What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[fas42]

7 hours ago, STC said:

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

 

 

... of insufficient quality.

 

Sorry, just noticed this, and couldn't resist.

 

Stereo is just a term for how the source material is projected into the listening space - not for what the subjective perception of the acoustic energy in that space is.

[mansr]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

there is "something" there that doesn't quite gell

There is something there that doesn't quite spell.

[Johnseye]

20 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

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.

 

If we could actually measure those frequencies then we should identify exactly what they are instead of saying warm or cold.  I don't know if clarity or dimensionality could be measured by frequency.  Maybe S/N ratio?  I think they may have to do more with removing noise from the music, but that's just a guess.  Generalizations are easy.  I'm actually surprised product manufacturers don't offer more concrete information about how their product will sound based on facts.  Perhaps they don't want to paint themselves in a corner.

[Ralf11]

I don't know about clarity or dimensionality, but I have seen freq. response measurements relating to warm (and maybe lean/clinical) - warm often relates to mid high freqs. being a bit higher in level.  If too high the sound gets 'lush' or (as I put it) phat.

 

I had dismissed comments in the press re "a sense of pace" coming from different components for years or decades.  Then I changed my worn-out tube pre-amp to an ARC with new tubes, and upgraded my Maggies from 1.5 to 3.7i, and I was surprised to hear..... what could definitely be described as "a sense of pace" in the music.

 

So there is something to a more 'revealing' system.

 

and JGH was onto something too

[Johnseye]

Sorry, JGH?

 

So is it then possible to identify specific elevated or predominant frequencies when tubes are used that are not as pronounced with solid state?

[Ralf11]

J Gordon Holt - good wiki or other bio on him

 

I think so - ARC is or was known for a slightly rising mid in their equipment.  I like their sound - it is euphonic.  I don't aim for absolute accuracy, just music that sounds good (sure, stone me).

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't know about clarity or dimensionality, but I have seen freq. response measurements relating to warm (and maybe lean/clinical) - warm often relates to mid high freqs. being a bit higher in level.  If too high the sound gets 'lush' or (as I put it) phat.

 

I had dismissed comments in the press re "a sense of pace" coming from different components for years or decades.  Then I changed my worn-out tube pre-amp to an ARC with new tubes, and upgraded my Maggies from 1.5 to 3.7i, and I was surprised to hear..... what could definitely be described as "a sense of pace" in the music.

 

So there is something to a more 'revealing' system.

 

and JGH was onto something too

The use of metaphors, often ones "swiped" from the other human senses like vision or touch to describe some subjective, perceptual aspects of audio, has been around since time immemorial.  The problem is, like most metaphors, they are inexact, but even worse, their meaning is not standardized.  And, of course, good luck trying to measure something you cannot define exactly.

 

For example, you think "warm" applies to mid/high frequencies in audio.  I am not saying you are wrong, because there is no official dictionary for this.  But, if you dig deeply back to JGH and his glossary of terms, I think you will find he defined it as a property related to an elevated midbass. In any case, strip away the BS, and it is just about frequency response linearity and possibly added low order harmonic distortion products or the lack thereof from deep bass fundamentals.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

 

"Sense of pace" or the related PRaT is even more meaningless since it cannot plausibly exist in sound, except as a result of something like an LP turntable running fast or slow or varying in speed under load.  Amps and electronics or speakers do not normally have signal storage capabilities.  So, what could those vague subjective descriptions possibly mean?  I am almost clueless, except my theory is that they describe a system with (rightly or wrongly) more elevated frequency response in the mid/lower bass which is the range where rhythm-oriented instruments like drums and bass guitars have their fundamentals.

 

The point is any subjective metaphor, and they are all lacking any accurate meaning, could be used to try to trip up the premise of this thread.  If you cannot define whatever it is you are talking about exactly in a way we can all agree we understand, what is your point?

 

 

 

 

[Johnseye]

warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.
lean Very slightly bass-shy. The effect of a very slight bass rolloff below around 500Hz. Not quite "cool."

clinical Sound that is pristinely clean but wholly uninvolving.

euphonic Pleasing to the ear. In audio, "euphonic" has a connotation of exaggerated richness rather than literal accuracy.
 

Sorry but "good" doesn't appear in the glossary.  Golden could work

golden A euphonic coloration characterized by roundness, richness, sweetness, and liquidity.
 

So lean would have a frequency reading with bass rolloff below around 500Hz.  Definitely measurable.

[semente]

1 hour ago, Johnseye said:

 

If we could actually measure those frequencies then we should identify exactly what they are instead of saying warm or cold.  I don't know if clarity or dimensionality could be measured by frequency.  Maybe S/N ratio?  I think they may have to do more with removing noise from the music, but that's just a guess.  Generalizations are easy.  I'm actually surprised product manufacturers don't offer more concrete information about how their product will sound based on facts.  Perhaps they don't want to paint themselves in a corner.

 

That kind of characterization is very common in the recording world.

In the following links you can see which qualities are associated with certain frequency bands and how accentuating or attenuating them affects perception:

 

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/

 

For me "clarity" is the result of low distortion and low noise-floor, not the result of a frequency response aberration, but in audiophilia the same term often has dissimilar meanings to different people...

[Johnseye]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

 

That kind of characterization is very common in the recording world.

In the following sites you can see what qualities are associated with certain frequency bands:

 

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/

 

 

Thank you, great information.

[Ralf11]

Fitz's comments on 'pace' are exactly why I dissed the description for so long.

 

Simialr problems exist in wine tasting - a topic I will try to investigate tonite.

[Ralph Glasgal]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 3:20 PM, semente said:

 

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.

 

I thought audiophiles were seekers after perfection in sound reproduction, I guess I was wrong about some of them.  The reason Stereophile tweaks are so common and so varied is that stereo reproduction has flaws that interact with each brain differently.  One adjustment to a room or speaker placement scratches the itch of listener one but aggravates the problem with listener two, etc.  In concert halls the problem is greatly reduced although you have endless arguments as to how to design and treat a hall or where to sit in it.  But in the live hall case, nobody talks about flat response in the hall to 37,498 Hz or whether the flute needs to be played more sideways to improve its axial radiation pattern.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I thought audiophiles were seekers after perfection in sound reproduction, I guess I was wrong about some of them.  The reason Stereophile tweaks are so common and so varied is that stereo reproduction has flaws that interact with each brain differently.  One adjustment to a room or speaker placement scratches the itch of listener one but aggravates the problem with listener two, etc.  In concert halls the problem is greatly reduced although you have endless arguments as to how to design and treat a hall or where to sit in it.  But in the live hall case, nobody talks about flat response in the hall to 37,498 Hz or whether the flute needs to be played more sideways to improve its axial radiation pattern.

 

Or maybe some audiophiles are imperfect...

Could explain what you mean by Stereophile tweak?

I also don't understand what you mean with "But in the live hall case, nobody talks about flat response in the hall to 37,498 Hz or whether the flute needs to be played more sideways to improve its axial radiation pattern."

[Ralph Glasgal]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 3:38 PM, 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...

If you look at the AES paper on RACE, you will see that it is normal to achieve a channel separation of 10 dB and also recover all the inter channel time difference that is on a track.  For music or movies these numbers are more than one achieves in a concert hall or any pop concert.  Normal values of level difference at the ears at a concert seldom exceed 5 dB and the time difference in nature cannot exceed 700 microseconds since that is the delay from ear to ear.  There is also the improvement in pinna function when the speakers are moved closer together.

 

If you want a bee buzzing at your ear you need 10 to 20 dB of level difference at the ears and that is hard to achieve without head tracking and measuring speakers, etc.  So for virtual reality in military or similar applications you can go over board, but for home listening such high levels of crosstalk cancellation or special recordings that actually have LDs of 10 dB or more are not necessary.

[Ralph Glasgal]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 4:21 PM, esldude said:

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.

I think that when you have your own RACE component with controls that allow you to adjust things to your speaker angle and taste that you will find it quite rare that conventional stereo sounds better than Ambiophonics or similar reproduction.  For the optimum you should add two rear speakers as will which will make the front setup a lot less finicky.  I call this setup Envelophonics.

 

The time delay created for recordings that lack this vital localization cue, by using speakers at 60 or 90 degrees, is a fixed delay of 220 microseconds and maybe 370 for the wider angle.  This spurious delay may make some brains happier, but it is not a valid localization cue that could ever occur in nature.  Humans really like a combination of level and time delay cues better than either one alone but this is hard to tell when speakers at 60 degrees are used to judge this.

 

You can read my paper "The Blumlein Conspiracy" as Appendix A of my free book on the Ambiophonics.org website.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

"Sense of pace" or the related PRaT is even more meaningless since it cannot plausibly exist in sound, except as a result of something like an LP turntable running fast or slow or varying in speed under load.  Amps and electronics or speakers do not normally have signal storage capabilities.  So, what could those vague subjective descriptions possibly mean?  I am almost clueless, except my theory is that they describe a system with (rightly or wrongly) more elevated frequency response in the mid/lower bass which is the range where rhythm-oriented instruments like drums and bass guitars have their fundamentals.

 

I don't use the term PRaT, but I understand what people are trying to describe when they use such expressions - the subjective impression when it's not there is that the musicians have lost their mojo, couldn't be bothered, are just going through the motions - one feels like pulling out a whip, and giving everyone a wakeup call!

 

I have heard this at times playing my test CDs on systems - listless, tired, lacking in oomph. Nothing to do with FR, but a form of low level distortion which our hearing interprets as signs of poor pace in the playing. Determining the cause of that distortion and resolving it is the answer - this may be difficult, but is the only true solution.

[francisleung]

On 19/06/2017 at 2:26 PM, 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,

I have downloaded the Aria 3D software you kindly suggested and played the Jay track with it in my usual audio setup without adjusting anything.

My observation:

Jay's voice and his double bass are slightly laid back towards the rear wall behind the speakers (playing the track directly without the software in my setup,  the two are more upfront). Via the 3D software, the two more or less overlap in the same spot (slightly more separation front to back without the software and Jay's voice is slightly to the left from the listener's perspective). Gain is slightly higher (slightly louder) via the 3D software. 

Tried also Carmina Burana Telarc version: the orchestra and chorus are slightly louder but the soundstage depth is shallower such that the soundstage only comes over to the plane behind the speakers (two ambience phenomenon). On the other hand without the 3D software, my system has the soundstage extended to the front of the speaker plane. 

I will try other tracks later.

[STC]

6 hours ago, francisleung said:

Hi esldude,

I have downloaded the Aria 3D software you kindly suggested and played the Jay track with it in my usual audio setup without adjusting anything.

My observation:

Jay's voice and his double bass are slightly laid back towards the rear wall behind the speakers (playing the track directly without the software in my setup,  the two are more upfront). Via the 3D software, the two more or less overlap in the same spot (slightly more separation front to back without the software and Jay's voice is slightly to the left from the listener's perspective). Gain is slightly higher (slightly louder) via the 3D software. 

Tried also Carmina Burana......r.

 

Hi Francis,

 

Aria3D is based on Ambiophonics's RACE. The effect which you felt is a compromised version without taking into consideration of your pinna, speakers distance and speaker to speaker distance. 

 

It it is difficult to do direct comparison as you need to move the speakers closer to get proper effect with Aria3D. It is good that it worked with your main system although your speakers arrangement may be different from other stereo setup. 

 

The true potential will emerge after you adjust the delay and attenuation. It is not possible with Aria3D right now as they are still in development but it is working quite well with laptops and PCs because the speakers separation is rather narrow in them. 

[Ralph Glasgal]

17 hours ago, semente said:

 

Or maybe some audiophiles are imperfect...

Could explain what you mean by Stereophile tweak?

I also don't understand what you mean with "But in the live hall case, nobody talks about flat response in the hall to 37,498 Hz or whether the flute needs to be played more sideways to improve its axial radiation pattern."

Stereophile tweaks are doing things to make the stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle sound better that are hard for more than one individual to hear such as using silver cables, extending frequency response to 37,697Hz, painting CD edges green, using only 192/24 downloads, passive tweaks like never using a parametric equalizer, surround speakers, solid state amplifiers, CDs, etc.

 

Most tweakers want super flat response to very high ultrasonic frequencies.  I am merely pointing out that halls do not have flat response and have extreme peaks and dips (like stereo speaker combing) that vary from seat to seat.  Like speakers, instruments have a variety of axial frequency responses.  So it may not be useful to worry about the axial response of a speaker in a crosstalk free environment where you can listen in the near field and maybe have some surround speakers imitating a great hall.  In a plain stereo system in a live room, everything about a speaker will make a difference but there is no real fix available due to human hearing properties and that the pattern of peaks and dips that a stereo system produces will be different for every listener, every speaker and every angle (60,61,59,etc.) and so there can be no universal fix that would be stable.

[AJ Soundfield]

13 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

In a plain stereo system in a live room, everything about a speaker will make a difference but there is no real fix available due to human hearing properties and that the pattern of peaks and dips that a stereo system produces will be different for every listener, every speaker and every angle (60,61,59,etc.) and so there can be no universal fix that would be stable.

Response here https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32135-beyond-stereo/?page=2#comment-677407

[semente]

33 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Stereophile tweaks are doing things to make the stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle sound better that are hard for more than one individual to hear such as using silver cables, extending frequency response to 37,697Hz, painting CD edges green, using only 192/24 downloads, passive tweaks like never using a parametric equalizer, surround speakers, solid state amplifiers, CDs, etc.

 

I don't know why you call them Stereophile tweaks but I see what you mean.

Not really my thing...

 

33 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Most tweakers want super flat response to very high ultrasonic frequencies.  I am merely pointing out that halls do not have flat response and have extreme peaks and dips (like stereo speaker combing) that vary from seat to seat.  Like speakers, instruments have a variety of axial frequency responses.  So it may not be useful to worry about the axial response of a speaker in a crosstalk free environment where you can listen in the near field and maybe have some surround speakers imitating a great hall.  In a plain stereo system in a live room, everything about a speaker will make a difference but there is no real fix available due to human hearing properties and that the pattern of peaks and dips that a stereo system produces will be different for every listener, every speaker and every angle (60,61,59,etc.) and so there can be no universal fix that would be stable.

 

What you seem to be implying is that one should not strive for an accurate reproduction (as flat as possible response at the listening spot) of the recorded signal because halls do not have flat response...but halls are reality whilst audio deals with reproduction (of recorded reality).

 

This is what wrong frequency response looks like visually:

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

21 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What you seem to be implying is that one should not strive for an accurate reproduction (as flat as possible response at the listening spot) of the recorded signal because halls do not have flat response...but halls are reality whilst audio deals with reproduction (of recorded reality).

 

This is what wrong frequency response looks like visually:

 

I certainly do believe you should have flat response at the ears and no localization cue distortion so that you can hear the peaks and dips that the concert hall is producing at home.  But a dip or peak at 29,732 Hz in the reproduction system cannot be audible when you have a domestic concert hall installed.  I cannot understand how audiophiles can listen to speakers at 60 degrees and think the frequency response is flat at their ear.  Getting rid of the crosstalk makes the response really flat, period.  

[esldude]

22 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

The use of metaphors, often ones "swiped" from the other human senses like vision or touch to describe some subjective, perceptual aspects of audio, has been around since time immemorial.  The problem is, like most metaphors, they are inexact, but even worse, their meaning is not standardized.  And, of course, good luck trying to measure something you cannot define exactly.

 

For example, you think "warm" applies to mid/high frequencies in audio.  I am not saying you are wrong, because there is no official dictionary for this.  But, if you dig deeply back to JGH and his glossary of terms, I think you will find he defined it as a property related to an elevated midbass. In any case, strip away the BS, and it is just about frequency response linearity and possibly added low order harmonic distortion products or the lack thereof from deep bass fundamentals.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

 

"Sense of pace" or the related PRaT is even more meaningless since it cannot plausibly exist in sound, except as a result of something like an LP turntable running fast or slow or varying in speed under load.  Amps and electronics or speakers do not normally have signal storage capabilities.  So, what could those vague subjective descriptions possibly mean?  I am almost clueless, except my theory is that they describe a system with (rightly or wrongly) more elevated frequency response in the mid/lower bass which is the range where rhythm-oriented instruments like drums and bass guitars have their fundamentals.

 

The point is any subjective metaphor, and they are all lacking any accurate meaning, could be used to try to trip up the premise of this thread.  If you cannot define whatever it is you are talking about exactly in a way we can all agree we understand, what is your point?

 

 

 

 

85 …% of HiFi is frequency response.

[semente]

2 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I certainly do believe you should have flat response at the ears and no localization cue distortion so that you can hear the peaks and dips that the concert hall is producing at home.  But a dip or peak at 29,732 Hz in the reproduction system cannot be audible when you have a domestic concert hall installed.  I cannot understand how audiophiles can listen to speakers at 60 degrees and think the frequency response is flat at their ear.  Getting rid of the crosstalk makes the response really flat, period.  

 

Why should we care about ultrasonic response when most speakers are struggling to provide a reasonably flat response in the audible range?

And do you really think that there are that many audiophiles with speakers toe'd-in to the listening spot?

 

Anyway, my only experience with crosstalk free reproduction is with headphones and I don't enjoy listening with headphones.

I also tried some ambio samples from one of @STC links and wasn't positively impressed.

If you ever demo in the UK let me know.

 

 

 

[semente]

42 minutes ago, esldude said:

85 …% of HiFi is frequency response.

 

That's so mean.

You've just taken all the magic out of audio...