Jump to content
IGNORED

What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

You said Evolution.

 

I’m still none the wiser.  Just being thick, I guess.  Sorry.

 

Edit: Oh, you’re talking about evolution deniers?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Another science myth debunked by superior observer "empirical evidence"

Please explain, I'm totally lost.

 

What is the myth and what is the empirical evidence that debunks?

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Rejection of that kind of science by believers is a bit more controversial than the audio varieties, so best let it be

 

I think we have a couple of vaccine denialists and more than a couple of climate denialists, but no creationists (of either the Intelligent Design or Young Earth variety) on the forums that I’ve seen.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Please explain, I'm totally lost.

 

What is the myth and what is the empirical evidence that debunks?

 

He was analogizing those who put stock in less systematic empirical observations in audio to evolution denialists who see how complex life is and take from this as self-evident that evolution couldn’t be the answer.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Thanks for confirming that the rear wall is untreated. I will listen again and let you know, I was only listening for things you described in the earlier post. But now, can you for certain confirm whether the drums sound coming closer to the wall was from the recording or due to sound bouncing of the rear wall?

 

Anyway, I think such placements can be measured. Have you heard of Stereometer?  There are similar things out there that you can place the instruments where you want. 

Hi STC,
I might not have made it clear. On solo passage, the tom and snare in the High Life move away from the rear wall and stay near the speaker plane and NOT conversely closer to the rear wall and further away from the listening seat.
I am unable to give you an answer with certainty whether or not the moving forward of the tom and snare towards the listener during solo passage is caused by bouncing of their sound from the UNTREATED rear wall. Short of experimenting with different treatment methods and materials on the rear wall, I would not have a valid answer of yes or no. 
I will not be treating the walls, rear and sides because as they are, they give me a large soundstage when large orchestral works are played, wall to wall, up the ceiling and a ft or two in front of the speakers, and also a unified ambience, not two as I mentioned in an earlier post. I am aware the resultant sound is a bit muddied and less refined and articulate as in live or as many audiophiles prefer. It boils down to compromise and different personal preference. 
I am unaware of Stereometer. I do not like to insert anything in the audio path because even the passive pre-amp that I have, basically a source selector, muddied the sound to a discernible extent. After removing the LP and CD, I dispensed with this passive gear and started using the computer MIDI to set gain and channel balance. 

Link to comment

Hi Francis, This is interesting. Now, you are perceiving tom and snare moving in the recording. Can that happen in live performance? It is possible for a guitarist or singers  to move around and to perceive so during playback but why are you ( and probably me too) perceive a stationary instrument to be moving back and forth. Is it the recording or the intensity of the sound that after mixing up with the reflected rear sound moving the tom and snare in your playback? Is it possible that the room's reflection changes the placement of the object?

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

He was analogizing those who put stock in less systematic empirical observations in audio to evolution denialists who see how complex life is and take from this as self-evident that evolution couldn’t be the answer.

Ah, I was hoping that at some point to get to empirical measurements.

 

regarding illusions, there's no reason why these might not be measured problem though that once we get into measuring stuff in the brain it gets much more complicated and we can't seem to agree in how to do even simple stuff.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, STC said:

Hi Francis, This is interesting. Now, you are perceiving tom and snare moving in the recording. Can that happen in live performance? It is possible for a guitarist or singers  to move around and to perceive so during playback but why are you ( and probably me too) perceive a stationary instrument to be moving back and forth. Is it the recording or the intensity of the sound that after mixing up with the reflected rear sound moving the tom and snare in your playback? Is it possible that the room's reflection changes the placement of the object?

Hi STC,

I think it is the mixing and a louder sound during the solo passage of this High Life track that caused the moving forward.

I say this because I do not experience such forward movement in other drum recordings nor do I perceive similar forward movement when the brasses or the chorus go into full blast for example in the Mahler 8 track that I mentioned in my first post. Neither does Ron Carter's double bass move forward when he plays a solo passage in the track with a female singer; his double bass stays put in the rear whilst the vocalist is singing and also when he is on solo. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, francisleung said:

Hi STC,

I think it is the mixing and a louder sound during the solo passage of this High Life track that caused the moving forward.

I say this because I do not experience such forward movement in other drum recordings nor do I perceive similar forward movement when the brasses or the chorus go into full blast for example in the Mahler 8 track that I mentioned in my first post. Neither does Ron Carter's double bass move forward when he plays a solo passage in the track with a female singer; his double bass stays put in the rear whilst the vocalist is singing and also when he is on solo. 

 

Mahler is a classical recording of large ensemble and naturally with a lot of ambiance in it. With your untreated walls ( not necessarily a bad thing) the sound is usually awash with music and the so called stereo illusion will be somewhat limited. Ron Carter recording is played rather at low volume so the walls interaction will be similar throughout the recording creating a stable image with fixed placement. BTW, as Esldude said, that is a mono recording so the only way you going to perceive changes in position (back and forth and frequency dependent) is when there is a large difference in the volume level between two passages. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Mahler is a classical recording of large ensemble and naturally with a lot of ambiance in it. With your untreated walls ( not necessarily a bad thing) the sound is usually awash with music and the so called stereo illusion will be somewhat limited. Ron Carter recording is played rather at low volume so the walls interaction will be similar throughout the recording creating a stable image with fixed placement. BTW, as Esldude said, that is a mono recording so the only way you going to perceive changes in position (back and forth and frequency dependent) is when there is a large difference in the volume level between two passages. 

In the same High Life track, the vibraphone also came forward during its solo time, in fact outside and in front of the speakers in my system. By the way, the vibe was not used and to me it sounded more like a marimba than a vibraphone. 

The come forwardness of soloist does not bother me at all. Why? For example, the (new) Duke Ellington Band, when a handful of players did their solo piece, each came forward to the edge of the apron, and then returned to their seat for group playing afterwards. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jud said:

The primary things about perception relevant to audio that are not yet completely known and understood are what aspects of sound reproduction are most important in giving us an illusion of reality (whether that “reality” is an actual event or something constructed in a studio), and how this varies among people.

 

I feel I've had a decent handle on this for a long time, at least for me and other people who have heard reproduction achieve a high level - it's not FR, phase accuracy, dispersion in the room; it's to what degree the low level information in the recording can be clearly discerned, that such is not masked or blurred by artifacts in the sound - some people may call this, "micro detail", but I am not keen on that term.

 

How much it varies between people I also would be very keen to know - all those I know who hear it like it, but they may find it hard to express why - one aspect is that one feels very comfortable with it even when the volume is very high, you can "relax into it".

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, STC said:

 

Some of the samples in your YouTube were close miked. Vocals are usually closed miked. So the notion that in a good setup the speakers disappear is subject to many variable. There is a so called audiophile reference ( or favorite track) where the recording was made with two monos. So expect the sound to come from the speakers itself and the soundstage (width) is depended on how far you spread the speakers. 

 

Only one was close miked, the violin and piano. The speakers disappearing has always been dependent on the state of tune of the overall system, and nothing to do with alignment of the speaker, in any sense - I've been in the situation many times where I'm having a tussle with the system - it did invisible at one point, then it falls out of that state - what's gone wrong??!! Look, look, look ... okay, a tweak has slipped out of alignment, a connection has been inadvertently disturbed - tiny, tiny things, yet so critical ...

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, STC said:

That's happens when you don't document the changes.

 

Nothing to do with documentation - rather, a system being worked on is liable to be jarred, the precise configuration of key aspects is not locked down in the 'ideal' manner - poo happens! And, then one has to track down where there has been a 'mishap'.

 

BTW, I had a listen to a video on your website, and for me there are issues in the sound that I would have to address, if it were mine. So, we all listen differently, for different things - this is where side by side listening to the same reproduction can help clarify where people are coming from ...

Link to comment

Has any of you read Linkwitz' thoughts on loudspeakers and domestic reproduction?

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm

 

A few clippings which I concur with:

 

  • Loudspeakers
  • The best one can hope for with 2-channel sound reproduction is the illusion of listening into the recording venue. Physics does not allow the accurate reproduction of the original sound field with only two speakers.
  • Since sound reproduction is about creating an illusion it becomes very important to avoid or minimize any clues that would detract from the illusion. Such clues come from linear-distortions, such as frequency and polar response, and from non-linear distortions with their generation of tones and sounds that were not in the original.
  • Linear distortion - frequency response, polar response, resonance - affects primarily the timbre and clarity of a loudspeaker.
  • Non-linear distortion - intermodulation, harmonic, clipping - affects primarily the maximum tolerable sound pressure level.
  • When designing a loudspeaker it is essential to perform free-space measurements to see the effects of driver directivity and baffle shape on the important polar response.
  • Box loudspeakers
  • Typical box speakers have a generic sound due to their polar response, panel resonances, re-radiation through the cone and vented bass.
  • Bass from box speakers has more "punch" than from open baffle speakers, but is less "airy".
  • Vented bass speakers are resonant structures and store energy which is released over time. For accuracy, bass must be reproduced from sealed or open baffle speakers that are non-resonant.
  • Closed box speakers are best listened to from very close distance to minimize masking from an uneven room response.
  • Listening rooms
  • The room is rarely at fault. If it is comfortable for conversation and living in it, then it is also suited for sound reproduction. The problem is usually the inadequate polar response of the loudspeakers and their placement in the room.
  • Rooms should have lots of diffusive elements and not sound like a stuffed pillow if open baffle or omni speakers are used.
  • Placing absorbers at reflection points is the wrong approach. It only absorbs high frequencies and increases the difference between the direct sound and the delayed room response. It works against perceptually masking the room response as merely a copy of the direct sound.
  • Equalization for a certain response at the listening position is fraught with serious problems. DSP can do many things, but which acoustic inputs to take, and how to process them, is still very much at a research stage. It will change the sound you hear.
  • When I hear an unfamiliar loudspeaker in an unfamiliar room and it does not sound right, then I look for faults in the loudspeaker's design and placement long before I blame the room.
  • Listeners
  • People listen differently. Performing musicians and members of the audience are used to different perspectives and focus on different aspects of the sound. Both are valuable for analyzing a loudspeaker. People who only listen to loudspeakers and thus always compare loudspeakers are poor judges of accuracy.
  • Very few sales people of "high end audio" ever listen to unamplified life sounds. They are highly susceptible to marketing department suggestions.
  • Unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids.
  • Unfortunately, marketing departments and dealers think that bass and high frequencies need to be emphasized for products to sell. 
  • Some listeners prefer euphonic loudspeakers. Accurate, and thus neutral, loudspeakers are not that exciting unless the source material is.
  • I find it disappointing when loudspeaker manufacturers run extensive double-blind listening tests with trained and untrained listeners where they only compare loudspeakers to each other, but not to any live source. These are strictly preference tests within a given paradigm.
  • Source material
  • A loudspeaker can never do better than to accurately convert electrical signals into acoustic signals. Thus the source material determines ultimately how well an illusion can be created.
  • Recording is still an art, not a science. Two loudspeakers in a room cannot reproduce the original sound field. Surround sound could be science based, but today is far from it and mostly pan-potted mono.

 

He doesn't think too much about the Toole conducted double-blind listening tests either...as I had mentioned before, they are about "taste" not accuracy.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

Here Linkwitz looks at Whatever happened to the quality of reproduced sound in the home?

 

+ On the plus side and on average
the quality has improved due to CAD design & test .

  • But computer design models have limitations in how accurately they represent reality and in what they leave out.
  • As a result loudspeaker design has reached a plateau and is stuck in the box speaker paradigm

+ The potential in stereo sound has not been reached

- Insufficient attention has been paid to the radiation pattern

  • Vented box designs dominate. They produce a generic loudspeaker bass character.
  • Active loudspeakers have low customer acceptance though they give greater design freedom than passive crossover/equalizers and could improve the quality of speakers.
  • Practical listening room requirements have not been established. The audio industry has provided little guidance to the consumer on room acoustics and speaker placement.

+++ There is room for improvement!

+ The potential in the realism of stereo sound has not been reached

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, had a quick listen - immediately, for me, is the piano tone; the quality of that just does not compute, the attack of the notes is heavily blunted.

 

Even though I agree with you one must not overlook that the sound files were processed for/by youtube, and that a mic doesn't capture sound (timbre) and space in the same way that we perceive it.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, had a quick listen - immediately, for me, is the piano tone; the quality of that just does not compute, the attack of the notes is heavily blunted.

 

The purpose of the video is to show how to use convolution to enhance the music and never meant to represent the actual sound in my room. Listen again to another new Youtube of the same song without convolution. Can you guess what changes I have made.

 

@ Semente, I have added a Sonata for Violin and Piano. For this I have added convolution. 

Link to comment

Using speakers at 60 degrees to reproduce 2.0 files is an artistic and subjective preference item, like preferring black and white prints made from color negatives rather than full color ones.  Using the stereophonic aural illusion and perfecting it is an art form like Escher's black and white drawings which exploited an optical illusion to am amazing degree.  But after 86 years there are alternatives that, even if more biologically correct, can still be regarded as art forms worthy of exploring.

 

Take a thick mattress turn it on edge and place it between your legs, sitting so that there is a lot of mattress still above your head.  Place two loudspeakers a the other end of the mattress just a foot or so apart and with your nose touching the mattress edge to start with, play your favorite stereo recording.  But it should be one with a real stage not just a center vocalist with a guitar.  If you lean back you can do an A/B comparison of sorts.  This is one alternative to conventional stereo but there are many many others now that are a lot more practical, subjective, and artistic.  

Link to comment

Much mention is made above of room reflections and how they sound or don't.  In the concert hall you have short delay reflections from seat backs, other heads, the floor, etc.  So having a similar reflection field at home is not that much different or so it seems at first glance.  But there is one major difference that is an art form subjective preference item.  In the concert hall, the pattern of reflections changes its directional parameters with each instrument on the stage.  So the brain is treated to a large variety of early reflections, each of which have different interaural delay and interaural level differences.  In the home listening room, the room reflections are all generated from 30 degrees to the left and 30 degrees to the right and these directional cues are the same no matter whether you are hearing a center soloist or a right speaker trumpet.  This early reflection phenomena is called Envelopment and is a much prized feature in concert halls and so it should be present in domestic concert halls as well unless you just listen to a solo voice with a guitar.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Using speakers at 60 degrees to reproduce 2.0 files is an artistic and subjective preference item, like preferring black and white prints made from color negatives rather than full color ones.  Using the stereophonic aural illusion and perfecting it is an art form like Escher's black and white drawings which exploited an optical illusion to am amazing degree.  But after 86 years there are alternatives that, even if more biologically correct, can still be regarded as art forms worthy of exploring.

 

Take a thick mattress turn it on edge and place it between your legs, sitting so that there is a lot of mattress still above your head.  Place two loudspeakers a the other end of the mattress just a foot or so apart and with your nose touching the mattress edge to start with, play your favorite stereo recording.  But it should be one with a real stage not just a center vocalist with a guitar.  If you lean back you can do an A/B comparison of sorts.  This is one alternative to conventional stereo but there are many many others now that are a lot more practical, subjective, and artistic.  

Yet crosstalk from speakers with conventional stereo recordings is part and parcel to how stereo playback works.  The spacing between your ears helps create a time delay-like level difference proportional to the resulting level of sound from both speakers.  If you remove that some center images become vague. 

 

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

In the home listening room, the room reflections are all generated from 30 degrees to the left and 30 degrees to the right and these directional cues are the same no matter 

No, completely false.

Loudspeakers generate polar patterns that create frequency dependent reflections from every angle possible.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...