What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[semente]

9 minutes ago, francisleung said:

Actually what I am trying to say in my first post to this thread relates to the title, that is, in my view dispersion is a phenomenon or feature that is not measurable. 

 

I guess that depends on what you mean by dispersion.

 

Have a look here at what the Neumann Glossary has to say about loudspeaker Dispersion/Directivity:

 

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/glossary.nsf/root/E739BF069CE5E3F7C125728C006784FC

 

[francisleung]

1 hour ago, francisleung said:

""I use only two channels and do not slip in any sound processing. The phenomena/images I described represent reproduction in stereo system. ""

Hi Semente, it is two channel and I do not use room correction or sound processing because in my view they pollute the sound.

[STC]

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

Just for the record, I re-used a youtube ripper that gave me the audio in .wav format.  Using that and inverting channels resulted in a signal level of -infinity.  Zero.  Nothing there.  Definitely completely mono. 

 

Does anyone believe your brain combined with your ears and eyes can play tricks on you now?

 

All the time. I have even wrongly listened for a long time playing out of phase. Sometimes, I can perceive left and right even with mono. That happens when I listen to music and not sound.  

[STC]

20 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I can't help but smile at this...

 

Music is about sound not space, and yet for many audiophiles and audio critics space seems to be THE most important aspect of reproducing music.

I find this very, very strange.

 

If music is about sound; only anechoic recordings will do. 

[francisleung]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

I  received this email yesterday  from someone who spent half of his life recreating concert hall sound in listening room. We were discussing about something else about my system and  reproducing the ambiance correctly in recordings. Reproducing the relevant part here. 

 

". .......  ( redacted )........

...........

In halls there is a concept called the critical radius.  This is the point in front of an orchestra where the level of reverb is the same as the level of the direct sound.  This point is normally in the first row or even just behind the conductor.  By the time you are a few rows back the sound is 90% reverb.  But since reverb is late and has directional cues all over the place, the human brain just hears the direct sound for localization purposes and uses the reverb to assess space and reality.  You will see that you can get the surround speaker levels quite high before you have a problem with the front stage.  If you sit in the balcony you essentially just hear reverb with a mono front stage but you can still tell that the stage is in front of you even with your eyes closed.  Now if you put all this reverb into two speakers in front of you with the direct sound, you get the sewer effect.  So that is why hall ambience needs to come from all these side and rear directions but not much from the front.

 

Different halls have different levels and they have different levels depending on how many people are in the audience, etc. so it is all very subjective.  I have one remote control that allows me to adjust all the speakers together so it is easy to have visitors also have the hall they want.

 

Audiophiles that become Ambiophiles will spend the rest of their listening lives tweaking concert halls.  I feel sorry for them.  This is worse than deciding what cable sounds best.

 

Ralph "

 

 

This is interesting.

[francisleung]

41 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I guess that depends on what you mean by dispersion.

 

Have a look here at what the Neumann Glossary has to say about loudspeaker Dispersion/Directivity:

 

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/glossary.nsf/root/E739BF069CE5E3F7C125728C006784FC

 

I am not sure whether or not the term "dispersion" that I have used is the orthodox term as used in the industry. I have bookmarked the link you kindly provided for my further understanding.

Assuming the features and phenomena I have described are there, I regard  any audio system being unable to reproduce them has dispersion problem. That is the context I have in mind. 

Do you think "dispersion" is right term? Or if not what other term should be used more correctly instead?

[semente]

43 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If music is about sound; only anechoic recordings will do. 

 

First and foremost yes, it's about the sound that instruments and vocals make.

Space is a by-product, an accessory element.

And perhaps those obsessed with space would find themselves focusing more on the music if they gave the Tivoli a try.

 

I go to lunchtime recitals on a weekly basis, in a church and/or in a memorial hall; I generally sit between 3 and 5 metres away from the players; I can't help but note how much "audiophile space" is an overrated gimmick, that it doesn't have the same significance when one is listening live.

You can tell me that space is more important in playback because it's missing the visual aspect.

How then would you explain how/why I can feel extremely moved when listening to music played back through my Tivoli Audio monaural tabletop radio?

 

It's so easy for audiophiles to get caught up in the peripheral or complementary aspects...the person you quoted gave an excellent example: cables.

This explains the success of the otherwise (musically) nondescript recordings of Bubbles, Krells and Barbies amongst the audio crowd.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, francisleung said:

I am not sure whether or not the term "dispersion" that I have used is the orthodox term as used in the industry. I have bookmarked the link you kindly provided for my further understanding.

Assuming the features and phenomena I have described are there, I regard  any audio system being unable to reproduce them has dispersion problem. That is the context I have in mind. 

Do you think "dispersion" is right term? Or if not what other term should be used more correctly instead?

 

Francis, to be honest I am struggling to understand whether you mean instrument dispersion or playback dispersion.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

For $85 you could get this USB measuring microphone.  This and a computer with USB port or iPad would let you do recordings. 1% THD at 133 db SPL.  As well as working with measuring software like REW, it will show up as a source to record using any number of free sound recording programs or apps.  It has a very nice response and will record cleanly even up close to the speaker.

 

So either one of these lets you record in a way that means something instead of noisy, compressed, seriously flawed recordings of systems and telling us how it should sound to us. 

 

I now do have a reasonable USB microphone. Which was used to record the snippets from the NAD system, recently; as in the violin and piano video posted here earlier ... or do you also find that "noisy, compressed, seriously flawed"?

[STC]

53 minutes ago, francisleung said:

I won’t say I am immune to illusion entailed from sight.
There are other tracks that I do not have the stage photo or set up diagram of the recording session but am still able to discern positioning and imaging as in the more conspicuous tracks that I quoted.
Two more examples:
High Life from Jazz at the Pawnshop 1. 
The vibraphone is located at the plane of the speaker and in front of it when it is on solo (louder being closer to the listener). On the other hand, the tambourine as played by the drummer is located at the rear wall behind the speakers. I have heard expensive systems with substandard dispersion having the tambourine in front near the speakers. 
House of the Rising Sun from Opus 3 Test CD 4.1

 

Between House of the rising sun and Jazz at pawnshop the 3D effect is much superior in the former. With jazz, I do hear the sound as you describe but there is not much depth even with the ambiance speakers turned on to the max and without it rather plain, the applause is stuck to the planes of speakers. Even Patricia Barber's Black Magic Woman is more realistic where the applause is closer and around the listener. 

 

And the the drum is not too rear to the wall as you described. Is your rear wall untreated?

[semente]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

 

https://www.parts-express.com/minidsp-umik-1-omni-directional-usb-measurement-calibrated-microphone--230-332

 

For $85 you could get this USB measuring microphone.  This and a computer with USB port or iPad would let you do recordings. 1% THD at 133 db SPL.  As well as working with measuring software like REW, it will show up as a source to record using any number of free sound recording programs or apps.  It has a very nice response and will record cleanly even up close to the speaker.

 

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-imm-6-calibrated-measurement-microphone-for-tablets-iphone-ipad-and-android--390-810

 

This you can get for $16.25 with 18hz-20khz response.  Works with iPhones, iPads, most Android phones and tablets (some Android phones act weirdly and chop off response at 8 khz).  Also with the proper adapter works with most computer or laptop sound card input jacks.  1% THD at 127 db SPL. 

 

So either one of these lets you record in a way that means something instead of noisy, compressed, seriously flawed recordings of systems and telling us how it should sound to us. 

 

I have been using the iMM-6 with the Audio Tool Android app to measure the response at the listening spot.

 

Recorded sound is quite decent too, although it you only get a single channel.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, STC said:

 

All microphones are somewhat limited with the ability to capture full dynamic range of live performance or even my system playing at realistic level of 85dB where the peak can go above 100dB. Without cutting the gain there is no way, I could capture the sound without clippings. 

 

If you are insisting recording the sound away from the source than there are several paparmeter that going to alter the evaluation. 

 

1) how far from the system. 

 

2) how reveberant is the spot where you are recording? I can record the sound of my system from one door where I will be standing on highly reverberant room ( outside my music room) or from the window standing on a ladder where there will be no other reflection reaching my microphone. 

 

3) the exact location where you place the microphone. If your door is located in the back centre than that sound will be different from one door at the side of the room. 

 

In no(2) above, I am sure you do have software that can measure the direct sound and secondary sound reaching the microphone where you can tell how live or dead the room is. Are you using some kind of software? Yes or No will do. 

 

Btw, have you done any live performance demonstrating your ability? Any video proof of that? Just asking. 

 

1) The recordings I made were in the range 5 - 16 metres away; aimed to get a distance where the recording unit didn't drastically overload.

 

2) A gallery kitchen adjoins the living area; recorded at the far end of that; couple of bay windows along it, and a slate floor.

 

3) Recorder placed on a flat surface of the height of a kitchen bench.

 

No, I'm not using any software to analyse the sound characteristics - recording in any sense is something I have never tuned into; so my efforts there are 100% newbie.

 

I have always aimed to try and assemble a system robust enough to move around, to demonstrate. However, I have found that the "everything matters" aspect was too hard a taskmaster; something that could replicate what I was after, in an impromptu situation, never quite materialised, .

 

The best 'proof' has been my wife, - when I get a system in the zone she's usually frustrated that I can't turn up the volume more - "that's as loud as it can go I'm afraid, dear!"

[STC]

48 minutes ago, semente said:

 

First and foremost yes, it's about the sound that instruments and vocals make.

Space is a by-product, an accessory element.

And perhaps those obsessed with space would find themselves focusing more on the music if they gave the Tivoli a try.

 

I go to lunchtime recitals on a weekly basis, in a church and/or in a memorial hall; I generally sit between 3 and 5 metres away from the players; I can't help but note how much "audiophile space" is an overrated gimmick, that it doesn't have the same significance when one is listening live.

You can tell me that space is more important in playback because it's missing the visual aspect.

How then would you explain how/why I can feel extremely moved when listening to music played back through my Tivoli Audio monaural tabletop radio?

 

It's so easy for audiophiles to get caught up in the peripheral or complementary aspects...the person you quoted gave an excellent example: cables.

This explains the success of the otherwise (musically) nondescript recordings of Bubbles, Krells and Barbies amongst the audio crowd.

 

I do not know what is audiophile space. My room is extensively treated with 4 inch Roxul  slab. Almost two third of the front and rear is covered by them. Even the ceiling and side wall are covered by them. So you get  very little indirect sound. I know how stereo sounded then and how it sounds now  ambiance via surround speakers. Just a flip of a switch for pure stereo and what I am doing now. No one preferred the plain stereo with almost zero room coloriation. But if you were to ask me about eight years ago, I would have agreed with you. 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

1) The recordings I made were in the range 5 - 16 metres away; aimed to get a distance where the recording unit didn't drastically overload.

 

I can can play very very loud without any distortion. My 5 or 15 meter even in almost identical environment is going to sound different because we both could playing at different volume. Usually sound recorded with microphone sounds better when the system volume is lower because the of lesser room coloration. 

 

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

2) A gallery kitchen adjoins the living area; recorded at the far end of that; couple of bay windows along it, and a slate floor.

 

3) Recorder placed on a flat surface of the height of a kitchen bench.

 

No, I'm not using any software to analyse the sound characteristics - recording in any sense is something I have never tuned into; so my efforts there are 100% newbie.

 

No. I am not asking that. Have your compared the sound recorded at different spot as described in my previous post. 

 

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I have always aimed to try and assemble a system robust enough to move around, to demonstrate. However, I have found that the "everything matters" aspect was too hard a taskmaster; something that could replicate what I was after, in an impromptu situation, never quite materialised, .

 

The best 'proof' has been my wife, - when I get a system in the zone she's usually frustrated that I can't turn up the volume more - "that's as loud as it can go I'm afraid, dear!"

 

Even an average of 70dB is too loud for my wife.

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

No. I am not asking that. Have your compared the sound recorded at different spot as described in my previous post. 

 

 

Even an average of 70dB is too loud for my wife.

 

Sorry, don't follow - I can't see you mentioning different spots in your previous post ...

 

My wife loves male opera - the Three Tenors type of thing - more volume, more volume, please!

[STC]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

2) how reveberant is the spot where you are recording? I can record the sound of my system from one door where I will be standing on highly reverberant room ( outside my music room) or from the window standing on a ladder where there will be no other reflection reaching my microphone

 

The difference of your surrounding. 

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

 

The difference of your surrounding. 

 

Okay. The first recording unit was too poor to really experiment in this sense; my main struggle was trying all sorts of tricks to prevent the recording from distorting, including pointing the microphone in the "wrong" direction - the recording of Sumlin used that technique.

 

The current USB mic was used to record behind the speakers, a couple of metres back - in this case all the sound was indirect, bouncing off the wall and window in front of them; only the bass port was facing the mic. Two of the clips on my YouTube channel were done this way.

[STC]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay. The first recording unit was too poor to really experiment in this sense; my main struggle was trying all sorts of tricks to prevent the recording from distorting, including pointing the microphone in the "wrong" direction - the recording of Sumlin used that technique.

 

The current USB mic was used to record behind the speakers, a couple of metres back - in this case all the sound was indirect, bouncing off the wall and window in front of them; only the bass port was facing the mic. Two of the clips on my YouTube channel were done this way.

 

 

So you are recording the sound from all over the location where no one would not normally listen and that's how you judge sound?

 

Why not just record the sound from you actual listening position and post the Youtube. Please state the actual volume level of your system when you make the recording. You can use 2L samplers. Let us hear your real sound. 

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

So you are recording the sound from all over the location where no one would not normally listen and that's how you judge sound?

 

Why not just record the sound from you actual listening position and post the Youtube. Please state the actual volume level of your system when you make the recording. You can use 2L samplers. Let us hear your real sound. 

 

There have been 2 recording situations: first, some years ago, with the Philips HT rig using a poor recorder which overloaded at the slightest provocation; recording from the "sweet spot" was a disaster, the gain control of the device failed miserably to keep the levels right. In fact, I have a recording of solo piano done in this position, where this happens - I vary the volume through the piece, and once a certain SPL is reached the recorder can't cope any more - that's still online somewhere.

 

The second situation is now, using a USB mic and recording a NAD rig in the process of being sorted; and the clips on YouTube are just quick grabs of what I was up to at that moment. That project has been on the back burner for a while, too many things happening elsewhere, and needs to be revisited - it's slightly "broken" at the moment.

[semente]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

I do not know what is audiophile space. My room is extensively treated with 4 inch Roxul  slab. Almost two third of the front and rear is covered by them. Even the ceiling and side wall are covered by them. So you get  very little indirect sound. I know how stereo sounded then and how it sounds now  ambiance via surround speakers. Just a flip of a switch for pure stereo and what I am doing now. No one preferred the plain stereo with almost zero room coloriation. But if you were to ask me about eight years ago, I would have agreed with you. 

 

By audiophile space I meant "soundstage" not the listening room.

[AJ Soundfield]

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

with the Philips HT rig using a poor recorder which overloaded at the slightest provocation; recording from the "sweet spot" was a disaster, the gain control of the device failed miserably to keep the levels right. In fact, I have a recording of solo piano done in this position, where this happens - I vary the volume through the piece, and once a certain SPL is reached the recorder can't cope any more - that's still online somewhere.

So with your recordings, the Youtube audio is totally determined by the recorder "artifacts" and nothing to do with the actual soundfield present. But in the other folks Youtube recordings you "assess", it is the system playback soundfield "artifacts" you detect....listening on your playback system. Okey dokey....

[STC]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

There have been 2 recording situations: first, some years ago, with the Philips HT rig using a poor recorder which overloaded at the slightest provocation; recording from the "sweet spot" was a disaster, the gain control of the device failed miserably to keep the levels right. In fact, I have a recording of solo piano done in this position, where this happens - I vary the volume through the piece, and once a certain SPL is reached the recorder can't cope any more - that's still online somewhere.

 

The second situation is now, using a USB mic and recording a NAD rig in the process of being sorted; and the clips on YouTube are just quick grabs of what I was up to at that moment. That project has been on the back burner for a while, too many things happening elsewhere, and needs to be revisited - it's slightly "broken" at the moment.

 

Get yourself Roland CS-10em for $90. That will solve all your problems and you can archive your recordings to see your progress in whatever you are doing. We not going anywhere without actual measurements, audio samples recorded with proper microphones. I don't even know what speakers you use. I am always open to new ideas but yours is the most mysterious I have come across. 

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So with your recordings, the Youtube audio is totally determined by the recorder "artifacts" and nothing to do with the actual soundfield present. But in the other folks Youtube recordings you "assess", it is the system playback soundfield "artifacts" you detect....listening on your playback system. Okey dokey....

 

As I've said many times, I'm looking for certain types of flaws in the sound - the nature of those due to the recorder, and the nature of those because of the playback system are quite different; there have been plenty of clips of systems put up by other people where I can't hear anything notable out of place, and I've said so. In the flesh I might hear something more, I don't know.

 

Again, I am on the lookout for marker charateristics in what I hear - the "rattle in the car" that shouldn't be there ...

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

In the flesh I might hear something more, I don't know.

Don't let this pin prick of reality slow you down Frank. Nor the fact that an "outsider" might hear something slightly different from the uber HTIB or new rig, in the flesh.

However, this has zero to do with thread topic. The suggestion of starting own "Frank the Conjurer's rig" thread has been made...a wise one. Do it.

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Get yourself Roland CS-10em for $90. That will solve all your problems and you can archive your recordings to see your progress in whatever you are doing. We not going anywhere without actual measurements, audio samples recorded with proper microphones. I don't even know what speakers you use. I am always open to new ideas but yours is the most mysterious I have come across. 

 

Sorry, I have travelled a very different path from nearly everyone . AJ would despair about the current speakers, they're from a Sharp midfi boombox - but so far they've delivered. The drivers can take lots of power, vastly better than those on the Philips - they won't have any trouble deafening me, or giving a mic a hard time. The cabinets are too flimsy, so I will have to stiffen the panels at some stage.

 

Not mysterious, but directed from a fortuitous experience 30 years ago - that said, in big, bold letters, that what a lot of people agonise over is not that important, really - I merely follow what my ears tell me, and experiment with what makes sense, and, what costs little money!