What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, STC said:

 

The only reason I paid attention to this thread because it reminded me of someone who did a wonderful job with a JVC DVD player and some other cheap stuff together with 8 or so cheap subwoofer. He died bringing his secret to his grave. 

 

Various people have got similar results - I'm always on the lookout for others who "get it", and those that do usually ascribe their success to some special ingredient - using an amplifier with a particular design philosophy; or horn speakers that are particularly well sorted; or going overboard on a grounding strategy. For me, these are just different roads to the same destination: achieving a sufficiently competent playback quality; from then on the ear/brain takes over, and constructs a powerful illusion which makes the listening a delight.

 

IOW, I refuse to have a hangup about needing special speakers, room setups, the adding of magic sauce - it's the attention to detail, worrying about the most minor aspects, that gets me the results.

 

There will certainly be other people after me who will chance upon their version of the answers - what matters is making at least some people aware that a very special quality of sound can be achieved, if they are prepared to pursue it.

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't think the software analogy is a good one. An amp has an input and output. As long as the input voltage and load impedance are within specified limits, the output should be predictable. A handful of test signals are enough to fully characterise its behaviour. Software, on the other hand, has a near infinite variety of inputs and it's not even well defined what the output ought to be in many cases. Consider also the internal complexity. While an amp has perhaps a few hundred parts (a simple one needs only a handful), an operating system has tens of millions of lines of code. It is not humanly possible to form a mental model of the entire system at one time, so we have to use high-level abstractions for all but the small part we're currently working on. When a module violates the rules of these abstractions, obscure bugs occur.

 

The software analogy is quite reasonable - IME, a handful of test signals is not good enough to characterise the behaviour of, not the amplfier, but the system as assembled - everything I've read has confirmed that no-one has a good handle on how to test a complete audio rig, to come up with a set of numbers which fully describe its capability. So, I rely on my ears to give the feedback as to whether a setup is approaching the competence I seek.

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Many of those cases are probably nothing but dumb luck being wrongly attributed to whatever part of the system is slightly unusual.

 

Luck is a huge part of it - it happened to me as a total surprise, I was just trying to get my system sounding better along the same lines as everyone else - and suddenly this quantum change in the subjective presentation popped up like a Jack-in-the-Box ... "What the hell's going on ??!!" ...

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

BTW, I failed to answer your earlier question -- I think the audio illusion (akin to an optical illusion) is the closest to a positive answer as any I have seen (thank you!), which is prompting my question about phase.

 

I chase the audio illusion, it's the core of what I'm interested in - but I have never, ever worried about phase. Ditto for DAC "jitter" - I am still flumoxed by the level of thrashing that goes on about this magic word ...

[fas42]

I note that AJ has got his groove going nicely now ... warning! It only gets worse.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

Ah, but then what is the measurement for transparency?  Obviously there is not a single measurement that captures all of the above? So what is the series of measurements that add up to transparency and in what order should we consider them?  I do not doubt that speakers and room response have a much bigger effect on these qualities than do DACS, amplifiers, cables, etc.  but I believe the original post was not limited to only measuring those items. 

 

One thing that is very clear is that the speakers in themselves and the room are the least important elements in achieving 'transparency' - to me. Dirt cheap speakers, in any room, set up anywhere it's convenient, have been pushed to create the full "audio illusion" - the rest of the system is king in this regard, it controls the level of the critical anomalies in the sound that disrupt an acceptable illusion.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

His honesty is a great counter to the lunacy and delusion you try to present as reality Frank.

Your on my IGNORE list at 2 other sites and soon to earn that honor here.

 

 

Some people are always disturbed by those who don't go along with the thinking of the pack - however, what high quality playback offers is too valuable, for everyone, to then just pretend that it doesn't exist, just so those people will be appeased.

[fas42]

Of interest, here's an example of a YouTube video of a system playback, just posted by a member of another forum with whom I've corresponded quite a bit, which shows many of the qualities I look for,

 

 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

One really has to wonder why Harman et al wasted all that time and money with BRS technology, when you could have taught them how to listen for "artifacts" via YouTube playing on your desktop or laptop.

Have you ever considered a consulting biz? Many audiophiles can't audition stuff in person, so you could do it for them as long as there are YouTube captures, even via cel phone sometimes.

There was a William the Conqueror, so maybe Frank the Conjurer?

LLC of course.

I'm afraid none of this addresses the thread title, but....

 

It's mighty simple - just put yourself in the frame of mind that someone went to a live performance and used some recording device to capture what was going on - and you now listen to that recording on YouTube. There are plenty of such, in every variety of music you think of, marching bands, impromptu sing songs, etc - as well as, endless captures of stereo system playbacks. Now, can you listen to one of the latter, and have to check what the details are, to be sure that it's not one of the former? That's the core of what to do ...

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Fas24, can i post 10 Youtube recordings here and see if you could tell whether they were live or recorded events? 

 

Go for it!

[fas42]

19 hours ago, STC said:

And some people get a thrill by getting others confused in a already very confused hobby.

 

Many people have a list of what to think about when getting an audio system right, with a ranking of priorities something like this:

 

1) Get the room in optimal shape for best listening

 

2) Use the best possible speakers

 

3) Get the electronics chain fully sorted

 

4)  Remember, everything  matters!

 

       Actually, I have the same list - just, with a slight reordering of priorities ...

 

1) Remember, everything  matters!

 

2) Get the electronics chain fully sorted

 

3) Use the best possible speakers

 

4) Get the room in optimal shape for best listening

 

[fas42]

54 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

What are you trying to do? Are you suggesting this is a measurement of something or alternatively something which can't be measured? Is a youtube video supposed to accomplish something?

 

What is there can be measured, but it may not be easy to do - an analysis of the spectral content, time domain behaviour, to a fine enough level should give the answers.

 

There's a YouTube video where John Atkinson shakes some sound making instrument, live, and also has an "excellent" audio system play back that same sound ... oh dear ... ... should be an interesting exercise to separate what's going on there ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

I'm still not understanding: what does a YouTube video of a room tell us about? What is the measurement? 

 

The measurement is by your ear/brain as to whether it ticks the boxes for the qualities that live sound has - the question I will ask, if there happens to be music coming from somewhere which is unsighted, and someone were to ask you whether it's live, acoustic performers; or rather that it is an audio/PA system in action - would you always have to go and check?

[fas42]

5 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So when do we see the pic of the uber Phillips HTIB in your room and a full scientific explanation as how you managed to transcend the physical reality limitations of stereo, dynamic compression, plane waves, diffuse fields, etc, etc as JJ detailed in the PSR papers and then demoed to "outside the head" observers? 

 

The Philips is broken; a channel died and I wasn't sufficiently motivated to replace the main chip; the bits of it lie in a corner; current project is the NAD combo, used for the violin and piano duo in the clip posted before.

 

You were told over and over again in the ASR forum what the apparent explanation for this is; the research field of Auditory Scene Analysis decribes how the human hearing system can "conjure" up a reality which is not there, given sufficient clues; all that has to be done is to feed the mind enough non-conflicting information.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, STC said:

 

And we learned nothing new....but not so sure about (3).

 

There is nothing new ... except, how one orders one's priorities - the point I made, which nobody got ...

 

I, and a typical audiophile, will walk, separately, into a room where an audio system is sounding pretty terrible; the other chap will immediately start fiddling with the room, moving the speakers, changing bits of furnishing, etc; bringing in another speaker to "get it to sound better"; playing with any type of tone controls that may be available.

 

I will ignore all of that, and inspect precisely how the system is set up: where the components are plugged in, what other devices are plugged into the same power line; how are the components hooked together, how are the cords arranged which are connecting everything together; on what surfaces are the components mounted, how stable are they on that; how stable are the speakers in their positions; what other electrical devices are switched on in the vicinity - the list goes on and on ... I call this, the "everything matters" part; or, "the devil's in the details".

 

If anyone understands what I have just said, then they're on their way - this is exactly what I do every time I start optimising.

 

[fas42]

... duhh, double post  ... weird editor in this forum - so easy to double post if the wrong key is pressed ...

[fas42]

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Frank, I know that all too well. I give you exhibit A in your mirror.

What you fail to mention is that in those very same ASA you and little Johnny were grasping at, it took me to point out that they specifically stated that their testing was non-musical...and controlled, to prevent delusion.

You seem to "forget" this minor detail in your recollection of the tale. ASA adheres to the scientific method, which means they used controlled testing, not daydream delusions, for reliable data.

Try not to "miss" these finer points next time Frank.

 

AJ, you are a master of twisting and contorting stories - of course their primary testing is non-musical, and controlled - if you want to get any sort of reportable data, that's a given. However, the concept of music is brought in constantly, as examples of where this behaviour may be seen, although not precisely in the the way that I and John talk about. And, "delusion" is at the very heart of ASA - it's all about hearing something which is not actually measurably there - to the point where there is an active movement which directly uses the principles of ASA to project sound, music which deliberately "fools you" - intentional manipulation is, well, the intention.

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

 

Isn't  that supposed to be the other way around? Since when Audiophile's believe in speakers placement, room acoustics, treble and bass control etc can bring better sound that power conditioner, cable and valve amplifiers couldn't.  

 

 

 

Well, I'm contrasting Dennis's, esldude, take on it - the ASR crowd viewpoint.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That is still no excuse for why no pictures, no details, no schematics, no measurements, no anything as to how you achieved the requisite frequency range, without dynamic compression, using only plane wave radiators, etc, etc, etc, 18,000 posts later describing what you did-heard-loop-loop-loop

 

Pictures, etc? Why repeat yourself, when one can just point to here, http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2966-A-Search-for-Truth-and-Tonality

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

That's not a measurement. The OP clearly stated he is not looking at psychoacoustics.

 

If we state it like this: is there a measurement which can determine whether a performance is live in a room vs played back from a recording in the same room? I have no interest if I can tell from the outside. 

 

Though he does accept that the auditory illusion is the best put forward so far ...

 

The measurement will certainly currently rely on human interaction, because no-one, including myself, knows the precise numbers that will determine whether the illusion will manifest. The oldest trick in the book, putting a curtain or equivalent between the listeners and the source and asking, is probably the best to date.

 

Personally, the 100% invisible speakers is the most reliable "measurement": is it impossible for me, with my eyes closed if desired, to locate the drivers working, no matter how close I place my ears to the speaker?

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Okay, some may not understand your sarcasm. Why not state the obvious and move on? Even though, I don't agree with most of the stuff that typical audiophiles do but I think what you are doing is wrong. You are not helping other genuine users who are here to learn.

 

I was a typical audiophile and thanks to people like Arny who managed to express their view with resorting to confusing others. I am sure other users feel the same way.

 

Sorry if it seems sarcastic - to put it bluntly, I've been here too many times, that is, trying to convey what I do, and the backlash is often quite severe; I'm a bit exhausted by the whole business, the swatting of flies is tiresome; and all the material is already out there, on forums and my blog.

 

What do you think I'm doing wrong, specifically?

 

[fas42]

On 07/06/2017 at 2:17 AM, wgscott said:

Just to clarify, I fully understand that there are differences that cannot be reduced to measurement, like an emotionally-charged vs. bland rendition -- you can measure these differences, presumably, but there is little if any indication how to interpret such measurements in terms of how emotionally compelling a rendition might be.  (The differences are objectively measurable, even if the interpretation of them in this manner is not possible.)

 

Just to comment on this ... "emotionally-charged" == highly accurate, low in critical types of distortion ; "bland" == audible anomalies, artifacts which may be difficult to measure, but significantly degrade the listening experience. Yes, difficult to measure, but by altering aspects of the system and its environment one can go from one rendition to the other - "things were changed" and the the impact is audible, in those terms.

 

So, "emotionally compelling" is automatically the result when the system delivers what I call "correct sound" - which means, that the remaining audible distortions and variations from what the source contains are sufficiently low in level and don't prevent one from being able to fully engage with the reproduced sound. Or, you don't hear the system, only what's on the recording.

 

Objectively measurable will be that the sound field matches the data on the recording, to a certain degree. The tricky bit will be determining what the "certain degree" is ...

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I understand that you are looking for "invisible speakers", but what you aren't doing is measuring.

You appear to be on a quest to achieve your own personal objective -- which is great, after all this is a hobby -- but this thread is about something other than your quest. @wgscott, here, isn't claiming that there aren't "audible differences", the question is, when they exist, can they be measured? You aren't discussing measurement.

 

The complication is that the human hearing system is part of this chain - how do we, ummm, "measure" this? At a technical level, anything and everything we do to an audio system will be measurable in the output, given sufficient sensitivity - the "butterfly flapping its wings" thing. So, getting a measure, in numbers, that's something's changed is trivial, in the theoretical sense - what matters, is whether those altering numbers correlate to anything heard.

 

So, "measurable differences" - no problem; "audible differences", no problem  ... "measurable differences" <==> "audible differences" - big problem!

[fas42]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

Just because you can measure difference that doesn't mean there will be audible difference. You can measure 0.1dB difference but can you hear the difference?

 

Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making - I use the "<==>" symbol to connect the two: if the audio difference is there then there will be a measurable difference; if that same measurable difference is there then there will always be a corresponding audible difference - at least for a significant number of listeners.

[fas42]

This report by someone else, on using something that's very controversial,

mirrors my experiences - I've never used this type of tweak, in the sense of buying something that promises to have an effect like this, but have "tidied up" systems, to do the equivalent. The subjective impact of removing this type of tweak can be something like "nothing short of amazing, one only has to disconnect the boxes to hear the SQ collapse to an almost unlistenable level ". "Unlistenable" may be pushing it, , but it certainly may make a huge difference.