What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Jud]

Thanks, fellas, for seizing a topic originally of some interest and wrestling it firmly to the ground.

 

Outta here...

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, this is where I come from a completely different angle. Number one priority is for the 'tone' to be right - every sound has to sound like what it would be in the flesh - and then my brain does the rest; you might say the convolution is happening in my mind.

 

Just playing with the sound, within getting it totally accurate first, will never work for me - if the sound's 'right' then I can wind up the volume to any level of intensity, and it always gives me a satisfying kick.

 

Didnt you claim that you can tell from any Youtube about the sound. Now , you are telling me you let your brain to fill in the gaps. 

 

IMO, a recording of music playback cannot tell accurately how the real sound is in the room. Maybe, it is possible with high end microphones but not with they cheap mikes that we are using. But the Youtube can show difference between bad and good. That's reason I posted the videos for you to show your expertise and tell other changes I made besides those I mentioned. Giving an opinion that the tone is correct when heard far away from the sweet spot doesn't make sense and you have not shown me a single video to prove me your point. 

 

And the notion that brain imaging ambiance is bodering hallucination which I can experience too when I had a few extra shots of whisky. For some this come naturally without any stimulants. 

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Didnt you claim that you can tell from any Youtube about the sound. Now , you are telling me you let your brain to fill in the gaps. 

 

IMO, a recording of music playback cannot tell accurately how the real sound is in the room. Maybe, it is possible with high end microphones but not with they cheap mikes that we are using. But the Youtube can show difference between bad and good. That's reason I posted the videos for you to show your expertise and tell other changes I made besides those I mentioned. Giving an opinion that the tone is correct when heard far away from the sweet spot doesn't make sense and you have not shown me a single video to prove me your point. 

 

And the notion that brain imaging ambiance is bodering hallucination which I can experience too when I had a few extra shots of whisky. For some this come naturally without any stimulants. 

 

No, what I looking for in a YouTube video is whether the sound is 'right' or not - the instant giveaway that it's audio replay, not a live event. Do the rounds of rough and ready YouTube videos, done by ordinary people on simple smartphones and such: if there's music going on in them do you have the slightest difficulty picking whether the source of that music is real people playing instruments in the flesh, or just some speakers pumping away? The dad proudly showing off his daughter playing the piano, etc ...

 

That's what I'm after - to never get the slightest clue that I'm hearing "fake" music.

[Don Hills]

Frank, most people are able to "suspend belief / reality" in some circumstances. For example, when watching a well made movie. It's clear that you have the gift of being able to do this to a much greater degree than most people. Those people not so gifted require much closer correspondence between the live and reproduced sound.

[esldude]

23 hours ago, francisleung said:

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. 

Alright your approach to evaluating things listening like this took a big hit when you made determinations with what turned out to be a plain monophonic soundtrack.  Now one mistake doesn't doom an idea.  Nevertheless, you might wish to reconsider how reliable such judgements are in face of that mistake.  Especially considering the highly detailed three dimensional descriptions you are posting as stereo can't really convey all that information.  It has no chance to be accurate in that sense at that level of fine directional detail.  I think you into the realm of fooling yourself. 

 

So it is far from agreed upon, far from uncontroversial, and cannot rise to the claim of being pertinent to the topic of this thread.

[francisleung]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Alright your approach to evaluating things listening like this took a big hit when you made determinations with what turned out to be a plain monophonic soundtrack.  Now one mistake doesn't doom an idea.  Nevertheless, you might wish to reconsider how reliable such judgements are in face of that mistake.  Especially considering the highly detailed three dimensional descriptions you are posting as stereo can't really convey all that information.  It has no chance to be accurate in that sense at that level of fine directional detail.  I think you into the realm of fooling yourself. 

 

So it is far from agreed upon, far from uncontroversial, and cannot rise to the claim of being pertinent to the topic of this thread.

Hi esldude,
A mono track ripped into stereo will not sound the way I described it and that’s your opinion, alright.
I would only say there are numerous tracks other than the ones I previously mentioned having similar phenomena. 
So I am hoping to stage some time towards the end of August a session or two in a dealer’s room where 4 persons are able to listen properly and find out if they are also able to discern what I have described using my front end and tracks.

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, francisleung said:

Hi esldude,
A mono track ripped into stereo will not sound the way I described it and that’s your opinion, alright.
 

Well, no, not just my opinion. You are correct it will not sound as you described.  Yet there is simply no disagreeing with a simple fact.  That one video is monophonic.  I am not trying to rain on your parade.  We all can benefit from peers pointing out when we make a mistake or start off in an unfruitful direction. 

 

A mono track is not going to give left right directionality.  Nor precise front to back information in the way you described.  That information is not there.

 

Now upon playback a mono track played over stereo can mimic those effects if one channel has a frequency imbalance so that some frequencies are pulled one way or the other and some (lower frequencies of the bass) are not.  To test this in the mono track, simply turn off one speaker.  See if the effects you describe are still there or go away.  If they go away, and they should, you have an issue with your stereo setup.   It is even possible you have some different response between your two ears (not uncommon especially as people age) which will cause mono over two speakers to exhibit such effects. 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Don Hills said:

Frank, most people are able to "suspend belief / reality" in some circumstances. For example, when watching a well made movie. It's clear that you have the gift of being able to do this to a much greater degree than most people. Those people not so gifted require much closer correspondence between the live and reproduced sound.

 

I used to wonder whether only a small percentage of the population would trigger this illusion - however, all my experiences so far with others imply it's quite common; also, accounts of other audio people who have managed to reach this level show remarkable similarity in the aspects.

 

Why it's not more common is very simple - the overall performance of a system has to be at a level which is difficult to attain, and there's no rule book for it.

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Number one priority is for the 'tone' to be right

 

Same here.

Sound/timbre first and foremost.

[francisleung]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Well, no, not just my opinion. You are correct it will not sound as you described.  Yet there is simply no disagreeing with a simple fact.  That one video is monophonic.  I am not trying to rain on your parade.  We all can benefit from peers pointing out when we make a mistake or start off in an unfruitful direction. 

 

A mono track is not going to give left right directionality.  Nor precise front to back information in the way you described.  That information is not there.

 

Now upon playback a mono track played over stereo can mimic those effects if one channel has a frequency imbalance so that some frequencies are pulled one way or the other and some (lower frequencies of the bass) are not.  To test this in the mono track, simply turn off one speaker.  See if the effects you describe are still there or go away.  If they go away, and they should, you have an issue with your stereo setup.   It is even possible you have some different response between your two ears (not uncommon especially as people age) which will cause mono over two speakers to exhibit such effects. 

Hi esldude
Playing the Jay Leonhart track again, I switched off the “right channel” meaning the ribbon tweeters, midrange quasi ribbons and mid bass planar magnetic units of the right channel. Those of the “left channel” are on, meaning the midrange quasi ribbon units still remain in the centre of the soundstage. The images of the double bass and Jay’s voice are in centre positions as I described, only being moved slightly backwards and slightly softer. 
My setup is that the mid range quasi ribbon units of BOTH left and right channels, back to front of each other and positioned in the centre of the soundstage, are placed on the same speaker plane as the line source ribbon tweeters and line source mid bass units. That is, all sounding speakers, including cone subwoofers are on the same horizontal line and plane, with each sounding speaker unit driven by its own amplifier.  
Complicated to follow what I use, right? That doesn't matter as it is off subject.
What I have been trying to say is that images and front/back positioning of them are not measurable. Surely some or many may have their own opinion and disagree. 

 

[STC]

Small chart of speakers position and a photograph of your speakers will be very helpful. You are doing something unique.

[Ralph Glasgal]

18 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, completely false.

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

That is correct.  But no matter how many directions a speaker sends out sound the pattern of reflections is always the same whether a trumpet is in the middle or near a side.  I know this is not easy to see.  But when a real source moves in front of you the reflections behind you and from the sides change their vector values.  When a stereo source seems to move in front of you there may be a slight change in the level of a reflection but its directional properties stay exactly the same.  This is true no matter what kind of speaker you have or what the room is like.  When you correct for this the change in envelopment is easily audible. 

[semente]

22 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

That is correct.  But no matter how many directions a speaker sends out sound the pattern of reflections is always the same whether a trumpet is in the middle or near a side.  I know this is not easy to see.  But when a real source moves in front of you the reflections behind you and from the sides change their vector values.  When a stereo source seems to move in front of you there may be a slight change in the level of a reflection but its directional properties stay exactly the same.  This is true no matter what kind of speaker you have or what the room is like.  When you correct for this the change in envelopment is easily audible. 

 

I think it's actually quite easy to understand that room surfaces reflect the reproduction (sound coming out of the speakers or the recording) and not the original performance or it's sound sources.

But room-induced reflections are just reflections, lower in level and time-delayed, what matters is the direct sound coming from the speakers (unless you are listening too far from the speakers but then that's your problem).

 

R

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

That is correct.  But no matter how many directions a speaker sends out sound the pattern of reflections is always the same whether a trumpet is in the middle or near a side.  I know this is not easy to see.  But when a real source moves in front of you the reflections behind you and from the sides change their vector values.  When a stereo source seems to move in front of you there may be a slight change in the level of a reflection but its directional properties stay exactly the same.  This is true no matter what kind of speaker you have or what the room is like.  When you correct for this the change in envelopment is easily audible. 

Ralph, I think we are in full agreement. I know how stereo works. These threads here move fast, so you may have missed my "in between" response https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32034-what-uncontroversial-audible-differences-cannot-be-measured/?page=27#comment-676495 I simply misinterpreted what you said originally.

[Ralph Glasgal]

19 hours ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

 

This is a common rationale or an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.  Audiophiles know that companies like Polk, Harmon, Lexicon, Carver, (Sonic Hologrphy) etc. and now BACCH, Amtra, NeutronMP, Aria3d, etc. were or are trying to eliminate crosstalk for good reason unless they are all hopelessly deluded.  The 30 degree delay between the ears is a fixed smear around 220 microseconds.  This fixed localization cue tends to confuse the brain since no matter what the channel level difference is, this ersatz time delay says the sound is at around 30 degrees. I think by now even Stanley Lipshitz who was really only writing about coincident mic usage would agree crosstalk is not beneficial.except in the very low bass where central bass is doubled.  This helps some speakers, but is not flat response.  He also ignored the comb filtering which confuses the pinna at higher frequencies and keeps normal stereo from being flat at the ears even if the speakers are perfect.  I also hear no loss in central level when crosstalk is removed.  Ask why 5.1 added a central speaker if the stereo center is so solid.

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

This is a common rationale or an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.  Audiophiles know that companies like Polk, Harmon, Lexicon, Carver, (Sonic Hologrphy) etc. and now BACCH, Amtra, NeutronMP, Aria3d, etc. were or are trying to eliminate crosstalk for good reason unless they are all hopelessly deluded. 

 

Ralph, I listened to Carver Sonic Holography electronics at a friend's house.  The effect was very much "in your face" obvious and calling attention to itself, which completely prevented getting any sense of realism out of it.  It was fun to experiment with, but as a steady diet, no way - the classic "one trick pony."

[AJ Soundfield]

31 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I also hear no loss in central level when crosstalk is removed. 

Removed using stereo loudspeakers?

 

Quote

Ask why 5.1 added a central speaker if the stereo center is so solid.

Well, Bell Labs showed why a while back, plus 5.1 systems usually have a visual anchor..on screen.

How "solid" does a phantom central image need to be to realistically portray a live soundfield of...?

[Ralph Glasgal]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ralph, I listened to Carver Sonic Holography electronics at a friend's house.  The effect was very much "in your face" obvious and calling attention to itself, which completely prevented getting any sense of realism out of it.  It was fun to experiment with, but as a steady diet, no way - the classic "one trick pony."

So I take it that if you heard stereo on an Eico amplifer with Webcor speakers in 1959 and thought your Fisher mono sounds better, that you would still be playing only mono LPs.  Sonic Holography was a forty year old daring experiment.  Without modern DSP and digital components there was no way Carver could do the job solely in the analog domain.  His design was not recursive, did not insist on a narrow speaker angle, and was not fully adjustable for the angle used.  But he certainly was on the right track long before the rest of us.

 

By definition, if you cancel crosstalk between two speakers, then you have the left signal flat at one ear and the right signal flat at the right ear.  It is stereo that is not flat at the ears and generates severe localization cue distortion.  If you don't cancel all the crosstalk then you just have a bit of stereo left.  If you cancel crosstalk that is not there, you get something like reverse polarity stereo.  Try the adjustable high rez miniDSP with the Ambiophonics plug in.  I think you will like it a lot better than the Carver.  But XTC is not for those who regard stereo as an art form and I certainly would not bother with it if all anybody plays are vocal solos with a guitar.      

 

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

14 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Removed using stereo loudspeakers?

 

Well, Bell Labs showed why a while back, plus 5.1 systems usually have a visual anchor..on screen.

How "solid" does a phantom central image need to be to realistically portray a live soundfield of...?

Crosstalk is removed by using a barrier between two speakers directly in front of you or now much more practically using the same two speakers with a processor that does the same thing as the barrier.  You use whatever speakers you had for ordinary stereo but move them to about 20 degrees apart or on either side of a TV set.  The narrower angle prevents a pinna localization distortion problem.

 

The center speaker was added for theaters and home use because when you sat off center most viewers tended to localize to the nearest speaker and so lost some of the dialog or most of it if it was in the opposite channel.  Also the center phantom imaging of a lot of video systems left a lot to be desired.  So now almost all movie dialog is not stereo but mono fed to a center speaker which you can localize to no matter where you are seated.  The Bell labs experiments are only tangentially related to the LCR as used today, more to do with how to use spaced Omnis.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Crosstalk is removed by using a barrier between two speakers directly in front of you

Yes, I was aware of that one and headphones.

Quote

or now much more practically using the same two speakers with a processor that does the same thing as the barrier.  

Well, I have some doubts there, unless you mean reduced, or even perceptually removed (via reduction) to the equivalent of the barrier. perhaps with some head tracking and HRTF info.

 

Quote

So now almost all movie dialog is not stereo but mono fed to a center speaker which you can localize to no matter where you are seated.

Understood, but again, for music, how much central "solidity" is needed to perceptually recreate an original soundfield?

I should admit to being a classical music attendee, but I enjoy jazz and other smaller/closer up ensembles as well.

[Ralph Glasgal]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I think it's actually quite easy to understand that room surfaces reflect the reproduction (sound coming out of the speakers or the recording) and not the original performance or it's sound sources.

But room-induced reflections are just reflections, lower in level and time-delayed, what matters is the direct sound coming from the speakers (unless you are listening too far from the speakers but then that's your problem).

 

R

Unfortunately human hearing expects that the direct sound and reflected sound be logical and physically possible.  Room reflections and reflectons from seats and heads in a concert hall are not all that different. But what stimulates them is.  In the concert hall the interarual level differences and the interaural time differences of early reflections correlate with the horizontal position of an instrument on the front stage. At home, with reflected sound coming from two fixed speakers these room cues are a form of acoustical nonsense.  There are other psychoacoustic issues as well such as long period reverb, diffuse tails, etc.

[Ralph Glasgal]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Ralph, I think we are in full agreement. I know how stereo works. These threads here move fast, so you may have missed my "in between" response https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32034-what-uncontroversial-audible-differences-cannot-be-measured/?page=27#comment-676495 I simply misinterpreted what you said originally.

Yes.  I did miss your in between response, so I apologize.  Actually I am just writing all this when I get an excuse to expound on these topics, like Trump on Twitter. 

[AJ Soundfield]

I think we're cool as long as you don't start talking about covfefe and binaural hearing at 2am

[wgscott]

On 6/6/2017 at 8:36 AM, wgscott said:

I said something in another thread that raised a lot of objections, and this caught me by surprise.  (What I said was that I knew of many examples of measurable differences that cannot be heard, but did not know of any audible differences that cannot be measured.) I could not think of any such examples.

 

Anyway, if there are well-known, established examples of readily audible but unmeasurable differences (that stand up to various reality checks like blind testing, etc), please list them.

 

Many thanks in advance.  I've started this as a separate thread so as not to hijack others, and also because it seems that this is a fundamental point that comes up in many discussions here.

 

This thread has been hijacked and hopelessly derailed.  If I could lock and delete it, I would.  For anyone interested, the question remains unanswered.

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

23 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Yes, I was aware of that one and headphones.

Well, I have some doubts there, unless you mean reduced, or even perceptually removed (via reduction) to the equivalent of the barrier. perhaps with some head tracking and HRTF info.

 

Understood, but again, for music, how much central "solidity" is needed to perceptually recreate an original soundfield?

I should admit to being a classical music attendee, but I enjoy jazz and other smaller/closer up ensembles as well.

Take a look at http://analoghighend.blogspot.gr/2017/04/stereo-in-3d.html for a rave review of one XTC system.  If you go to www.ambiophonics.org you can click on other reviews.  There was another rave review for Amtra but it is in German.  The secret of modern XTC is that you must not use head tracking or HRTFs.  The RACE software outperforms the barrier since it works down to lower frequencies and it is really hard to make a barrier that truly isolates the speaker from the wrong ear.  But those that use a barrier are indeed devoted to it.

 

All imaging, central or not, benefits from psychoacoustic verisimilitude.  This means a coherent set of localization cues including those hall reflections from the sides, the rear, the front, and to a much lesser extent overhead (because these are mono).  You can compromise as non audiophiles do all the time, but you can do a lot better than traditional stereo quite easily while sticking to audiophile frequency response or resolution concerns.