What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[fas42]

OK, Barber and Krall - I was thinking dolls and amplifiers . BTW, these two do almost nothing for me, especially the latter - someone plays a track of hers, unannounced, and I think, well that was some tepid performance by a wannabe ...

 

If talking sonic in the sense of the quality of the tonality of the recorded voice, then again I wouldn't use the word "artificial". The voice may be boring, lacking in verve - I'm thinking Krall here! - but it still sounds totally human - some people just have, well, uninteresting voices ...

[HpW]

My 2 cents on this:

 

1) A 180 phase shift on my DAC, some recordings (CD's) sounds better than normal. On the web, there is also a list of CD titles what goes in hand of my listening experiences. It seams also a common thing that some instruments or voices where inverted (just a guess)

 

2) Removing plastic on wires to get rid of the micro sonic discharge (a French engineer was very active on this)

 

3) as 2) removing the the plastic of electrolytic cap's helps very much in this direction. Did this on my tube mono power amp (Cary SLM 100) ... later re- Caped with newer brand & plastic... and finally, AGAIN, peeled the cap's (added some paper isolation while stacked power caps') to get back the pleased sound again. This was just unbelievable but 

 

Cheers

 

Hp

 

[Teresa]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:10 PM, wgscott said:

 

Maybe this is the unmeasurable quantity we were looking for 32 pages ago!

 

Hi, I haven't read this whole thread but I found a post of mine from July 20, 2011 that might help. Here is a quote:

 

"No one has yet discovered how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound."

 

Have any of those been brought up yet?

 

Just to add, of the things that currently cannot be measured, some are on the recording side, some are on the playback side, and some are a combination of both. I believe most are on the analog side, prior to digitalization and after conversion back to analog for playback.

 

Not sure it's relevant but I believe we need more research on why most high resolution PCM and DSD sound more lifelike and feel more comfortable to listen to.  

 

It's possible the real reasons why well-recorded high resolution digital, especially 5.6 MHz DSD or perhaps even higher, sound more like the real music experience have yet to be discovered. Some have said it is high resolution’s faster transient response, the positive effects of inaudible overtones on audible frequencies we hear, or perhaps that inaudible frequencies are perceived another way instead of our hearing. The current theories on ultrasonics do not explain why instruments and voices in the bass and lower midrange which have no ultrasonic overtones sound more realistic in high resolution.

 

Hope this helps.

[mansr]

42 minutes ago, HpW said:

My 2 cents on this:

 

1) A 180 phase shift on my DAC, some recordings (CD's) sounds better than normal. On the web, there is also a list of CD titles what goes in hand of my listening experiences. It seams also a common thing that some instruments or voices where inverted (just a guess)

This is easily measured.

 

42 minutes ago, HpW said:

2) Removing plastic on wires to get rid of the micro sonic discharge (a French engineer was very active on this)

If this really makes an audible difference, which I very much doubt, it too is easily measured.

 

42 minutes ago, HpW said:

3) as 2) removing the the plastic of electrolytic cap's helps very much in this direction. Did this on my tube mono power amp (Cary SLM 100) ... later re- Caped with newer brand & plastic... and finally, AGAIN, peeled the cap's (added some paper isolation while stacked power caps') to get back the pleased sound again. This was just unbelievable but

I think you get the pattern by now.

[Dragonfyr]

Quote

No one has yet discovered how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound."

If no one has discovered how to measure these things then .... how were the designers able to design and engineer these "unmeasurable" qualities into their products?  

 

It's a ridiculous audiophile argument that only an audiophile could make.   Good to know that designers in 2017 still have no idea how to design and engineer "sound stage" and "smoothness" and, etc, etc, etc that are "unmeasurable", beyond current understanding  and yet miraculously appear in their products. Bravo I say!  Audio alchemists FTW! 

[Paul R]

25 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

If no one has discovered how to measure these things then .... how were the designers able to design and engineer these "unmeasurable" qualities into their products?  

[/quote]

One can certainly ask that question, but in some cases, it will that they simply listened to what they had created.

 

25 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

 

It's a ridiculous audiophile argument that only an audiophile could make.   Good to know that designers in 2017 still have no idea how to design and engineer "sound stage" and "smoothness" and, etc, etc, etc that are "unmeasurable", beyond current understanding  and yet miraculously appear in their products. Bravo I say!  Audio alchemists FTW! 

 

Well, it is and it isn't. We certainly know how to measure the factors - all the factors - that go into a human being perceiving a soundstage, timbre, etc. Yes.  I am not at all so certain anyone can accurately measure how one actually perceives those factors though. One person's hearing and hearing preferences can vary dramatically from another.  As of today, there is no way to measure things like how everyone will perceive say, soundstage. Especially with people listening on vastly different systems. No? 

[Dragonfyr]

14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

One can certainly ask that question, but in some cases, it will that they simply listened to what they had created.

 

 

Well, it is and it isn't. We certainly know how to measure the factors - all the factors - that go into a human being perceiving a soundstage, timbre, etc. Yes.  I am not at all so certain anyone can accurately measure how one actually perceives those factors though. One person's hearing and hearing preferences can vary dramatically from another.  As of today, there is no way to measure things like how everyone will perceive say, soundstage. Especially with people listening on vastly different systems. No? 

Well people simply "listen" and "hear" many things, so that's not in dispute.  You could listen to a cable and hear ghosts for all I care and I would believe you. Subjectively it's possible to hear anything. The only limit is in the imagination. 

 

I'm sure where perception is concerned an fmRI would be quite useful. The perception of sound stage may not even be tied to the sound stage. It's merely an assumption. 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

Well people simply "listen" and "hear" many things, so that's not in dispute.  You could listen to a cable and hear ghosts for all I care and I would believe you. Subjectively it's possible to hear anything. The only limit is in the imagination. 

 

I'm sure where perception is concerned an fmRI would be quite useful. The perception of sound stage may not even be tied to the sound stage. It's merely an assumption. 

 

Exactly so!  A MRI or other technology can certainly measure what parts of the brain are active and how much activity is going on. But no designer is going to try to get MRI measurements for all his potential buyers. Even if they - or we - knew exactly how to interpret the results. 

 

There is hope for this in the future though. I mean, we can mind-control artificial limbs now. Maybe in the future, stereo systems will be smart enough to monitor the listener and adjust the acoustics to provide the best listening experience. 

[AJ Soundfield]

51 minutes ago, Paul R said:

One can certainly ask that question, but in some cases, it will that they simply listened to what they had created.

So how did "it" get designed, engineered and manufactured into the creation, before they "simply listened", eyes wide open staring at "it" they created?

(unfortunately, critical thinking skills are required here)

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Dragonfyr said:

If no one has discovered how to measure these things then .... how were the designers able to design and engineer these "unmeasurable" qualities into their products?  

 

It's a ridiculous audiophile argument that only an audiophile could make.   Good to know that designers in 2017 still have no idea how to design and engineer "sound stage" and "smoothness" and, etc, etc, etc that are "unmeasurable", beyond current understanding  and yet miraculously appear in their products. Bravo I say!  Audio alchemists FTW! 

 

 

The number of neuroscientists is growing...

 

still, no one can explain why you write what you write but nonetheless you do  

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Hi, I haven't read this whole thread but I found a post of mine from July 20, 2011 that might help. Here is a quote:

 

"No one has yet discovered how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound."

 

Have any of those been brought up yet?

 

Just to add, of the things that currently cannot be measured, some are on the recording side, some are on the playback side, and some are a combination of both. I believe most are on the analog side, prior to digitalization and after conversion back to analog for playback.

 

Not sure it's relevant but I believe we need more research on why most high resolution PCM and DSD sound more lifelike and feel more comfortable to listen to.  

 

It's possible the real reasons why well-recorded high resolution digital, especially 5.6 MHz DSD or perhaps even higher, sound more like the real music experience have yet to be discovered. Some have said it is high resolution’s faster transient response, the positive effects of inaudible overtones on audible frequencies we hear, or perhaps that inaudible frequencies are perceived another way instead of our hearing. The current theories on ultrasonics do not explain why instruments and voices in the bass and lower midrange which have no ultrasonic overtones sound more realistic in high resolution.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I know that I can feel sounds that I can't hear.  Especially in the low frequencies.  Correct me if I'm wrong but most, if not all scientific tests are based on what is audible.  Through numerous tests of individuals listening to tones at specific frequencies scientists have defined what our audible range is.  I have never read any tests that quantify what frequency ranges can be felt.  This absolutely has an impact on the listening experience.

[Paul R]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So how did "it" get designed, engineered and manufactured into the creation, before they "simply listened", eyes wide open staring at "it" they created?

(unfortunately, critical thinking skills are required here)

 

]Yes, they most certainly are, perhaps you should try using some?  

 

Nothing about using listening to tune or find the "right sound" for a piece of equipment negates normal engineering design skills.  There is a certain amount of requisite skill necessary to create anything in the first place. Talent is is what takes a textbook device and turns it into something extraordinary. 

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Exactly so!  A MRI or other technology can certainly measure what parts of the brain are active and how much activity is going on. But no designer is going to try to get MRI measurements for all his potential buyers. Even if they - or we - knew exactly how to interpret the results. 

 

There is hope for this in the future though. I mean, we can mind-control artificial limbs now. Maybe in the future, stereo systems will be smart enough to monitor the listener and adjust the acoustics to provide the best listening experience. 

 

real-time sampling of oxytocin levels and an AI system to put it all together !!

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

I know that I can feel sounds that I can't hear.  Especially in the low frequencies.  Correct me if I'm wrong but most, if not all scientific tests are based on what is audible.  Through numerous tests of individuals listening to tones at specific frequencies scientists have defined what our audible range is.  I have never read any tests that quantify what frequency ranges can be felt.  This absolutely has an impact on the listening experience.

 

that's because you are not familiar with the scientific literature on elephants

 

(no joke)

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

]Yes, they most certainly are, perhaps you should try using some?  

 

Nothing about using listening to tune or find the "right sound" for a piece of equipment negates normal engineering design skills.  There is a certain amount of requisite skill necessary to create anything in the first place. Talent is is what takes a textbook device and turns it into something extraordinary. 

Yeah, that is why we have or man @fas42.  He's got the skills, as he tells us over and over and over, and he can even do it with cheap HTiB's.  Except he grades his own papers.  So, watch out.

 

And, his secret sauce as revealed elsewhere is, roll of the drums, Bluetack.  Ta-da!  But, hey, as long as he is happy.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Nothing about using listening to tune or find the "right sound" for a piece of equipment negates normal engineering design skills.  There is a certain amount of requisite skill necessary to create anything in the first place. Talent is is what takes a textbook device and turns it into something extraordinary. 

Right, so how did "right sound" and "it" get designed, engineered and manufactured into the creation, before they "simply listened", eyes wide open staring at "it" they created?

(unfortunately, critical thinking skills are required here)

[Paul R]

21 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yeah, that is why we have or man @fas42.  He's got the skills, as he tells us over and over and over, and he can even do it with cheap HTiB's.  Except he grades his own papers.  So, watch out.

 

And, his secret sauce as revealed elsewhere is, roll of the drums, Bluetack.  Ta-da!  But, hey, as long as he is happy.

 

Whoo boy - perhaps I should apologize, as I have exactly zero idea of what you are taking about.  I looked up the chap you pointed out, and didn't see anything there worthy of your comment. (shrug) 

 

This is a hobby you know, no problems with Klingon Puppies or other such stuff - and the world will not end of someone feels like listening to their stereo system while standing on their head naked . If they claim it makes the system sound better, so what? It might to them, but it won't change the physical constants of the universe one little bit, will it? 

 

Just my experience, but a well designed hunk of electronics will always sound good. And the same hunk of electronics, if tweaked based upon what the designer hears or wants to hear will sound different. Some people will like the choices, other people won't. Again, big deal. 

 

And yes, a HTIB system actually can sound pretty good, if you take the time to set it up well. Will it sound as good as anyone's system here sounds? I would take bets not. 

 

So the point is simple - it is at the very least, impractical to measure every factor that will affect how a person perceives the sound generated from a device and tune it to that person's optimal settings. So designers take their best guess at how to tune or tweak their product, and hope people will fall in love with it. 

 

Ergo, how people perceive the sound of a device is not something measurable, at least today.  That's just a pub hypothesis on my part of course, people are welcome to tear it apart. But please don't use my posts to attack someone else.

 

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Whoo boy - perhaps I should apologize, as I have exactly zero idea of what you are taking about.  I looked up the chap you pointed out, and didn't see anything there worthy of your comment. (shrug) 

 

This is a hobby you know, no problems with Klingon Puppies or other such stuff - and the world will not end of someone feels like listening to their stereo system while standing on their head naked . If they claim it makes the system sound better, so what? It might to them, but it won't change the physical constants of the universe one little bit, will it?

 

What disturbs many people is that I have a very specific goal, for any system that I interact with, and I use ordinary materials, purchasable at modest cost at a local store, to achieve that end. Of course, these same people then ridicule those who purchase "magic goodies" at absurd cost, in their attempts to do similar things - my shtick is that very modest systems, carefully "debugged" and optimised, using everyday materials that have the right properties for the job at hand can deliver competent sound - that is, you just hear music, you are not aware of the machinery getting the job done - it doesn't sound like a "stereo", or a "hifi rig".

 

If I'm aware of the sound reproduction system operating in any sense, then it's failed - in my book. Of course, many people want to 'feel' their baby working, and that's fine - but it's not what I'm after ...

[jabbr]

I think an ultimate problem is that despite the efforts of neuroscience, we as yet are sorely lacking an understanding of how the brain works, and here the auditory sensory processing machinery, at a high level. Thus we are unable to create a computable model of the end to end "music experience".

 

At most we can say that if A sounds different than B, that A is measurably different than B. The problem is that no 2 electrical signals will be the same. Nor would the cochlear output so until we understand what the cochlear output really means, we are stuck.

[Ralf11]

well... the Oxford cross-sensory lab might say say that if A sounds different than B, then people were looking at something different when they heard A vs. B, or were eating different food...

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I think an ultimate problem is that despite the efforts of neuroscience, we as yet are sorely lacking an understanding of how the brain works, and here the auditory sensory processing machinery, at a high level. Thus we are unable to create a computable model of the end to end "music experience".

 

At most we can say that if A sounds different than B, that A is measurably different than B. The problem is that no 2 electrical signals will be the same. Nor would the cochlear output so until we understand what the cochlear output really means, we are stuck.

 

Yep. But if one can generate a "fooled you!" experience for the majority of people then I reckon that's a pretty good compromise.

 

It's not whether A is different from B - it's whether at least one of A or B delivers the same sort of impact that a person who was there at the time of the recording experienced ...

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

That's why liquid cables sound sweeter: https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/02/accounting-for-taste/amp

[Ralf11]

you know, I just realized we could all use liquid-filled cables to absorb vibration under our components and then we wouldn't need Humpie Feet or Shakti Stones anymore

[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 dug out the Audacity software that I might have used for less than a handful of times. Below is the info of the Jay Leonhart track that I have been using, which as I said was ripped into "stereo". You may say it is double mono.

To me double mono or stereo sometimes relate to absolute phase and in the days when I played LPs, there were albums that I engaged the double mono switches (mono for both left and right channels) instead of the stereo one. 

[esldude]

43 minutes ago, francisleung said:

Hi esldude,

I have dug out the Audacity software that I might have used for less than a handful of times. Below is the info of the Jay Leonhart track that I have been using, which as I said was ripped into "stereo". You may say it is double mono.

To me double mono or stereo sometimes relate to absolute phase and in the days when I played LPs, there were albums that I engaged the double mono switches (mono for both left and right channels) instead of the stereo one. 

You have precisely and exactly down to the exact bit of every sample, the same signal in both channels.  So any imaging you hear is a result of some sort of setup issue.  There is no such imaging in the file you are listening to in this case.  The reason is the recording was done with one, and only one microphone.  It was either a Shure KSM32 or KSM44.  Can we agree on this point, the recording is monophonic?  Can we agree monophonic recordings can have no side to side imagining in them?