What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Paul R]

Wonderful subject Bill!  

 

I wonder, sound perception depends a lot of intensity, and it is a well known fact that volume differences (i.e. intensity) strongly effects the perception of a music source. 

 

I am not sure how one would go about measuring the perception of a music source against by single individual, even leaving out preference. Volume can make any music sound radically different.  Sure we can measure the intensity of the sound, but short of some kind of brain monitor, I am not sure how anyone could accurately measure what the individual perceives in the music. 

 

Just thinking, not proposing a study.

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

14 hours ago, wgscott said:

Yeah, I was worried.  You ok?

 

Hi Bill, Dennis - yep, pretty much OK. Just doing those 18hour work days for a while.   I am reading all you guys though, and still enjoying the conversations as much as ever. Just not much time to reply. 

[Paul R]

25 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

If no one has discovered how to measure these things then .... how were the designers able to design and engineer these "unmeasurable" qualities into their products?  

[/quote]

One can certainly ask that question, but in some cases, it will that they simply listened to what they had created.

 

25 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

 

It's a ridiculous audiophile argument that only an audiophile could make.   Good to know that designers in 2017 still have no idea how to design and engineer "sound stage" and "smoothness" and, etc, etc, etc that are "unmeasurable", beyond current understanding  and yet miraculously appear in their products. Bravo I say!  Audio alchemists FTW! 

 

Well, it is and it isn't. We certainly know how to measure the factors - all the factors - that go into a human being perceiving a soundstage, timbre, etc. Yes.  I am not at all so certain anyone can accurately measure how one actually perceives those factors though. One person's hearing and hearing preferences can vary dramatically from another.  As of today, there is no way to measure things like how everyone will perceive say, soundstage. Especially with people listening on vastly different systems. No? 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

Well people simply "listen" and "hear" many things, so that's not in dispute.  You could listen to a cable and hear ghosts for all I care and I would believe you. Subjectively it's possible to hear anything. The only limit is in the imagination. 

 

I'm sure where perception is concerned an fmRI would be quite useful. The perception of sound stage may not even be tied to the sound stage. It's merely an assumption. 

 

Exactly so!  A MRI or other technology can certainly measure what parts of the brain are active and how much activity is going on. But no designer is going to try to get MRI measurements for all his potential buyers. Even if they - or we - knew exactly how to interpret the results. 

 

There is hope for this in the future though. I mean, we can mind-control artificial limbs now. Maybe in the future, stereo systems will be smart enough to monitor the listener and adjust the acoustics to provide the best listening experience. 

[Paul R]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So how did "it" get designed, engineered and manufactured into the creation, before they "simply listened", eyes wide open staring at "it" they created?

(unfortunately, critical thinking skills are required here)

 

]Yes, they most certainly are, perhaps you should try using some?  

 

Nothing about using listening to tune or find the "right sound" for a piece of equipment negates normal engineering design skills.  There is a certain amount of requisite skill necessary to create anything in the first place. Talent is is what takes a textbook device and turns it into something extraordinary. 

[Paul R]

21 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yeah, that is why we have or man @fas42.  He's got the skills, as he tells us over and over and over, and he can even do it with cheap HTiB's.  Except he grades his own papers.  So, watch out.

 

And, his secret sauce as revealed elsewhere is, roll of the drums, Bluetack.  Ta-da!  But, hey, as long as he is happy.

 

Whoo boy - perhaps I should apologize, as I have exactly zero idea of what you are taking about.  I looked up the chap you pointed out, and didn't see anything there worthy of your comment. (shrug) 

 

This is a hobby you know, no problems with Klingon Puppies or other such stuff - and the world will not end of someone feels like listening to their stereo system while standing on their head naked . If they claim it makes the system sound better, so what? It might to them, but it won't change the physical constants of the universe one little bit, will it? 

 

Just my experience, but a well designed hunk of electronics will always sound good. And the same hunk of electronics, if tweaked based upon what the designer hears or wants to hear will sound different. Some people will like the choices, other people won't. Again, big deal. 

 

And yes, a HTIB system actually can sound pretty good, if you take the time to set it up well. Will it sound as good as anyone's system here sounds? I would take bets not. 

 

So the point is simple - it is at the very least, impractical to measure every factor that will affect how a person perceives the sound generated from a device and tune it to that person's optimal settings. So designers take their best guess at how to tune or tweak their product, and hope people will fall in love with it. 

 

Ergo, how people perceive the sound of a device is not something measurable, at least today.  That's just a pub hypothesis on my part of course, people are welcome to tear it apart. But please don't use my posts to attack someone else.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

On 6/27/2017 at 9:10 PM, fas42 said:

 

What disturbs many people is that I have a very specific goal, for any system that I interact with, and I use ordinary materials, purchasable at modest cost at a local store, to achieve that end. Of course, these same people then ridicule those who purchase "magic goodies" at absurd cost, in their attempts to do similar things - my shtick is that very modest systems, carefully "debugged" and optimised, using everyday materials that have the right properties for the job at hand can deliver competent sound - that is, you just hear music, you are not aware of the machinery getting the job done - it doesn't sound like a "stereo", or a "hifi rig".

 

If I'm aware of the sound reproduction system operating in any sense, then it's failed - in my book. Of course, many people want to 'feel' their baby working, and that's fine - but it's not what I'm after ...

 

I was thinking this post over a bit, and in a large degree, I think I agree with you. On the other hand, I do not agree that the average HTIAB can be made to sound as good as even a very modest stereo system designed for music. Say a $400 receiver and a set of $600 Maggies.

 

I will say this, there are some very cheap tricks that can make amazing differences in sound. Try floating your equipment sometime. You an do it, at least as a test, for well under $20.  (Check out http://barrydiamentaudio.com/vibration.htm )

 

-Paul

 

[Paul R]

On 7/7/2017 at 3:55 AM, Teresa said:

 

Although, listening in person to live acoustic music in a good sounding performance space is still the best.

 

(grin) I would respectfully dispute that. Even a modest system these days sounds better than most live performances. (/grin) 

 

That is of course, hotly contested by some folks. I contend that the local pub with the singer/songwriter there is a cool experience, but the music sounds better on my system just about every time. The few times it doesn't is usually traceable to a very poor recording!

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

It really has a lot to do with the performance venue, its acoustics, the nature of the instruments, etc. etc. So, it often comes down to a chasm between the ways different musical genres are presented live.  For acoustic classical music with unamplified singers in a good hall, nothing beats live. It is not close.  For pop or jazz in a crappy acoustic with a poor PA system amplifying vocals and acoustic instruments, I have no doubt that a studio recording may be substantially better.

 

I will go a little further to say that even an orchestral presentation, or especially a Choral presentation almost always sounds better on my stereo than live. Live Choral music in particular. It is, I think, a touch of arrogance to assume "live" sounds better. It really often doesn't, by just about any measure.  

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

Often we are not hearing actual recordings of the live performance. What we get is usually a specialized processed sound paying attention to every instruments. In live performance, we have to compromise and often do not get the best sound due to external factors. 

 

 

 

This is my thinking and experience as well, though it is certainly controversial. The dogma for a long time has been that the touchstone is "live" performances. 

 

Live performances have a lot of attributes that make them wonderful and well worth attending, but I am far from convinced that the "sound" is one of them.  Processed sound is usually superior. 

 

FitzCaraldo215 has a point, but to assume that someone does not agree with him because they do not have comparable experience is pretty arrogant, and is what drives a lot of the current generation absolutely nuts. (With some justification.) 

 

Kal also makes a very valid point, and one I totally agree with. Multi-channel sound is - or can be - far more satisfying that 2 channel sound.  I think that multichannel systems are quite capable of producing an experience comparable with "live."  Whether it is good enough, or "better" is personal opinion. But it is undoubtedly "good enough" or "better" to a large number of people. Many of whom have decades of live performances to compare to. 

 

Does my system equate to being up close to Stevie Nicks in 1979? Nope. But not because the live concert sounded "better." Nor does it equate to a live choir performance here in Austin, but the sound from my system is almost certainly better than the sound seated halfway back  in a crowded church. How do you measure what is "better" and what relative importance do you put on the sound vs. the experience? Then add in video to the equation and it all changes yet again, since as humans what we see directly affects what we hear. 

 

In any case, not trying to start a war, but just pointing out that measuring the quality and impact  of a system, performance, technology, or experience is anything but simple. If you have a billion people, you need a billion measurements, and it is guaranteed that there will be diametrically opposed results in those measurements.  in short, the measurements are utterly unreliable. 

 

 By contrast, measuring a digital signal, analog signal, or digital data is flat out simple. You can (usually) trust the results.

 

-Paul 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Not unique - others have done so - but, rare ... I am not talking about sitting in an optimum, "sweet spot" - I am talking about being able to walk around anywhere in the room where the music is playing, including right up to where an individual speaker is, with its drivers - and not be able to perceive, only using one's ears, that this lump of wood and other bits is contributing to the soundfield.

 

It's not even uncommon- the stereo effect has been around for quite some time and is well understood. 

 

Just a guess, what do you think al the high end sound systems around here sound like? Pretty much, they sound like what you describe - only usually much better indeed.  

 

-Paul 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I see. So you can go up, say, the left speaker while it's running at near max volume, put your ear a few inches away from the treble driver, and not be able to tell that "it's working" ... I'm impressed!!!

 

First, if you are listening to a speaker at "max volume: you are overdriving it, and second, if you are listening to headphones, the only kind of speakers you can listen to that close, then you had best not be listening to it as max volume either.  I have to admit, that is not at all impressive to me. 

 

Ack - missed putting in a smiley to indicate I wasn't being totally serious there.... Sorry. ?

 

-Paul

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

JG Holt, founder of Stereophile, explains it and your position here https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html [/quote]

JG Holt was a really fun person who cared far more about the hobby than making money. I really admire him. Doesn't mean I completely agree with him now any more than I did in 1977 though.  He was a great guy, but also an opinionated elitist ass with very poor business judgement. So what?   Shrug- YMMV. 

 

Quote

 

I would certainly hope your system sounded better than a PA.

 

That worst case scenario isn't the type of "live" some aspire to. It seems you are cherry picking a pathelogical example. What sort of "processed" sound are you using for comparison?[/quote]

 

I live in the "live music capital of the world" and I don't at all think a world class performance by a world class choir in a very well regarded venue is a "pathelogical" example. Even if I do have friends singing in the choir.   Of course, you can choose to disagree. Your opinion is not really going to change my mind, or actually, any one else's either. 

 

 

Quote

A MCH recording of the same choir in a studio? Played back using what?

 

Controlled listening tests. You seem to be conflating measurements here. 

 

Ditto above. You have confused issues. "People" aren't "measured".

 

Sez who? You? On what authority?  Methinks you assume way too much based on your own opinions here. People certainly are "measured" all the time, for all sorts of things. All I said is that the measurements for how much or how "good" a recording or performance is are unreliable. And thus something that currently cannot be measured and thus provides an example of an uncontroversial but audible difference that cannot currently be measured. 

 

I meant it in a humorous way, but I really don't think you have the chops to challenge the issue. You seem more intent on making some kind of internet point scoring than any kind of discussion, serious, pub, or otherwise. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

He addresses the very specific topic of live sound reference vs "whatever sound someone likes"

 

 

 

Well, he expresses his opinion on the subject.  

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

But of course you can't present what recording you are comparing it to or your reproduction system details. Apprehension.

So there is nothing to compare. Again, you avoid that the live reference everyone else is referring to isn't your pathological example.

Not trying to change your mind, you prefer your equipment, whatever that might be, to live PA systems and supposedly a particular acoustic performance. Not surprising given what JG admitted.

[/quote]

 

 

 

Seriously?  I of course have the recordings of it, including the master files. Since it is not available to you though, and you didn't attend the live performance, what possible value can it be to you? 

 

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

No you claim a billion people need to be measured which is senseless. The only thing that needs to be measured in a live vs reproduced, is the soundfield itself, not people.

[/Quote]

 

Well, here you are just wrong. The very same objective sound impinging upon two different people's ears will absolutely sound different. You would need a very large number of measurements of said sound field, as well as measurements of the people's perceptions who are listening to it. 

 

To accurately predict what any single person is hearing in a performance, you would need both the physical measurements and a fairly extensive baseline of the measurements of exactly what that person experiences when they "hear" similar sounds in all combinations. 

 

You perhaps know of a way to do this at reasonable cost and effort? 

 

 

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Peoples perception of it would be subjectively tested, not "measured" which you are conflating.

 

What "something" can't be measured?

 

People's perceptions are most certainly capable of being measured. It just isn't *easy* - which is why you shy away from it. Predicting those perceptions is even more difficult, at least with any scientific accuracy.

 

Everyone can - and does - take their best guess. People like Alan Parsons know what they like, and what other people have, in their past experience liked, and so can make reasonable guesses as to what will be liked, popular, and well received.  

 

If you really don't grasp the concept, I can supply you with some textbook references. If you don't grasp the intended humor, then that is my fault I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You're not overdriving it - typically, you're overstressing the amplifier, and it's distorting badly - I have done the exercise so many times of good amplifier, lowly speaker - and, the sound rises to the occasion. The conventional wisdom is to pair cheap speakers with a cheap amplifier: result is always, cheap sound! Apply a competent amplifying chain to those same speakers, where the only consideration for the speakers is to stabilise some of the typical weaknesses of such units - result: Big Sound!

 

People have great difficulty connecting the experience of listening to acoustic instruments, at a very close range, to the fact that sound systems are capable of delivering the same sonic sensations. I would suggest everyone try it: go up to a piano being played aggressively, put your head right over the soundboard; sidle up to a trumpet player so you're only a couple of feet away; wander over to the drummer practising, where you can almost touch one of the pieces. You will experience a powerful, overwhelming sound experience - and, the same thing can be delivered by a speaker working well, listening a few inches away. Normally of course this would be a disaster, the distortion would be terrible - but, that is the goal ...

 

I would call that over driving the speaker, even if the base cause is over driving the amplifier.  But I get your point. 

 

There are very efficient speakers that politely sip current from an amp that sound great of course. And there are powered speakers that remove the whole problem if external amplification. 

 

But every speaker I know of has to be driven to a certain loudness before they really exhibit their best sound. The speakers to me make a much greater impact on the sound than the amplifier. So driving any set of speakers to their best volume with clean power will give the best sound from that particular combination, everything else being equal and non-contributive.  A cheap set of speakers properly driven does have the potential to sound better than a really good set of speakers being poorly driven. 

 

But really good speakers appropriately driven will always (at least in my experience) sound better than less capable speakers appropriately driven.

 

 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm always interested in perceptual soundfield reconstruction...if that is what you claim to have.

But you continue to dance around. What is this "master file", who recorded it, using what encoding scheme, etc.

and why does it sound "better" to you on your mystery playback system? What about your playback is "better" than hearing this supposedly live at some location in this mystery place.

The story is rather lacking in any facts.

[/quote]

(Amusement) 

 

My systems and my musical preferences are hardly any kind of a "mystery" around here.  As well, it is kind of funny being on this side of the ages old argument. Dennis is mostly likely laughing his arse off ...

 

Again, since you cannot hear this for yourself, why would you expect I would go to the trouble of detailing something to "prove" anything to you? Do you feel you have special knowledge are are an arbitrary judge? Sorry - if  you were Barry Diamante I would gladly go to the trouble to provide such detail, mostly because he is a friend, but also because he would be willing to share any suggestions to improve the recording. 

 

 

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

That is fantastic to know, given that you claim a capture of it that is better than live. So now you are saying it is only better to your ears alone and what sound was impinging upon your ears/heard?

Well that sounds an awful lot like just a single individuals strange preference. I wonder how many other attendees would agree?[/quote]

 

How odd - I said the playback sounds better than the live performance.  I guess you could imply that means the capture was better than the live, but that is not what I said.  

 

I do not expect you can find any audio preferences that are not a single person's opinion. 

 

 

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

No, I'm just not a mental health expert or audiophile, i.e. I try to stick to what I know.

No "measurement" of a person is going to tell what they prefer, That requires an actual listening test. Again, you conflate the two due to confusion and lack of knowledge in the field you are speaking of.

 

Right and Stevie Nicks, both amplified performers. It is most likely that you prefer amplified rock music and simply don't like unamplfied acoustic, so have come up with this elaborate scheme as to why live acoustic isn't the reference for audio High Fidelity. You're a rocker aren't you?

 

Sigh - you continue to accuse me of misusing the term "measurement" here. I am neither misusing it nor having any difficulty understanding the use and meaning of it. Like I said, I can give you textbook references to measuring people's preferences, both statistically (which is a pain) and with more modern brain mapping techniques (very reliable, but very individual too.) 

 

There are jury rigged methods and techniques that also give good results, such as Skywalker sound turning a set of headphones for an individual person. 

 

As I said though, measuring a person's preferences en-masse is anything but practical on a large scale. 

 

Actually, I am rather eclectic in my music choices, and like almost anything save for Tibetean Throat Singing and Rap that is denigrating to women or just plain ugly. 

 

Lindsey Buckingham or Carlos Barbosa Lima - both great talents in my book.

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

15 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

What is this "best" sound if not referenced vs live music? [/quote]

 

Every physical component has a design point where it performs best, calculated by including power, efficiency, and measurements. That point, where the speaking is physically performing to it is design goals, is bot calculable and measurable. 

 

In this case, it is a trivial matter to listen to speakers and approximate that point, the loudness value where they sound the best is also where they are performing the best. Of course, this is an approximation. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

What is the reference that your loudspeaker designers used, that was not the live sound that you claim is not the reference?

 

What would you think?  both Jim Winey and Henry Kloss were competent engineers. Same as Paul Barton, Andrew Jones, and many other contemporary designers. 

I would expect they engineered them first, then listened to them. 

 

What do you think they did? 

 

15 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I certainly design towards that goal, since it is the only "reference" I have. I have no idea what Stevie Nicks and Alan Parsons et al are supposed to sound like. A stack of PA speakers in mono with feedback?

 

Try listening to some of their work on your stereo. If it is setup to do a good reproduction of a live recoding, it should not have any trouble with Parsons or even Fleetwood Mac.  

 

15 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

 

I know of several speaker designers/manufacturers who design vs "live" reference.

Here are at least 2:

Henry Kloss (AR, KLH, Advent).

In the early 1960s, AR conducted a series of over 75 live vs. recorded demonstrations throughout the United States in which the sound of a live string quartet was alternated with echo-free recorded music played through a pair of AR-3s. In this “ultimate” subjective test of audio quality, the listeners were largely unable to detect the switch from live to recorded, a strong testament to Acoustic Research's audio quality.

Jim Winey (Magnepan)

Bill played them for me, and my God! It was the closest thing to a live performance I had ever heard. I flipped. It put the seed in my mind, and I decided to apply myself to electrostatics. I started acquiring all the literature and patents.

So clearly the designer of those speaker use "live" as reference.

I'm really curious how the designers of your speakers designed them to sound better than live to you.

 

 

 

Well, I am fairly certain that if they were hear (pun intended) they would speak for themselves and perhaps say something a bit different now.  

 

Shrug - I love Maggies myself. Pretty much *all* of them.  And I have two pairs of Advents I still listen to because they "sound" right.  A set of LS50's are my favorite goto speakers right now though. I also happen to have a Naim all in one unit here that is incredible fun to listen to.  

 

-Paul 

[Paul R]

On 7/10/2017 at 5:16 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

Ah, another Frank. Ok, still learning the characters here.

 

Who is Frank and why would you think that I am him?  'Paul' is my real name. 

 

Yes, I can see you are rather new and trying to "make your mark" or something. We, as a group are unusually tolerant of that kind of behavior, because the people wroth talking to will sooner or later realize this joint operates on a different understanding. It does take time to understand that though. Take as much as you need. 

 

On 7/10/2017 at 5:16 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

Right and both are linked to "live" as reference, not "whatever sounds good to Joe Audiophile"

Kloss/AR-Advent even went as far as demoing vs a live acoustic group.

That is the reference standard for Winey and Kloss, Holt and many others, including myself.

You said

 

(amusement) And you have talked to them and know this on a personal level? Or are you simply making assumptions? 

 

On 7/10/2017 at 5:16 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

 

 

So the designers of your speakers completely disagree.

 

I rather doubt that, but it is a free country. 

 

On 7/10/2017 at 5:16 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

That isn't my kind of reference, it's yours. "Processed sound". I can't and don't design around something that has no reference, except maybe in some odd audiophiles head.

 

Cool, yet another baseless fact less claim.

 

Oh dear, here we go with the bad behavior. 

 

So you, all on your own, have decided to set yourself up as an authority and anyone you disagree with has to prove themselves to you, with facts you choose, or else face disdain and ridicule from you?  Snort - son, there have been some true masterclass butt heads come through here in the past, you are not even in the running for membership. 

 

But just so you clearly understand, neither I, nor anyone else here has to prove anything to you. Your claim of authority is - well - it is pretty much just ignored until you prove your knowledge by good rational discussion. A lot of which, since this *is* about computer audio, will mean you need to share your opinion, even when other people disagree with it. 

 

There are also an abundance of armchair engineers here, all willing to share their ideas - and many of them are very good ideas.  Not a lot of them are original, but many many of them are very good. There are also masterclass engineers here, though many of them hesitate to participate because the armchair variety can really be a time sink. 

 

You seem have some kind of allergic reaction to the fact that a common system can - at least in many people's considered opinion, including mine - produce sound that is technically better than sitting anywhere in a live concert. Our systems do, in fact, provide the "best seat in the house" to many many performances. That includes classical performances 

 

But it *also* includes many other kinds of performances, including performances that do not and cannot exist in the real world. If you don't like that, fine. They are however, out there, and many of them are in fact, dynamite performances and provide enormous enjoyment. To me and others, much more than sitting in an imperfect venue listening to some bore two seats over make irritating noises. The incident I refer to happened in Row G of the Center Parquet. If you don't happen to recognize that reference, think Carnegie. The seats were *not* cheap, nor was the audience supposed to be a bunch of rowdy bores. (shrug) 

 

In any event, if your system cannot play Alan Parsons well enough to give you are emotional thrill and a totally enjoyable experience, then I would suggest you need a new system. Or you made some really poor choices in your system. If you simply do not like that kind of music, fine. But it hardly bestows any kind of superiority on you, and runs the danger of you drowning in a hard rainstorm. Each person is a fee individual though, so more power to you. 

 

-Paul

 

 

On 7/10/2017 at 5:16 PM, AJ Soundfield said:

 

Fascinating.

 

[Paul R]

On 7/10/2017 at 6:22 PM, fas42 said:

 

Part of the puzzle is that dynamic drivers always have to be "warmed up" - when I talk of competent sound, this has never occurred on any system I've worked on until hours after a cold start, and, the speakers have to be "thrashed" during that warm up period. That is, driven hard, really hard - high energy rock, say, at 11 . Unfortunately, the suspensions of conventional drivers are their big weakness, and need to be "loosened up", coaxed into a stability where they give of their best.

 

Which is why speakers typically sound better loud - the suspensions are in a reasonable state of flexibility, and the results speak for themselves. What one then finds after enough time has elapsed is that the suspensions have finally stabilised, and then one can drop the volume right down, say to headphone levels - and the SQ is still there!

 

Expensive drivers will be better in this regard, they should "come on song" earlier - cheap ones need to be brutalised more, .

 

And, this is why panel speakers win! People are enthusiastic about their "special qualities" - which is all about the suspensions being totally different, and not requiring the warm up process. I have yet to hear a panel speaker do anything better than a boring box speaker, once the latter is in its stride.

 

 

So, you think that most expensive drivers have an intrinsically higher level of performance, or peak performance, than the cheaper drivers? 

 

Or that, perhaps, the level at which people recognize a speaker creating an enjoyable performance is actually lower than some of us might think, and that is why cheaper drivers can create a great performance? 

 

All this of course, ignoring the electronics and assuming all else is equal.  In truth, I don't know the answer to the questions above, though I suspect that both of them *might* be true. It is quite possible one or both of those answers could be  "false" though.  I really do not know.

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

The guy with arms the size of Hulks from all the waving, who posted just above you.

He has a penchant for 8000 words that say nothing.

 

(amusement)

So you have no evidence, just assumptions. Ok.

 

Your the one trying to prove a negative friend. I have gently pointed out you are attempting to do the impossible. Waste of effort to my way of thinking, but knock yourself out...

 

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That opinion is baseless, since all recordings of live are technically inferior by every metric. With 2ch forget it, 90% of the soundfield is missing in capture. MCH lowers this.

 

It is neither baseless nor is your assumption correct.  You simply are blind to the idea that the experience of listening to music, in terms of listening to the performance, can and usually is superior when listening to a recording. In terms of the overall experience, as in enjoying the visual aspects, those are quantities that I pointed out, are difficult if not impossible to measure. 

 

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That's why you can't name one. Begininng with mics limited frequency responses (global), distortion, etc.,

I a not arguing that you don't prefer a mere facsimile of the actual event (clearly you do!). But there is zero "technically better" reason why, only your personal subjective preference with zero objective/technical metric support.

 

And on and on you go. It is clearly technically better - the recording has usually been optimized for playback, the recording is probably a multi-channel product that even reduced to two channels, provides far better imaging and even better resolution of the instruments than in a live performance. Those aspects are easily measured. 

 

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So a pathological one event one person scenario as I stated previously. Ok. Thanks for the admission.

That isn't what others like your speaker designers, Kal, myself, all the perceptual reconstruction researchers et al  use as live as reference.

 

(amusement) And so the personal attacks start again.  I gave you one example, which you choose to discount. I could give you a hundred examples and you would choose to discount them all of course. Which is why discussing stuff with people like you is useless until you grow up a little more. 

 

 

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

Making assumptions again I see. Alan Parsons and Stevie Nicks sound just fine on my system, thanks.

There is just no way I design using that kind of audiophile electronic construct music as a reference, since there is none. This has nothing to do with preference, just physical facts.

 

 

 

 

And... your statements are flat out false. There is no more "reference" for live classical music than for a constructed audio performance. Or rather, the references is exactly the same, but you can not measure it. Certainly you cannot measure it for a wide audience, because you do not have the tools to measure exactly what each individual is hearing. 

 

This is why it may be your opinion that live music should be used to tune and select for your system, but if you are using a two stereo recording to compare with, what you are hearing is an engineer's choice for how the sound is reproduced. Filtered through your system, your room, your ears, and all your preconceptions.  And if you are using your memory of a live performance in another venue other than your listening room, then your "reference" is utterly useless. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

On 7/14/2017 at 10:12 AM, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Paul - I have excerpted this paragraph from your post because I am really interested in understanding your point of view.  If you could be so kind, could you list the components and any special features of your system for us? I suspect many others are also curious about how what you say can be achieved: sound that is better than live from recordings played on your home system.

 

I think there may be some confusion here. A recording of a live event, say a binaural recording, often sounds very good. And on a good system, it can sound like 'being there." This is what I expect many people refer to when talking about the absolute sound. The SoundStream recordings are made in manner similar to this, and they all sound fantastic. But they are made in a studio (usually!) and are carefully done to present the very best sound possible. In this case, absolutely, the live performance is going to sound better than the recording, and that despite the fact the recording will be phenomenally good. (IMNSHO of course.) 

 

However, a normal concert in a normal venue, which recording with multiple mics, then mixed with care, will often sound better played back on a good system than it did to (at least most of) the audience. That would be because in effect, the recording provides one with the best seat in the house. 

 

It does not mean that the recording has not "lost information" from the live performance, because it has. But what information is recorded can be played back in the absolutely optimum way, repeatably, and in thousands and thousands of different venues. 

 

Does that clear up what I am saying for you a little better? 

 

 

On 7/14/2017 at 10:12 AM, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 

Several days ago I posted about the huge differences in how pop and jazz music was presented live vs. classical music.  Yes, there are normally acoustic and other problems with pop and jazz live, so I concede that studio mixes often sound better than the live version in those genres.  So, I do not doubt that recordings played at home are often better.

 

Classical music is where you have stimulated my curiousity, as well as doubts, especially since these days most classical music is recorded in the same venue as live performance, and it is often recorded before a live audience.  I wonder if you could reveal some of the recordings that lead you to your conclusions as well as giving us some insight in how frequently you attend live classical concerts, as well as the venues you use and the ensembles you typically see.

 

I take your point about others making unnecessary noise at live concerts.  This happens to me occasionally, too.  But, really it is quite seldom here in Philadelphia.

 

So, please tell us more about how you have reached your conclusions.

 

Well, I spent a bit more than 20 years in Philadelphia, so unless the people there have gotten a bit more respectful than I remember, I think I repectfully disagree with you. Of course, back then, I could not often afford really good seats, so... my impressions maybe colored by that. 

 

Again, the recording can and usually does provide you with the "best seat in the house" which is what I would suggest provides the "better" performance. Also, you can pause the performance to take a piss or grab a snack when necessary.

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No, it is not impaired. I've mentioned a number of times over the years that one ear is still capable of registering an 18kHz tone, the other gives up at about 15k - good enough to pick up the beautiful shimmer of cymbals being lightly brushed, and the extreme "singing" of brass and crystal devices used in meditation recordings, etc.

 

You completely missed the point with the car radio, of course. Yes, the rental would have sounded horrible to me as well, but you failed to note what I would do to somewhat rectify that ... you see, I aim to experience the "live vibe" from playback, and, real instruments generate tremendous intensity in the higher frequencies - think, say, bagpipes here. If a real one of the latter were a few feet away from you it would metaphorically drill holes through your skull - that's what an audio system should do, and if it can't, then it's failing ...

 

I do not follow some of this. Playing any driver at full volume is likely to produce a terribly sound.  However, playing at drivers at its optimal volume, with plenty of clean  power, produces the best sound the driver can produce.  Is that what you mean? 

[Paul R]

On 7/14/2017 at 10:20 AM, AJ Soundfield said:

Wrong. I have presented evidence in support of my position, you wave your hands, because you have zero evidence.

That's the difference.

Technically better is utterly baseless and once again, zero technical anything in your response.

Zero "technically better". Obviously you don't know the meaning of words.

That is purely your preference and sole opinion with zero technical merit.

Circular logic, it's "technically better" because you prefer the poor facsimile to real...and because you prefer it, it's "technically better".

 

Wrong. You can't show a single measurement of your system, much less that it would be "better" playing back a recording of the real instruments. Totally absurd (amusement). As expected, you are fabricating "better" objective reasons for you totally subjective preference.

You're "better" imaging and resolution measurements now please (rhetorical question).

 

Yep, a totally pathological one, as predicted.

Zero to do with live performances anyone else uses as reference.

 

You are superimposing your ignorance of acoustic science on everyone. That is exactly what PSR, WFS, Ambiosonics, etc, etc, and even binaural scanning are about.

Even more amusing is that your stereo Maggies can't possibly recreate anything like multi positions of a real event, the dynamic range, the frequency range, the direct/diffuse fields, anything! It's laughable to think otherwise.

 

(amusement) You have absolutely no clue what an "engineers choice for how sound is reproduced" is. Pure fantasy and assumptions.

They most certainly didn't intend for any music to be produced specifically by Maggies or Advents, which are infinitesimal segments of the music market.

Rock on Paul 

 

Wow- take all the time you need to get over those teenage hormones.  

 

What are those fantastic creds you claim to have by the way?  Besides being snide I mean? You have already mastered that.

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Oh c'mon ... sitting in a club watching Buddy Guy play right in front of me has never been captured by any recording ... and we were drinking lots of beers ... can't remember needing to pee until after the show  ... also ChicagoFest, Saturday July 4th, 1981 ... CTA ... crowd went bezerk and that's never been captured. Could go on and on. Grateful Dead, great sound... of course there are many crappy bands with bad sound.

 

Sitting in front of a quartet: priceless.

 

I know, I know convenience. But trust me, if you've ever been up close to a hot cellist intently playing... recordings never do that justice 

 

LOL!  I must admiit I have enjoyed almost every concert I have gone to immensely, even ones where things sometimes went wrong. Well, if you count out the Ring Cycle, which I tend to find less than thrilling. (I prefer "I killed the wabbit!" myself...) 

 

I don't think a recording can compare to the experience of a live concert, but I don't think the sound at a live concert compares favorably to the recording either.

 

-Paul