What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, petaluma said:

So basically we cannot agree on any measurement that would provide one definitive difference in sound that would be perceived by all camps. It's like wine, which I make, that you can measure until the cows come home but NOBODY agrees on anything when the product is in the glass. Measurements are possible ad nauseam in both wine and audio and yet no one agrees on anything. Watch "Som Into The Bottle" and a nice older lady, a professor at UC Davis, states have you ever seen an industry based in so much bullshit....Audio is no different. Keep trying to make it different, its  never gonna happen. And as to while audiophiles are perceived as assholes it's because they don't try to educate, they belittle anyone that does not think as they do. Do I need to present posts pulled from this site exclusively??????? That's a really easy data source....

 

Oh, one definitive difference perceived by all camps...no problem.  That wasn't the topic however.

 

Topic is a non-controversial difference that is heard, and not measurable.  The non-controversial part involved a non-sighted test where differences are heard and not measurable as a reality check.

 

Agreed about the wine industry.  Audiophile industry too.  The general public seems to view audiophiles as nuts or off their rocker about some things more than assholes. 

[semente]

1 hour ago, petaluma said:

So basically we cannot agree on any measurement that would provide one definitive difference in sound that would be perceived by all camps. It's like wine, which I make, that you can measure until the cows come home but NOBODY agrees on anything when the product is in the glass. Measurements are possible ad nauseam in both wine and audio and yet no one agrees on anything. Watch "Som Into The Bottle" and a nice older lady, a professor at UC Davis, states have you ever seen an industry based in so much bullshit....Audio is no different, in fact much much worse bordering on fanaticism. Keep trying to make it different, its never gonna happen. For the most of the world audio is a subjective exercise.... Not a bunch of engineers arguing over a measurement, as evidenced by this thread, that no one can agree makes one iota of difference when the sound wave hits our ears....

 

 

 

Whilst quite commonly used in the context of audio, I don't agree with that analogy.

 

To me, audio is the glass not the wine.

In this case, the wine, which I taste, is the music.

 

Furthermore, I believe that tasting equipment as a regular practice is detrimental to the enjoyment of music but we can easily get caught up in it, and become obsessed about sound.

For some years in my early days as an audiophile I had trouble turning off the sound assessment mode and ended up listening ad nauseum to the same audiophile approved tracks making small inconsequential tweaks and trying to notice differences in sound...

[Paul R]

On 7/7/2017 at 3:55 AM, Teresa said:

 

Although, listening in person to live acoustic music in a good sounding performance space is still the best.

 

(grin) I would respectfully dispute that. Even a modest system these days sounds better than most live performances. (/grin) 

 

That is of course, hotly contested by some folks. I contend that the local pub with the singer/songwriter there is a cool experience, but the music sounds better on my system just about every time. The few times it doesn't is usually traceable to a very poor recording!

 

-Paul 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

(grin) I would respectfully dispute that. Even a modest system these days sounds better than most live performances. (/grin) 

 

That is of course, hotly contested by some folks. I contend that the local pub with the singer/songwriter there is a cool experience, but the music sounds better on my system just about every time. The few times it doesn't is usually traceable to a very poor recording!

 

-Paul 

 

It really has a lot to do with the performance venue, its acoustics, the nature of the instruments, etc. etc. So, it often comes down to a chasm between the ways different musical genres are presented live.  For acoustic classical music with unamplified singers in a good hall, nothing beats live. It is not close.  For pop or jazz in a crappy acoustic with a poor PA system amplifying vocals and acoustic instruments, I have no doubt that a studio recording may be substantially better.

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

It really has a lot to do with the performance venue, its acoustics, the nature of the instruments, etc. etc. So, it often comes down to a chasm between the ways different musical genres are presented live.  For acoustic classical music with unamplified singers in a good hall, nothing beats live. It is not close.  For pop or jazz in a crappy acoustic with a poor PA system amplifying vocals and acoustic instruments, I have no doubt that a studio recording may be substantially better.

 

I will go a little further to say that even an orchestral presentation, or especially a Choral presentation almost always sounds better on my stereo than live. Live Choral music in particular. It is, I think, a touch of arrogance to assume "live" sounds better. It really often doesn't, by just about any measure.  

 

-Paul 

 

[STC]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I will go a little further to say that even an orchestral presentation, or especially a Choral presentation almost always sounds better on my stereo than live. Live Choral music in particular. It is, I think, a touch of arrogance to assume "live" sounds better. It really often doesn't, by just about any measure.  

 

-Paul 

 

 

Often we are not hearing actual recordings of the live performance. What we get is usually a specialized processed sound paying attention to every instruments. In live performance, we have to compromise and often do not get the best sound due to external factors. 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

13 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I will go a little further to say that even an orchestral presentation, or especially a Choral presentation almost always sounds better on my stereo than live. Live Choral music in particular. It is, I think, a touch of arrogance to assume "live" sounds better. It really often doesn't, by just about any measure.  

 

-Paul 

 

Paul - I am not assuming anything.  I go.  I average more than one live concert/month in the large or small auditoria at Philadelphia's Kimmel Center.  I also have several Ondine SACDs made of the Phladelphia Orchestra live in concerts I attended myself in Verizon Hall.  I play them on my carefully calibrated multichannel system worth about $50k in MSRP,  incorporating 7 Martin Logan electrostat hybrids with room EQ supplied by Dirac Live.

 

I do not know what kind of poor live experience it is your misfortune to encounter, nor do I know what miracle audio system you play recordings on that sounds better than live, but enjoy what you like, as is your privilege.

[Kal Rubinson]

14 hours ago, Paul R said:

It is, I think, a touch of arrogance to assume "live" sounds better. It really often doesn't, by just about any measure.  

I do not really care about arguments of whether live is "better" or not.  Better is too subjective and inclusive to be useful as a global parameter.  It is also too vulnerable to transient changes in mood and consciousness as well as program content.  

 

Live is what I want to hear and, therefore, my goal is getting my home experience as close to it as possible which, imho, is not achievable with only 2 channels.

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

Often we are not hearing actual recordings of the live performance. What we get is usually a specialized processed sound paying attention to every instruments. In live performance, we have to compromise and often do not get the best sound due to external factors. 

 

 

 

This is my thinking and experience as well, though it is certainly controversial. The dogma for a long time has been that the touchstone is "live" performances. 

 

Live performances have a lot of attributes that make them wonderful and well worth attending, but I am far from convinced that the "sound" is one of them.  Processed sound is usually superior. 

 

FitzCaraldo215 has a point, but to assume that someone does not agree with him because they do not have comparable experience is pretty arrogant, and is what drives a lot of the current generation absolutely nuts. (With some justification.) 

 

Kal also makes a very valid point, and one I totally agree with. Multi-channel sound is - or can be - far more satisfying that 2 channel sound.  I think that multichannel systems are quite capable of producing an experience comparable with "live."  Whether it is good enough, or "better" is personal opinion. But it is undoubtedly "good enough" or "better" to a large number of people. Many of whom have decades of live performances to compare to. 

 

Does my system equate to being up close to Stevie Nicks in 1979? Nope. But not because the live concert sounded "better." Nor does it equate to a live choir performance here in Austin, but the sound from my system is almost certainly better than the sound seated halfway back  in a crowded church. How do you measure what is "better" and what relative importance do you put on the sound vs. the experience? Then add in video to the equation and it all changes yet again, since as humans what we see directly affects what we hear. 

 

In any case, not trying to start a war, but just pointing out that measuring the quality and impact  of a system, performance, technology, or experience is anything but simple. If you have a billion people, you need a billion measurements, and it is guaranteed that there will be diametrically opposed results in those measurements.  in short, the measurements are utterly unreliable. 

 

 By contrast, measuring a digital signal, analog signal, or digital data is flat out simple. You can (usually) trust the results.

 

-Paul 

[semente]

44 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I do not really care about arguments of whether live is "better" or not.  Better is too subjective and inclusive to be useful as a global parameter.  It is also too vulnerable to transient changes in mood and consciousness as well as program content.  

 

Live is what I want to hear and, therefore, my goal is getting my home experience as close to it as possible which, imho, is not achievable with only 2 channels.

 

I agree.

 

Live is reality, not a reproduced illusion.

Live is the juice of a freshly squeezed orange, not a glass of Orangina.

[Ralph Glasgal]

5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Live is what I want to hear and, therefore, my goal is getting my home experience as close to it as possible which, imho, is not achievable with only 2 channels.

Right on. It is easy now to deliver a full 360 degrees of sound in the horizontal plane with four speakers.  There is very little localization cue distortion in doing this now.  Many existing recordings have the necessary level and time data to work with such a system.  Then to add the ambience part of the live experience you need two speakers for envelopment and if the recording does not have a real hall in the rear pair, then you need surround speakers and a good 3D hall impulse response.  If you are only into pop music then six speakers are quite exciting for both 2.0 music but of course more realistic for any 4.0 or greater media such as music, video, VR, games,

 

Reproducing LPs or CDs, in hearing physiology requires more than two speakers.  Remember there is nothing in physics that supports the idea that two speakers at 60 degrees is technically or psychoacoustically optimum.  It takes courage to go from black and white photography to color.  Going from stereo to loudspeaker binaural is not going to be easy either.     

[semente]

13 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Right on. It is easy now to deliver a full 360 degrees of sound in the horizontal plane with four speakers.  There is very little localization cue distortion in doing this now.  Many existing recordings have the necessary level and time data to work with such a system.  Then to add the ambience part of the live experience you need two speakers for envelopment and if the recording does not have a real hall in the rear pair, then you need surround speakers and a good 3D hall impulse response.  If you are only into pop music then six speakers are quite exciting for both 2.0 music but of course more realistic for any 4.0 or greater media such as music, video, VR, games,

 

Reproducing LPs or CDs, in hearing physiology requires more than two speakers.  Remember there is nothing in physics that supports the idea that two speakers at 60 degrees is technically or psychoacoustically optimum.  It takes courage to go from black and white photography to color.  Going from stereo to loudspeaker binaural is not going to be easy either.     

 

I associate colour in music with tone or frequency, not with space.

To me your analogy makes no sense whatsoever; you'll need to get a new, more effective one.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Reproducing LPs or CDs, in hearing physiology requires more than two speakers.  Remember there is nothing in physics that supports the idea that two speakers at 60 degrees is technically or psychoacoustically optimum.  It takes courage to go from black and white photography to color.  Going from stereo to loudspeaker binaural is not going to be easy either.     

 

Nope . When I first achieved "envelopment", 30 years ago, just using two speakers I fell off my chair, so to speak - this ... is ... amazing ... !!  - what else could I have thought ... . I was hooked, and every other system I came across after that was "pretty pathetic", in comparison.

 

Only recently have I understood what appears to be going on, when I became aware of ASA, courtesy of another enthusiastic explorer, John Kenny. The ear/brain is perfectly capable of decoding what the spatial cues represent if the reproduction is of high enough quality - why the illusion normally fails to materialise is that the clarity falls short, especially when the amplifiers and speakers are asked to deliver the SPLs necessary to create the "sound pool" in the room - in car terms, you need V8 ease and refinement, not a screaming 4 cylinder engine.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Nope . When I first achieved "envelopment", 30 years ago, just using two speakers I fell off my chair, so to speak - this ... is ... amazing ... !!  - what else could I have thought ... . I was hooked, and every other system I came across after that was "pretty pathetic", in comparison.

 

Only recently have I understood what appears to be going on, when I became aware of ASA, courtesy of another enthusiastic explorer, John Kenny. The ear/brain is perfectly capable of decoding what the spatial cues represent if the reproduction is of high enough quality - why the illusion normally fails to materialise is that the clarity falls short, especially when the amplifiers and speakers are asked to deliver the SPLs necessary to create the "sound pool" in the room - in car terms, you need V8 ease and refinement, not a screaming 4 cylinder engine.

Yes, Frank, falling off your chair did a permanent number on your noggin.  There is absolutely no evidence you ever recovered.  And, given that, it is also clear to us that you have absolutely no idea what we are talking about.  

 

And, neither you nor Kenny, known here under his hush, hush incognito alias of mmerrill99, if not other disguises, or the ASA miracle is anything other than audiophile fantasyland.  Duh!

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yes, Frank, falling off your chair did a permanent number on your noggin.  There is absolutely no evidence you ever recovered.  And, given that, it is also clear to us that you have absolutely no idea what we are talking about.  

 

And, neither you nor Kenny, known here under his hush, hush incognito alias of mmerrill99, if not other disguises, or the ASA miracle is anything other than audiophile fantasyland.  Duh!

 

Just curious ... it appears that you have never experienced the "invisible speaker" behaviour that I speak about - am I correct?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Just curious ... it appears that you have never experienced the "invisible speaker" behaviour that I speak about - am I correct?

Actually, I have been experiencing precisely that for many decades in stereo, and especially over the last 10 years via hi rez ITU multichannel.  There is no sense with countless discretely recorded hi rez Mch recordings of the existence of separate speaker channels in a properly calibrated system.  What is it that you think you have uniquely discovered that did no already exist?

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Actually, I have been experiencing precisely that for many decades in stereo, and especially over the last 10 years via hi rez ITU multichannel.  There is no sense with countless discretely recorded hi rez Mch recordings of the existence of separate speaker channels in a properly calibrated system.  What is it that you think you have uniquely discovered that did no already exist?

 

Not unique - others have done so - but, rare ... I am not talking about sitting in an optimum, "sweet spot" - I am talking about being able to walk around anywhere in the room where the music is playing, including right up to where an individual speaker is, with its drivers - and not be able to perceive, only using one's ears, that this lump of wood and other bits is contributing to the soundfield.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not unique - others have done so - but, rare ... I am not talking about sitting in an optimum, "sweet spot" - I am talking about being able to walk around anywhere in the room where the music is playing, including right up to where an individual speaker is, with its drivers - and not be able to perceive, only using one's ears, that this lump of wood and other bits is contributing to the soundfield.

Frank, I am utterly in awe, utterly just beyond all thresholds of excitement that you, there in the hinterlands of the great nation of Australia, could have discovered this stunning and remarkable advance in audio, which, alas, has absolutely no proof, corroboration or supporting evidence whatsoever.  But, I am sure that you are working on those mere details while you tell the world all about your great new discoveries.  We are indeed fortunate to have you here to give us all this preview of this next great phase of audio.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Remember there is nothing in physics that supports the idea that two speakers at 60 degrees is technically or psychoacoustically optimum. 

Incorrect. It's clear you are not reading any links provided and are providing links with irrelevant info about laptop speakers

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11272

[fas42]

Ummm ... there was quite an exchange on the diyAudio form, with member Pano, a moderator there - where we exchanged notes on what happens, some years ago. Obviously I would love to point you to this material right now, but as is the way with the world, www.diyaudio.com is having hiccups at the moment, offline for server updates. ... Will get back to you, in a couple of days ...

 

This chap managed to get this happening at the Paris audio show, many years ago - but was disappointed that it didn't turn people on ... I guess everyone wants bigger and brighter fireworks, each time - last year's effort is no longer good enough.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

  And, neither you nor Kenny, known here under his hush, hush incognito alias of mmerrill99, if not other disguises, or the ASA miracle is anything other than audiophile fantasyland.  Duh!

Hah, I was wandering what little Johnny posted under here. I see Mivera is here too as some kind of goose.

Wonder why they don't use their real names like on other forums?

At least Frank has had his gag about recreating a live orchestra with 2 3" plastic HTIB speaker thing going under the same moniker for years now. That Outback green is some powerful stuff.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Not unique - others have done so - but, rare ... I am not talking about sitting in an optimum, "sweet spot" - I am talking about being able to walk around anywhere in the room where the music is playing, including right up to where an individual speaker is, with its drivers - and not be able to perceive, only using one's ears, that this lump of wood and other bits is contributing to the soundfield.

 

It's not even uncommon- the stereo effect has been around for quite some time and is well understood. 

 

Just a guess, what do you think al the high end sound systems around here sound like? Pretty much, they sound like what you describe - only usually much better indeed.  

 

-Paul 

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

At least Frank has had his gag about recreating a live orchestra with 2 3" plastic HTIB speaker thing going under the same moniker for years now. That Outback green is some powerful stuff.

 

I'm curious why you think it's a gag ...

[fas42]

Just now, Paul R said:

 

It's not even uncommon- the stereo effect has been around for quite some time and is well understood. 

 

Just a guess, what do you think al the high end sound systems around here sound like? Pretty much, they sound like what you describe - only usually much better indeed.  

 

-Paul 

 

I see. So you can go up, say, the left speaker while it's running at near max volume, put your ear a few inches away from the treble driver, and not be able to tell that "it's working" ... I'm impressed!!!

[AJ Soundfield]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

The dogma for a long time has been that the touchstone is "live" performances. 

Live performances have a lot of attributes that make them wonderful and well worth attending, but I am far from convinced that the "sound" is one of them.  Processed sound is usually superior. 

JG Holt, founder of Stereophile, explains it and your position here https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

Quote

Does my system equate to being up close to Stevie Nicks in 1979? Nope. But not because the live concert sounded "better."

I would certainly hope your system sounded better than a PA.

 

Quote

Nor does it equate to a live choir performance here in Austin, but the sound from my system is almost certainly better than the sound seated halfway back  in a crowded church.

That worst case scenario isn't the type of "live" some aspire to. It seems you are cherry picking a pathelogical example. What sort of "processed" sound are you using for comparison?

A MCH recording of the same choir in a studio? Played back using what?

 

Quote

How do you measure what is "better" and what relative importance do you put on the sound vs. the experience?

Controlled listening tests. You seem to be conflating measurements here. 

 

Quote

If you have a billion people, you need a billion measurements

Ditto above. You have confused issues. "People" aren't "measured".