What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[semente]

41 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

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.

 

It is one of the shortcomings of domestic reproduction.

But I  think that many audiophiles have gotten quite good at listening "through" the room and "into" the recorded acoustics and timbres of the original event.

 

I guess, from my limited understanding of the subject, that there is no way one can accurately mimic the radiation pattern of an instrument in a room, let alone reproduce an accurate representation of the original acoustics.

Some technologies, like stereo, are reasonably good at fooling us into believing that we are listening to a live event but they are representations of reality, not the real thing.

 

I don't need stereoscopy to perceive space from a photograph, the two dimensions are more than enough.

Yes, it's an abstraction or simplification of reality but accurate colour rendition and negligible distortions are more than enough to represent reality as the photographer framed it.

As such, 3D TV is an unnecessary gimmick. Does 3D make sense in gaming? I don't play, so I can't really say.

I don't care about immersive audio 3D-ness either. I'm happy with stereo, and setting up 2 speakers is challenging enough.

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

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.      

 

 

 

How much % crosstalk cancellation can you get with DSP?

Do you measure the polar frequency response of each speaker anechoicaly and then in room?

How large is the sweet spot (say, a 200mm sphere)?

You are aiming at localization cues but how does it affect tonal balance?

I would have thought that you would at least need custom designed speakers and a very dry/dead room...

[esldude]

3 hours 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.  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.

I was referring to Blumlein's original description of stereo.  He referred to using coincident pairs of microphones.  There is no time delay in those.  With speakers at 90 degrees, the effect of crosstalk was to create an amount of equivalent time delay more or less proportional to the left right positioning.  So no it isn't a fixed amount of time smear.

 

Of course 60 degree or so speaker positioning became the norm though the same technique works pretty well.  And of course not everyone uses coincident microphones, not to mention most recordings are multi-miked and heavily processed, and now may never exist in reality only in a recording.

 

My reference to center imaging problems comes from listening to binaural over headphones, Carver Sonic Holography demos (which when well set up sounded much like the Aria3D demos STC has presented here on CA), plus I hear some of the same effect with recordings made with Jecklin or Schneider disks listened to over headphones that don't have crosstalk.  Some of those can be impressive, but seem to have thin imaging near the middle wherever I have heard them.  I would say the 3D process from the Aria3D was the best of what I have heard.  It seemed to work well with non-multi-miked recordings, and not as well with multi-miked or studio sourced music. I am not against the idea of such sound for 3D results.  I've yet to hear one I can use to play most any music without some of the music being less enjoyable with the process even though other music sounds quite interesting with it.  By itself that is no big hurdle these days if some of the playback software has it available to turn on and off as needed.

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, semente said:

 

How much % crosstalk cancellation can you get with DSP?

Do you measure the polar frequency response of each speaker anechoicaly and then in room?

How large is the sweet spot (say, a 200mm sphere)?

You are aiming at localization cues but how does it affect tonal balance?

I would have thought that you would at least need custom designed speakers and a very dry/dead room...

I don't know if you played around with the Aria3D chrome browser plugin STC posted about not too long ago.  Worth using the chrome browser just to try it out. 

 

If you sign up, you can upload your own files to have the process applied to them.  Or listen to the available demos. 

 

I found it iffy on multi-miked processed music.  Works well on simply recorded music.  Cost nothing other than a little time and is interesting. 

 

https://www.aria3d.com/

 

 

[semente]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I don't know if you played around with the Aria3D chrome browser plugin STC posted about not too long ago.  Worth using the chrome browser just to try it out. 

 

If you sign up, you can upload your own files to have the process applied to them.  Or listen to the available demos. 

 

I found it iffy on multi-miked processed music.  Works well on simply recorded music.  Cost nothing other than a little time and is interesting. 

 

https://www.aria3d.com/

 

 

 

Thanks but my current DAC can only be fed by HQPlayer.

 

I tried some other samples suggested by @STCwith the iMac speakers but found that the 3D processor produced strange artifacts and messed up the tonal balance.

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Thanks but my current DAC can only be fed by HQPlayer.

 

I tried some other samples suggested by @STCwith the iMac speakers but found that the 3D processor produced strange artifacts and messed up the tonal balance.

If you have any Chesky recordings or perhaps download samples from 2L those worked relatively well with the process.

 

Your issue is one Aria3D would do well to address.  Let you apply the process to a recording, and download it for playback via other software.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

are well-known, established examples of readily audible but unmeasurable differences (that stand up to various reality checks like blind testing, etc)?

 

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

Hey you stay out of this! LOL

Ask silly questions, get silly answers. Did you seriously expect some revelatory N-Rays from stereos type answer?

It was the reality checks thing that is the downfall...

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

If you have any Chesky recordings or perhaps download samples from 2L those worked relatively well with the process.

 

Your issue is one Aria3D would do well to address.  Let you apply the process to a recording, and download it for playback via other software.

 

They did allow users to configure the settings before but no longer. 

 

IMO, Aria3D works better with speakers than headphones. 

 

Sorry OP for going OT. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

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

 

I think for all practical purposes the question has been answered, along with one not asked.

 

There are no unmeasurable yet readily audible differences.

 

Audiophiles will in no way, shape or form agree to that being the truth. 

 

So you will run into the same problem when you say there are measurable differences not audible, but no audible differences not measurable.  So many will chime in how they hear...........

 

Of course as AJ said, you were doomed when you included reality checks.  Audiophiles and reality checks don't go well together.  Like water and oil. 

 

I am sure Chris will lock the thread if you wish for him to do so.

 

You could start another, "Why don't audiophiles check reality?"  or   "Why don't audiophiles reality check?" or maybe the Russian version, "In audiophilia, reality doesn't check you, you check reality."

 

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

How much % crosstalk cancellation can you get with DSP?

better than physical barrier. Ralph answered it before. 

2 hours ago, semente said:

Do you measure the polar frequency response of each speaker anechoicaly and then in room?

How large is the sweet spot (say, a 200mm sphere)?

 

How large is the sweet spot in stereo? A sweet spot is a spot. It applies to all. Visitor usually are impressed that you can turn move your head and the image will remain unchanged unlike stereo

 

 

2 hours ago, semente said:

You are aiming at localization cues but how does it affect tonal balance?

I would have thought that you would at least need custom designed speakers and a very dry/dead room...

 

No. Have you read this?

 

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

 

The initial question is an excellent one. Too bad, because this thread had some promise.  All too often I hear people state that they dismiss scientific methods and measurements and rely on something just changing their sound for the better.  Happy to throw money and toys at their system, which is all good and fun, but not interested in understanding the reason behind the change in sound.  While I don't disagree that we should go with what sounds better vs. what sounds worse because we should build a system that we enjoy listening to, understanding what makes it better is a worthwhile exercise.  Giving up on measurement because of ignorance doesn't help anyone.  No one knows everything, and even the sound engineers are still learning within their field.  I say be inquisitive, ask questions that get to the answer why.

 

Here are a couple common descriptors that I hear a lot in the audiophile world which I don't know how could be measured.  The term "warm" when describing tubes or analog sound and the terms "cold or clean" when describing digital music.  Or even measuring the detail and dimensionality of music.  How can we measure warmth, clarity, brightness, smoothness, forward, laid back and dimensionality?

[Ralf11]

John, I think we can relate those terms to freq. response, esp. in the mids. at least as a first approximation...

 

I agree that the initial question is an excellent one, and not silly at all.  No one has been able to list anything after 29 pages.

 

Understanding the reasons behind sound is critical for engineers in this field, and highly useful for buyers as one can dismiss some things, and work on ones that matter a great deal.  

 

A common audiophile plaint is that "everything matters" or that one cannot predict how anything will sound -- when I see that I expect a low level of technical knowledge by the person saying it.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

 

I think for all practical purposes the question has been answered, along with one not asked.

 

There are no unmeasurable yet readily audible differences.

 

Audiophiles will in no way, shape or form agree to that being the truth. 

 

So you will run into the same problem when you say there are measurable differences not audible, but no audible differences not measurable.  So many will chime in how they hear...........

 

Yes, as I agreed earlier everything is measurable - however, the killer adjective that's gone missing throughout this is, "easily" - as in, "easily measurable". And the standard response by the objectivists always revolves around something like, "Well, I can't easily measure what seems to be significant here, using readily available instrumention, and well known metrics; therefore, it doesn't exist, QED ..."

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

A common audiophile plaint is that "everything matters" or that one cannot predict how anything will sound -- when I see that I expect a low level of technical knowledge by the person saying it.

 

My whole methodology revolves around "everything matters" - and I have heard endless combos of expensive gear that fail to convey a reasonable impression of what's on the recording; clearly because the "everything matters" wasn't taken into account.

 

esldude had a mini heart attack a day or so ago, because he finally understood what I meant by invisible speakers - in his words, "such was impossible" ... well, that is the power of the human mind to create powerful illusions - but, it only happens when one really groks the importance of the "everything matters" mantra, and implements accordingly.

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, as I agreed earlier everything is measurable - however, the killer adjective that's gone missing throughout this is, "easily" - as in, "easily measurable". And the standard response by the objectivists always revolves around something like, "Well, I can't easily measure what seems to be significant here, using readily available instrumention, and well known metrics; therefore, it doesn't exist, QED ..."

 

The original post does not say easily measurable.  It did say readily audible. 

 

 

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

My whole methodology revolves around "everything matters" - and I have heard endless combos of expensive gear that fail to convey a reasonable impression of what's on the recording; clearly because the "everything matters" wasn't taken into account.

 

esldude had a mini heart attack a day or so ago, because he finally understood what I meant by invisible speakers - in his words, "such was impossible" ... well, that is the power of the human mind to create powerful illusions - but, it only happens when one really groks the importance of the "everything matters" mantra, and implements accordingly.

I didn't have a heart attack.  It was an attack of extreme incredulity. And yes, it is not possible.  Rather ironic you immediately mention the power of the human mind to create powerful illusions.

[fas42]

I would rephrase the original question this way:

 

Quote

Anyway, if there are relatively little known, established examples of readily audible but highly difficult to measure differences (that stand up to various reality checks like blind testing, etc), please list them

 

then my replies on the playback behaviours I have experienced would fit.

[fas42]

Just now, esldude said:

I didn't have a heart attack.  It was an attack of extreme incredulity. And yes, it is not possible.  Rather ironic you immediately mention the power of the human mind to create powerful illusions.

 

Why is it not possible? Everyone jumps up and down about the power of the human mind to "fool itself", people are so ready to throw in the McGurk effect, and the invisible gorilla in the back of the video - yet those very same people poo poo another's experienced illusion - "My illusion is real! Yours is not!!"

 

Speakers "disappear" when things are played with - most accept this. And they stay "disappeared" the better the job done to "fool" the human senses - it's a continuum we're talking about, there is no singularity involved. Just because it sounds extreme, doesn't mean it is ...

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Why is it not possible? Everyone jumps up and down about the power of the human mind to "fool itself", people are so ready to throw in the McGurk effect, and the invisible gorilla in the back of the video - yet those very same people poo poo another's experienced illusion - "My illusion is real! Yours is not!!"

 

Speakers "disappear" when things are played with - most accept this. And they stay "disappeared" the better the job done to "fool" the human senses - it's a continuum we're talking about, there is no singularity involved. Just because it sounds extreme, doesn't mean it is ...

 

Reality check!  Aisle 9!

[fas42]

Just now, esldude said:

Reality check!  Aisle 9!

 

I appreciate that considered and rational retort ...

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I appreciate that considered and rational retort ...

Well you reject all considered rational retorts with handwaving and special Frank abilities that you insist are real, cannot teach someone else and cannot explain how anyone else can do it.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well you reject all considered rational retorts with handwaving and special Frank abilities that you insist are real, cannot teach someone else and cannot explain how anyone else can do it.

 

The only distinctly different "ability" I have is the interest in pursuing things to a point well beyond what most people are willing to try, it seems ... the "Ahhh, that's good enough! Pretty impressive, I can live with that." doesn't fly for me - if there is "something" there that doesn't quite gell, I keep digging and digging and digging.

 

If most people can't understand that attitude, that's their problem ...

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

The editor on this site drives me nuts - it's so easy to quote your own post, rather than just edit it ...

[AJ Soundfield]

6 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

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. 

Hi Ralph, I have started a separate thread as to disassociate from this thread topic

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32135-beyond-stereo/

 

Frank, I will request politely that you not post your endless recursive loop in that thread, thanks.

[Don Hills]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

... - it's so easy to quote your own post ...

 

Much of the time, when I read your posts it appears that this is what you intended.