What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

 

The initial question is an excellent one. Too bad, because this thread had some promise.  All too often I hear people state that they dismiss scientific methods and measurements and rely on something just changing their sound for the better.  Happy to throw money and toys at their system, which is all good and fun, but not interested in understanding the reason behind the change in sound.  While I don't disagree that we should go with what sounds better vs. what sounds worse because we should build a system that we enjoy listening to, understanding what makes it better is a worthwhile exercise.  Giving up on measurement because of ignorance doesn't help anyone.  No one knows everything, and even the sound engineers are still learning within their field.  I say be inquisitive, ask questions that get to the answer why.

 

Here are a couple common descriptors that I hear a lot in the audiophile world which I don't know how could be measured.  The term "warm" when describing tubes or analog sound and the terms "cold or clean" when describing digital music.  Or even measuring the detail and dimensionality of music.  How can we measure warmth, clarity, brightness, smoothness, forward, laid back and dimensionality?

[Johnseye]

20 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

John, I think we can relate those terms to freq. response, esp. in the mids. at least as a first approximation...

 

I agree that the initial question is an excellent one, and not silly at all.  No one has been able to list anything after 29 pages.

 

Understanding the reasons behind sound is critical for engineers in this field, and highly useful for buyers as one can dismiss some things, and work on ones that matter a great deal.  

 

A common audiophile plaint is that "everything matters" or that one cannot predict how anything will sound -- when I see that I expect a low level of technical knowledge by the person saying it.

 

If we could actually measure those frequencies then we should identify exactly what they are instead of saying warm or cold.  I don't know if clarity or dimensionality could be measured by frequency.  Maybe S/N ratio?  I think they may have to do more with removing noise from the music, but that's just a guess.  Generalizations are easy.  I'm actually surprised product manufacturers don't offer more concrete information about how their product will sound based on facts.  Perhaps they don't want to paint themselves in a corner.

[Johnseye]

Sorry, JGH?

 

So is it then possible to identify specific elevated or predominant frequencies when tubes are used that are not as pronounced with solid state?

[Johnseye]

warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.
lean Very slightly bass-shy. The effect of a very slight bass rolloff below around 500Hz. Not quite "cool."

clinical Sound that is pristinely clean but wholly uninvolving.

euphonic Pleasing to the ear. In audio, "euphonic" has a connotation of exaggerated richness rather than literal accuracy.
 

Sorry but "good" doesn't appear in the glossary.  Golden could work

golden A euphonic coloration characterized by roundness, richness, sweetness, and liquidity.
 

So lean would have a frequency reading with bass rolloff below around 500Hz.  Definitely measurable.

[Johnseye]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

 

That kind of characterization is very common in the recording world.

In the following sites you can see what qualities are associated with certain frequency bands:

 

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/

 

 

Thank you, great information.

[Johnseye]

Keep in mind, in the conversations within this thread so far, you're assuming the live music referenced is acoustic.  With live electric music you will always have speakers.  Of course there's also the acoustic electric source as well, but let's just call that electric since the acoustic sound is amplified.  A similar dynamic is in effect with live electric music as with a home stereo system.  Typically the soundboard is located in the middle about 30 rows back in the audience as the listener's sweet spot for the point of reference.  This is where mics are usually placed for electric live music recording.  In studio electric recording the instruments typically have a direct feed to the board.  There also may be a mic in front of a speaker as another source.

 

With acoustic live music recording, at least what I see at the CSO and Berliner, the mics are placed above and around the instruments.  Acoustic studio recording may be different as I have no knowledge of mic placement there.

 

When trying to reproduce live music in the home one needs to consider the manner in which it was recorded as that will vary.

[Johnseye]

20 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Few significant record labels do minimalist mic'ing nowadays, BIS is the only one I can remember.

I find Dorian's old orchestral recordings quite natural-sounding as well.

 

Not sure I follow your point, can you expand please?

[Johnseye]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Close-mic'ing affects timbre (tonal balance) and emphasises mechanical noises.

 

Ok, I'm just not sure what point you're making as it relates to my post.  Are you referring to live music performances, studio recordings, acoustic instruments or electric?  It sounds like you're talking about orchestral or acoustic jazz recordings specifically.

[Johnseye]

15 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I am referring to classical music recordings.

Studio recordings are close mic'ed (but pop/rock instruments and vocals aren't meant to sound natural anyway), and probably most jazz recordings as well.

 

Knowing that you're referring to classical music recordings narrows the consideration regarding mic'ing.  I now think I understand that you were filling the gap in my post where I stated "I have no knowledge of studio acoustic recording".  If that's the case it makes sense now.

 

Considering, as I mentioned previously, that the mics in an orchestral setting are often placed above the orchestra, as well as in front of a particular group of instruments, that mic placement is close in relation to where the audience sits.  In live rock recordings, which I attend frequently, the mics are placed in the audience in front or next to the sound board.  That to me would be a more accurate representation of a concert experience than directly above a group of instruments.  I also referenced that mics are placed in front of both amplifiers and drums to capture a more direct feed of a specific instrument for reamplification.

 

With regard to jazz recordings not being meant to sound natural I'd disagree when it is acoustic.  In fact, when anything is referenced as "natural" I assume it is an acoustic instrument vs an amplified one.  In an orchestra the exact same instruments are present as in an acoustic jazz event.  Although I don't think the sax is common in an orchestra, the trumpet, bass, piano, flute, etc are very common.  Unamplified vocals regardless of genre are as natural as it gets.  Once an amplifier is used for an instrument it may be considered un-natural.  Everything gets engineered so if you refer to "natural" as unmodified, it is very rare to listen to a non-engineered recording.

 

That's another term for qualification.  What exactly is "natural"?

Stereophile's glossary doesn't even have the term.  The closest they get is: naturalness defined as Realism

 

[Johnseye]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

classical meaning orchestral; not classical which includes chamber music (??)

 

 

Classical is a period but is commonly used to reference orchestral or symphonic music.  Good point.

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Classical as a genre goes from single instrument to orchestral and can even include sacred and opera.

 

My statement is based on what Robert Greenberg taught me   My knowledge is limited and I don't claim to be an expert.  The term is bandied about so much it's not even worth the effort.

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Hardly. Timbre is merely a ratio of harmonics. Add attack and decay profiles, and you have a pretty good model of most instruments. Remember those old sound cards with the simple FM synthesisers? They obviously didn't sound great, but their impression of, say, a piano still had a distinct piano quality.

 

Now I'm not saying that every nuance of every instrument is easily modelled. However, the methods one might use to do so are largely known.

 

Pros use modelers like the Axe and can't even tell the difference between a modeled amp and the real thing. Tube or solid state. They may have different standards than audiophiles, but if they're using it for their recordings that's what we're hearing. 

[Johnseye]

7 hours ago, semente said:

 

The French call it musique savante  (learned) and in the UK I've seen it called serious music.

 

Yup, it's all semantics.  I personally refer to all symphonic music as classical in conversation because people know what I'm talking about.  It doesn't really matter in the end; some people get picky, but most don't care.

[Johnseye]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

and then there are classical ragas...

 

Now you've really done it.

 

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Hi, I haven't read this whole thread but I found a post of mine from July 20, 2011 that might help. Here is a quote:

 

"No one has yet discovered how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound."

 

Have any of those been brought up yet?

 

Just to add, of the things that currently cannot be measured, some are on the recording side, some are on the playback side, and some are a combination of both. I believe most are on the analog side, prior to digitalization and after conversion back to analog for playback.

 

Not sure it's relevant but I believe we need more research on why most high resolution PCM and DSD sound more lifelike and feel more comfortable to listen to.  

 

It's possible the real reasons why well-recorded high resolution digital, especially 5.6 MHz DSD or perhaps even higher, sound more like the real music experience have yet to be discovered. Some have said it is high resolution’s faster transient response, the positive effects of inaudible overtones on audible frequencies we hear, or perhaps that inaudible frequencies are perceived another way instead of our hearing. The current theories on ultrasonics do not explain why instruments and voices in the bass and lower midrange which have no ultrasonic overtones sound more realistic in high resolution.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I know that I can feel sounds that I can't hear.  Especially in the low frequencies.  Correct me if I'm wrong but most, if not all scientific tests are based on what is audible.  Through numerous tests of individuals listening to tones at specific frequencies scientists have defined what our audible range is.  I have never read any tests that quantify what frequency ranges can be felt.  This absolutely has an impact on the listening experience.

[Johnseye]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

When I saw Buddy Guy my first time in a small club, he was playing fantastically fast. He held out the guitar with his left hand only, still playing, thrust the guitar essentially in our faces. I just sat there awestruck. You can't really imagine this if you don't see it.

 

So clearly being "there" involves more than just hearing  

 

 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

My "Buddy Guy moment" was at a Billy Thorpe concert, indoor, 20 feet away from the band - no PA apart from the voices - this mob don't hold back, all knobs at 11 ...

 

 

 

I lived a block away from Buddy Guy Legends in Chicago back in '89 and further up north for another 10 years. I was a bit spoiled as I got to know a waitress there and it became a regular hang out spot. I'd sit at the bar with Buddy drinking cognac talking about nothing. At his performances he'd walk out into his back alley and walk up the fire escape playing guitar. He'd always walk around the club playing. Good memories. 

 

And oh yea, Billy Thorpe. Children of the Sun. I was actually listening to to that tonight showing my neighbor my system. Always a fun song to crank. We used to sit in my friend's truck back in college cranking that up. He had a great sound system in that truck. 

[Johnseye]

34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

so what was his favorite cognac?

 

Almost 30 years ago I can't remember mine let alone his.  Extremely down to earth person.  His band at the time consisted of a younger woman playing keys who he was was screwing, an amazing young guitarist protege and a drummer.  I'll have to see what happened to that guitarist.  Around that time Eric Clapton showed up at his club and sat in with him for a show.  I unfortunately wasn't there.  One of those regretful moments in life.

 

This was also around the time Stevie Ray showed up.  Maybe the year before.  Just before he died.  I had been out seeing Dead shows.  Trade offs.

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

So, Paul, why not tell us how many live classical concerts you have attended over the last year in what halls with what ensembles?  Of course, your opinion of live vs. recorded is up to you, but I think many here would like to know more about your experience upon which it is based.  

 

No, please don't bother.  I think we're all tired of hearing the bickering.  I was hoping this post would have something to offer but it keeps getting derailed.  

 

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 

If you do, I will not criticise whatever you might say.  I just think people ought to know exactly where you are coming from.  I will be happy to list my own concert experience over the last year, if you wish.  

 

So, rather than just calling me an elitist slob, why not tell us the context for your opinion.  If I am an elitist slob, by the way, at least I go to numerous live concerts. Do you?  You have not said,  you have kept that vague and mysterious, though you hint, hint, hint that you do.  It points to the notion that your actual experience with live classical concerts is exaggerated.   

 

As I said, I know classical recording engineers who laughingly disagree with your view.  They regularly compare the sound in the hall to the mike feed, and to the recording during the steps of the production process through mastering.  Live is their standard, and they are getting ever closer to it, but they still feel they are short of live. One good friend is a Grammy-winner who is doing some remarkable recordings, the best I have heard.  He specializes in hi rez Mch recordings, by the way, which are about all I buy and listen to these days.

 

I also know and attend some concerts with recording critic friends who write for a prominent magazine.  They do not agree with you either, and they listen to more recordings than both of us combined, I am sure.

 

In the context of this thread, how could it possibly be that a recording would have better measured frequency response, lower distortion, better dynamic range, better time domain performance, etc. than live?   Or, on a subjective scale, how can a recording provide a better soundstage,  depth, dimensionality, more ambiance, air, sense of the hall acoustic, all better than live?  We really desperately need to know about the wonder audio system that has transported your experience to such extraordinary levels.

 

I am not sure you mean it literally, but you keep bringing up this seating thing - best seat in the house.  Yes, seating in the hall makes a difference in sound, but  live sound always still has an essential quality of liveness that recordings just don't quite capture.  Some seats in some halls may be inferior by comparison to other seats, but seldom in comparison to recorded sound. And, it is not just a question of ticket cost, either.

 

In our Verizon Hall, our seats have changed each season, and for about the last decade our subscription plan varies our seats for each concert, within a selected seating quadrant of the main orchestra floor level.  Yes, the sonic perspective changes somewhat, but not that much across the main floor orchestra section or the lower balcony tiers.  With my critic friends, I sit in row M dead center, which is where they prefer.  I have sat closer, further back and up in the balconies, as well.  I don't find it makes a huge difference.   As long as one does not sit too close to the stage, the sound is generally excellent.  Also, in our superb chamber music venue, Perelman Hall, there are simply no bad seats.

 

I know I will not change your opinion, but time to stop throwing rocks and list our actual experience so that others can better gain insight as to our credibility.

 

This tit for tat blather is truly childish.  I understand when someone offends you, you want to establish yourself as an authority and fire back a volley but this is not going anywhere good.