What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Ralph Glasgal]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I think it is a shame that so much money is wasted on things that are not audible in crosstalk free surround systems or similarly in concert halls.  For example when I play an LP the ticks and pops are off in left field somewhere like coughs at a live concert.  Similarly I have demonstrated that clipping that is clearly audible in mono or stereo reproduction is not audible when played with XTC, Envelophonics, and hall ambience surround speakers.   At the moment I think I am the only one in the world who can demonstrate this phenomena.

 

Most of those that try RACE are doing so with speakers still at 60 degrees or angles exceeding 20.  There are plenty of inexpensive XTC boxes and apps now so that you can try XTC and tweak it properly.  I think if you heard stereo for the first time on an Android tablet you would not be so impressed either.

 

 Earphones can be used if you are really rich.  You need to use a Smyth Realizer with four speakers operating with RACE to get the proper impulse responses. and then you need to measure your headphones as well.  You need to have a doctorate in physics or math to pull this off. 

[francisleung]

11 hours ago, STC said:

 

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. 

Thank you STC.

As you rightly guessed, I did not move the speakers at all because it will be daunting to move them for different settings and get them back in original place later on. More over the dipoles from high to mid bass are not supposed to be angled. 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

That's so mean.

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

 

He's also wrong - luckily for everyone! Ralph is right in pointing to the fact that live sound has FR that's a complete mess, by the book - yet, us listeners don't reject this as unacceptable - how come? Well, it's pretty simple; our brains are incredibly adaptable and have learnt to compensate for gross response "anomalies" - it happens "automagically", and we don't even notice ...

 

This doesn't work for ordinary quality hifi - there are so many 'errors' in the playback, and our brains are working flat out to make sense of it - there's not enough "left over" to even out the FR stuff as well, and so all those little peaks and troughs seem so obvious. But, lift the quality high enough, and the brain's "automagic FR" mechanism kicks in - and it all comes out, well, right.

 

This behaviour became very clear many years ago - I had an amplifier of just reasonable quality, which I could prod into a higher standard of performance on a short term basis. It also had the full complement of tone controls - it was a classic Sony unit of that era - and those tone controls were very obvious in their action while the amplifier was working normally. But, in "turbocharger mode" twiddling the tone knobs had close to zero subjective impact ... what??!! In hindsight, my brain was compensating for those FR swings, and nulled their action. Since then, I have seen the same, observable behaviour with other rigs that had response controls.

 

The takeaway? Our brains can do a marvellous job of compensating for "linear" distortions, given half a chance; it's the non-linear stuff that cripples our ability to hear through the anomalies.

 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

our brains are incredibly adaptable and have learnt to compensate for gross response "anomalies"

Some call it "burn-in."

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Some call it "burn-in."

 

So, that's how it works for real life, too? Someone pointed out one variation in listening to live sound - you're listening to a performer and someone walks across in front, between you and the direct sound - do you suddenly hear a huge dip in the sound; that it goes all "funny" for that time? Try this as a concious experiment - see if you can hear the response "go bad" while a huge amount of the sound is blocked ...

[semente]

40 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

He's also wrong - luckily for everyone! Ralph is right in pointing to the fact that live sound has FR that's a complete mess, by the book - yet, us listeners don't reject this as unacceptable - how come? Well, it's pretty simple; our brains are incredibly adaptable and have learnt to compensate for gross response "anomalies" - it happens "automagically", and we don't even notice ...

 

This doesn't work for ordinary quality hifi - there are so many 'errors' in the playback, and our brains are working flat out to make sense of it - there's not enough "left over" to even out the FR stuff as well, and so all those little peaks and troughs seem so obvious. But, lift the quality high enough, and the brain's "automagic FR" mechanism kicks in - and it all comes out, well, right.

 

This behaviour became very clear many years ago - I had an amplifier of just reasonable quality, which I could prod into a higher standard of performance on a short term basis. It also had the full complement of tone controls - it was a classic Sony unit of that era - and those tone controls were very obvious in their action while the amplifier was working normally. But, in "turbocharger mode" twiddling the tone knobs had close to zero subjective impact ... what??!! In hindsight, my brain was compensating for those FR swings, and nulled their action. Since then, I have seen the same, observable behaviour with other rigs that had response controls.

 

The takeaway? Our brains can do a marvellous job of compensating for "linear" distortions, given half a chance; it's the non-linear stuff that cripples our ability to hear through the anomalies.

 

 

I must be some kind of alien then because I am quite sensitive to frequency response anomalies and also rather indifferent to "soundstage" 3D-ness.

[fas42]

Just now, semente said:

 

I must be some kind of alien then because I am quite sensitive to frequency response anomalies and also rather indifferent to "soundstage" 3D-ness.

 

With respect to listening to live acoustic sound, as well as normal audio playback?

[semente]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, that's how it works for real life, too? Someone pointed out one variation in listening to live sound - you're listening to a performer and someone walks across in front, between you and the direct sound - do you suddenly hear a huge dip in the sound; that it goes all "funny" for that time? Try this as a concious experiment - see if you can hear the response "go bad" while a huge amount of the sound is blocked ...

 

That depends on the radiation pattern of the instrument and how resonant the room is but I suspect that it'll be more noticeable with speakers than with live sound. 

[fas42]

Just now, semente said:

 

That depends on the radiation pattern of the instrument and how resonant the room is but I suspect that it'll be more noticeable with speakers than with live sound. 

 

Yes, most certainly with normal audio systems - the big difference when you get what I call "convincing" sound is that the observed auditory behaviour matches that of live sound.

[semente]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

With respect to listening to live acoustic sound, as well as normal audio playback?

 

Live is live, it's reality.

 

But if you listen to the reproduction of a good recording through a pair of speakers with wildly damaged on and off axis response (i. e. some Zus) you should notice that something is very wrong.

For that you need references of live and reproduced sound, and you must care... 

[Ralf11]

p. 31 and 1 roadkill

 

tho I think he couldn't stay away

[STC]

1 hour ago, francisleung said:

Thank you STC.

As you rightly guessed, I did not move the speakers at all because it will be daunting to move them for different settings and get them back in original place later on. More over the dipoles from high to mid bass are not supposed to be angled. 

 

 

It is the same with stereo, if you insist of placing the two speakers together because you were only used to mono setup than you will never hear  what true stereo is. You have make the effort with Ambio or any other new technology to learn them. 

[semente]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, most certainly with normal audio systems - the big difference when you get what I call "convincing" sound is that the observed auditory behaviour matches that of live sound.

 

Most speakers are directional, at least those that I consider accurate (within the physical constraints of such equipment).

If someone blocks the "beam" then you are bound to notice.

 

On a side note, one of the qualities that to me characterizes "convincing" sound can be experienced by talking when the system is playing loud and despite the "noise" the discourse is perfectly intelligible.

[STC]

3 hours ago, semente said:

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.

 

What Ambio samples ?  those videos were meant to show some difference and wasn't meant to impress anyone with its sound quality. I certainly would not come to any conclusion based on $75 microphone recordings posted over YouTube when comparing to live performance. That would be judging the different concert hall sound by watching Youtube. 

 

You won't able to properly evaluate a 3D TV without putting the glasses and so the same here. If you really need to compare than Go to AVshowroom videos and compare yours, mine or hundreds of other hifi sound there. 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Most speakers are directional, at least those that I consider accurate (within the physical constraints of such equipment).

If someone blocks the "beam" then you are bound to notice.

 

On a side note, one of the qualities that to me characterizes "convincing" sound can be experienced by talking when the system is playing loud and despite the "noise" the discourse is perfectly intelligible.

 

Most systems are directional, that is, they produce sound which requires a direct path to the ears to produce some sort of illusion. What happens when a certain, almost fixed level of quality is reached is that those requirements no longer apply.

 

Another of the characteristics of "convincing" sound is that it sounds "real" from outside the house, from the other end of the house, within, from down the hallway, from outside the door to the audio room, directly in front of the speakers, to as close as you want to approach the speakers - without changing the volume one iota to suit each spot.

[semente]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

What Ambio samples ?  those videos were meant to show some difference and wasn't meant to impress anyone with its sound quality. I certainly would not come to any conclusion based on $75 microphone recordings posted over YouTube when comparing to live performance. That would be judging the different concert hall sound by watching Youtube. 

 

You won't able to properly evaluate a 3D TV without putting the glasses and so the same here. If you really need to compare than Go to AVshowroom videos and compare yours, mine or hundreds of other hifi sound there. 

 

If you mean videos of systems, my take is that assessing playback performance by listening to a recording is impossible.

 

I was referring to some links you posted a while back where one could compare processed tracks with the original.

[semente]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Most systems are directional, that is, they produce sound which requires a direct path to the ears to produce some sort of illusion. What happens when a certain, almost fixed level of quality is reached is that those requirements no longer apply.

 

Another of the characteristics of "convincing" sound is that it sounds "real" from outside the house, from the other end of the house, within, from down the hallway, from outside the door to the audio room, directly in front of the speakers, to as close as you want to approach the speakers - without changing the volume one iota to suit each spot.

 

 

I don't agree with your first paragraph, at least I have difficulty understanding how a directive system can all of a sudden become non-directional.

[STC]

52 minutes ago, semente said:

 

If you mean videos of systems, my take is that assessing playback performance by listening to a recording is impossible.

 

I was referring to some links you posted a while back where one could compare processed tracks with the original.

 

 

If I did then I made a mistake, as far as I know I only made one or two with stereo and ambiophonics speakers configuration which only meant to show the difference. That videos were made long time ago and never posted here. I do not have any ambio processed files because no conversion is required. The files remain unchanged.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 

I don't agree with your first paragraph, at least I have difficulty understanding how a directive system can all of a sudden become non-directional.

 

I have had systems on which I spend time optimising slip between the the two states constantly, depending upon, well, everything! I don't use the the directional metric, though; the divider is whether the drivers are audibly invisible or not - same result, easier way of assessing status.

 

It's very simple: when the replay chain produces audible anomalies it's easy for the brain to localise the drivers; the obvious example is the screechy treble driver, especially on 'difficult' recordings - that unpleasantness is clearly heard, and is the sum total of all the 'errors' of the playback; reduce the anomalies, the screechiness disappears, and the treble driver becomes impossible to "hear".

[Ralph Glasgal]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I must be some kind of alien then because I am quite sensitive to frequency response anomalies and also rather indifferent to "soundstage" 3D-ness.

Yes, yes!  The stereo triangle is so unnatural in localization cue distortion, pinna direction finding patterns that don't correlate to any possibly existing soundfield in nature, and reflections coming from the front on the recording that bare no relationship to the room reflections, etc. that one does become sensitized to frequency response and even more to slight imperfections like clipping, needle scratch, hiss, echoes, coughing in live recordings, etc.  At a live concert if someone rattles a program you hardly notice unless you concentrate on it.  On a stereo playback system you can hear that loud and clear right in front of you.  Same for LP ticks and pops which thanks to SQ LP reproduction using RACE I can now quite easily ignore the extraneous noises and the fact that old LPs are not perfect.    

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Yes, yes!  The stereo triangle is so unnatural in localization cue distortion, pinna direction finding patterns that don't correlate to any possibly existing soundfield in nature, and reflections coming from the front on the recording that bare no relationship to the room reflections, etc. that one does become sensitized to frequency response and even more to slight imperfections like clipping, needle scratch, hiss, echoes, coughing in live recordings, etc.  At a live concert if someone rattles a program you hardly notice unless you concentrate on it.  On a stereo playback system you can hear that loud and clear right in front of you.  Same for LP ticks and pops which thanks to SQ LP reproduction using RACE I can now quite easily ignore the extraneous noises and the fact that old LPs are not perfect.    

 

Yes, save me from wacky listening to playback! Thank you, I prefer my music to sound like a "live concert", meaning, you can move around, do other things, not be locked into a tight focus on what's happening, riiight theerre!!

[STC]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, save me from wacky listening to playback! Thank you, I prefer my music to sound like a "live concert", meaning, you can move around, do other things, not be locked into a tight focus on what's happening, riiight theerre!!

 

 

And you can do that with your PhilipsHT box, right? 

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

And you can do that with your PhilipsHT box, right? 

 

When it was firing, I could - note past tense; no longer operational ...

 

In convincing sound mode the performance lay in a soundfield of very large size, corresponding to the recorded cues, beyond the speakers - the "room attached to the stage" effect. If you moved around anywhere in the house the subjective impression remained that: that is, that the house just happened to have been plonked next to this stage while you weren't paying attention, and directly exposed to that sound in the system's room.

[Ralf11]

ok, ok

 

You can measure a pulse, but can you determine all of the components that affect a listener??

[audiventory]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

I prefer my music to sound like a "live concert", meaning, you can move around, do other things, not be locked into a tight focus on what's happening, riiight theerre!!

 

Currently we haven't it in single point with speakers.