equalizers, dbx expanders, DSP or whatever in the name of compensating for non-truths provided you knew what the sound was in the studio/venue. Alternatively you can just make up your own version of euphonic sound, add some strings, extra vocals…..instant karaoke :-)

[sandyk]

Alternatively you can just make up your own version of euphonic sound,

 

Yes, you can choose a DAC with a valve output stage, and if that's not enough lovely artificial warmth, feed it into a dangerously high voltage powered valve amplifier using vacuum tubes designed for RF transmitter use ! (grin)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(All in good fun !)

[Jud]

????

 

Remember, I mentioned that during the three months or so we're talking about (early May - early August), there were stretches where new builds didn't differ much from those that had gone before. And I never do just "A/B" testing, because as many people have pointed out, if you first notice something when listening to "B," how can you be sure of what it sounded like in "A" without going back to "A" to listen again?

 

So for example, I'd have 1.4.9.7 as a reference, and then also be listening to 1.5.2.3 and 1.5.3, which are pretty close to each other in sound. All three would be up on the desktop at once with identical playlists. I'd just start playing songs or selections from songs in each, going back and forth, A/B/A/B/A/C/A/C/B/C/B, and after a half hour or an hour it becomes pretty easy to forget which one is in which position on the desktop. I'd notice something in a song and wonder as I sat in my listening position whether I was listening to 1.5.2.3 or 1.5.3 (1.4.9.7 is different enough in sound characteristics that I would know it without checking). It would be only when I got up and walked over to the system at the end of the song or part of the song I was listening to that I'd check in the A+ menu and confirm "OK, this is 1.5.3 where I'm noticing *that* particular characteristic, let's see what the same piece sounds like in 1.5.2.3."

 

Edit: This is only a very occasional occurrence I'm describing - I'm not *that* absent-minded. Also, I'd do enough comparisons between, say, 1.5.2.3 and 1.5.3 in a listening session that I'd eventually establish either what I felt were the recognizable differences between them, or that there was an absence of such differences. Both Superdad and I - independently! - came to the conclusion that 1.5.2.3 and 1.5.3 sounded slightly different. I believe that may be in the correspondence I posted over at the "For Those of a Scientific Bent" thread.

[Paul R]

This thread, "For Those of a Scientific Bent," and a couple other threads all seem to be doing something rather unique right now. It is like there is a super convergence of ideas, where conversations in each thread are in a way, feeding the conversations in other threads. All in a pretty civil manner and all being quite interesting. A boiling pot of ideas where nobody is really getting burned.

 

What is this? Callahans? Where is Fast Eddy?

 

Great bunch of people here.

 

Paul

[bdiament]

Hi David,

 

Audio/musical truth appears to be about reproducing what's happening at the recording venue/studio...

 

The final product, whatever the artists/engineers have produced should be truthfully (faithfully) reproduced in your living room...

 

I see two different things here.

The first, in my view, *might* be the responsibility of the recording and not the playback system -- assuming the goal is to capture what is actually occurring. Many times, this is *not* the goal. For example, "Sgt. Pepper's..." or "Dark Side Of The Moon" seem to me, to be about creating something that does not --indeed, *can not* exist in reality.

Many times, it might be the goal but the approach is all wrong. One might seek, for example, to capture a realistic grand piano sound but placing directional microphones a few inches above the hammers, under the closed lid (!) will only sound convincing to those who listen to grand pianos from inside the piano. ;-}

 

The second, asking the system to reproduce what is contained in the recording, seems to have better odds of success, as the end result can be no more realistic than what was captured on the record (again, assuming "realistic" was the goal and assuming that goal was reasonably achieved). Of course, an honest system playing a not-so-good recording will reveal microphone type, quantity and placement decisions, spurious knob twiddling and (one that really gets my goat) mixers constantly pushing and pulling faders so that instruments seem to swing forward or backward as if the player sat on a trapeze. (Too many classic jazz recordings come to mind, where a solo begins and the player's sound drifts forward.) This *would* constitute faithfully reproducing what is contained in the recording.

 

So while they are two different things (at least in my view), both will be required if we're to advance the art:

1. The recording must capture truth (however one wishes to define the term)

and

2. The system must get out of the recording's way.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

assuming the goal is to capture what is actually occurring. Many times, this is *not* the goal. For example, "Sgt. Pepper's..." or "Dark Side Of The Moon" seem to me, to be about creating something that does not --indeed, *can not* exist in reality.

Hi Barry,

that's why I qualified my interpretation of reality by saying "There may be some argument depending on whether that be acoustic, electronic, amplified, where the recording engineer sticks the microphone, others mix it and yet others alter the sound with EQ or whatever. [it is]The final product, whatever the artists/engineers have produced".

In no small part having been educated by yourself in these matters, I have gained greater insight into the recording process. My longstanding view still remains, I believe, in line with your preferences but I also accept that there can be artistic collaboration between musician and engineer to produce fabulous music like "Dark Side of the Moon".

I also take your point about placement of a stereo array of mics to achieve a realistic sound, as if you were there with two ears placed similarly, a bit like the binaural recording technique I guess. Having said that I also don't mind when instruments are more closely miked and the engineer creates an artificial soundstage of well focused instruments. It is artistic license I suppose. One small justification is that, although not realistic from an audience tenth row perspective it would be closer to the nearness achieved when actually playing an instrument. I recall one of the most enjoyable music sessions for me was sitting (not playing, just sitting in) with a string quartet, close enough to touch nearly every instrument. The sound was glorious, so rich, so palpable, so close. I also remember the first time I heard Michael Nyman Band, it was a front row middle seat where I could literally stand up and touch the stage. The sound (literally) blew me away. So off a little on a tangent I know, but I have become a bit of a 'closeness' junkie. I rationalize it is realistic if you are a band member,lol. Of course jamming mics inside pianos etc is arguably not realistic.

Ultimately, for me, it is the final product of artistic collaboration between the artists/engineers I am seeking to reproduce faithfully. Overwhelmingly for me it is the quality of that recording that affects the end result in my living room ,be it "Dark Side of the Moon" or a string quartet. The first time I heard a combo of gryphon and Mark Levinson gear reproducing well recorded music I was gobsmacked. Decades later I remain equally affected.

I remain indebted to you for your wonderful insights into your industry and your contribution to the magic of the craft !

Cheers

David

[bdiament]

Hi David,

 

I would point out that there are different types of "close" with microphones.

I too tend to favor something a bit closer than 10th row (or something even more distant).

 

To get the sound a player would hear, even something like a cello is (in my opinion) improperly mic'd for those appearances this instrument makes in most pop music recordings. As the "in the piano" approach doesn't sound the same as what the player (or the audience) would hear in real life, placing a mic at the bridge (or over the "f" holes) will result in a very different sound than the player or the audience experience. The same is true of the contrabass, which in most jazz recordings -- when it is not amplified and further colored -- sounds different at the bridge (or "f" holes) than it does in reality. This is why most jazz recordings have (to my ears) nothing like a convincing bass sound. (This is one of the things I'm most proud of in my recordings where Paul Beaudry played bass -- both his own album, "Americas" and on Markus Schwartz' "Equinox" -- unamplified and heard from front and center, as a listener in front of Paul (as opposed to a listener on their knees, blocking his access to the instrument with the ear) would hear him. I also mic'd the grand piano from *outside* of the piano. ;-})

 

One more thought: Even a "fastasy" recording like "Dark Side..." can be done so that the instruments, whatever they are, and the acoustic, real or synthetic, end up sounding *convincing*. While the album certainly sounds *good* (*quite* good in my opinion), I believe these are two different things and they don't always travel together. The concept of being able to "suspend disbelief" is often widely discussed in terms of motion pictures. I believe it has an equally important (for some of us, perhaps even more important) place in music recordings.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[mayhem13]

.......thankfully there's varying recording techniques for the many different tastes of listeners. Clearly there are those that are fans of abstract or modern art while others enjoy impressionist or rennaisance. While I like a nice stout, others might prefer a classic American brew. It's the flavors of life that makes things interesting and for those willing to try new things, exciting. IMO, DSOTM does something that no other recording to date can do as well, and that is transverse the barrier between the physical recording and the emotional experience intended by the listener. Ground breaking in it's form. My wish is that recording engineers keep pushing the boundaries of conventional technique and continue ue to bring us fresh content.....not necessarily that of a live performance. While a great jazz recording that captures the sound of the lounge, there's always the vibe of west village club, clouded with smoke and resonating with the sound of the clanking of martini glasses and the hoots of the crowd......things you just can't get from a recording.....and forget about ever trying to capture the feel, sound, colors and stank of CBGB's on a record........not happening.

[justM]

Audio/musical truth appears to be about reproducing what's happening at the recording venue/studio.There may be some argument depending on whether that be acoustic, electronic, amplified, where the recording engineer sticks the microphone, others mix it and yet others alter the sound with EQ or whatever. The final product, whatever the artists/engineers have produced should be truthfully (faithfully) reproduced in your living room. If your HiFi can do that I would give it "100%". Now all is left is for perfect transmission across the room and perfect hearing and perceptual skills. If you get that far then you can decide whether you like 'the truth' or not.

 

 

My thoughts exactly, imagine that you have to tell your wife you have to change/upgrade your whole audio system to match that of the recording studio every time you listen to a different CD. Or the producer who has a 100 audiophiles at his front door who want to borrow his/her brain because they want to listen to the truth.

Kaffee: *I want the truth!*

Col. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*

 

Seems like only "a few good men" can handle the truth.

You can fiddle with equalizers, dbx expanders, DSP or whatever in the name of compensating for non-truths provided you knew what the sound was in the studio/venue. Alternatively you can just make up your own version of euphonic sound, add some strings, extra vocals…..instant karaoke :-)

I don't think I will be able to handle the truth on an audio truth system when I do karaoke. In my mind my voice sounds wonderful but everyone around me seems to think otherwise. They proberbly prefer a system with as much distoration as possible or even better, one that is broken.

 

Non the less I have no experience in audio production or studio work and I would be curious to know if the playback chain of studio A is producing the same result as the playback system of studio B. I don't think I would like it if there is only one truth that always has to sound the same, I prefer to think that there are many answers for the same question.

[Superdad]

.......thankfully there's varying recording techniques for the many different tastes of listeners. Clearly there are those that are fans of abstract or modern art while others enjoy impressionist or rennaisance. While I like a nice stout, others might prefer a classic American brew. It's the flavors of life that makes things interesting and for those willing to try new things, exciting.

 

Hi mayhem13 (wish I knew your real name and a bit about your music system): Just wanted to give you a shout out. I know we have not particularly agreed on some things in the past, but lately your posts have allowed me to feel that you are not nearly as dogmatic as I might have thought. You seem to have been expressing a broader range of opinion and insight lately, and I really do not want that to go unacknowledged. So cheers--here's to you.

--ALEX

[sandyk]

While a great jazz recording that captures the sound of the lounge, there's always the vibe of west village club, clouded with smoke and resonating with the sound of the clanking of martini glasses and the hoots of the crowd......things you just can't get from a recording.....and forget about ever trying to capture the feel, sound, colors and stank of CBGB's on a record........not happening.

 

Thank heavens for that !

The last thing many people want these days is the choking smoke filled, wheezy atmosphere that some have to endure in order to hear a great performance.