What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

 

In some sense they probably do need to be - I can hear the "invisible speaker" illusion, but there is probably a fair proportion who are unable to, because of aspects of their makeup. Perhaps the latter will always require a highly sophisticated multi-channel mechanism, to stimulate their senses adequately - no right or wrongs, just the way people are made.

 

The value of the invisible speaker thing is that it's a measure of the competence of the replay chain - it means that one is unable to "catch the reproduction out", because all significant anomalies are inaudible, or are discarded in the mind to be irrelevant to the main message, the playback of a captured sound event.

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

In some sense they probably do need to be - I can hear the "invisible"

Frank, you'll never need to convince me!

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Frank, you'll never need to convince me!

 

Being serious about it, it doesn't matter whether a particular person experiences the illusion or not - it's an 'artifact' of competent sound and I note the reaction of others when systems have been "on song", or not. It means that the volume can be poundingly loud, and no-one comments; they listen to albums that they normally "dislike" without even being aware of such; they happily carry on socialising without requesting that the volume be turned down.

 

Some audio people are obsessed with playback systems having to sound like, well, playback systems - and don't like the sound to just happen around them - this intrigues me, but, if it makes them happy ...

[fas42]

Linkwitz is one of the few around who has his feet in both camps, and has a solid appreciation of what's possible - I just did a revisit of the site, and thought the piece on http://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm gave a good overview - perfect for those who love lots of technical guff !

 

In particular, the section, 3.2   Optimal Stereo reproduction, lays out the general idea. Where I differ is that  diagram (b) matches diagram (a), perfectly; the scene extends beyond the left and right of the two speakers; there is no actual sweet spot, that is, there is no optimum central position at all; the presentation is 3D on all recordings, irrespective; and the concert experience dominates, and holds true for as loud as the system can go cleanly.
 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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!!!

 

First, if you are listening to a speaker at "max volume: you are overdriving it, and second, if you are listening to headphones, the only kind of speakers you can listen to that close, then you had best not be listening to it as max volume either.  I have to admit, that is not at all impressive to me. 

 

Ack - missed putting in a smiley to indicate I wasn't being totally serious there.... Sorry. ?

 

-Paul

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

JG Holt was a really fun person who cared far more about the hobby than making money. I really admire him. Doesn't mean I completely agree with him now any more than I did in 1977 though.  He was a great guy, but also an opinionated elitist ass with very poor business judgement. So what?   Shrug- YMMV. 

 

Quote

 

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

 

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?[/quote]

 

I live in the "live music capital of the world" and I don't at all think a world class performance by a world class choir in a very well regarded venue is a "pathelogical" example. Even if I do have friends singing in the choir.   Of course, you can choose to disagree. Your opinion is not really going to change my mind, or actually, any one else's either. 

 

 

Quote

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sez who? You? On what authority?  Methinks you assume way too much based on your own opinions here. People certainly are "measured" all the time, for all sorts of things. All I said is that the measurements for how much or how "good" a recording or performance is are unreliable. And thus something that currently cannot be measured and thus provides an example of an uncontroversial but audible difference that cannot currently be measured. 

 

I meant it in a humorous way, but I really don't think you have the chops to challenge the issue. You seem more intent on making some kind of internet point scoring than any kind of discussion, serious, pub, or otherwise. 

 

-Paul

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

First, if you are listening to a speaker at "max volume: you are overdriving it, and second, if you are listening to headphones, the only kind of speakers you can listen to that close, then you had best not be listening to it as max volume either.  I have to admit, that is not at all impressive to me. 

 

Ack - missed putting in a smiley to indicate I wasn't being totally serious there.... Sorry. ?

 

-Paul

 

 

You're not overdriving it - typically, you're overstressing the amplifier, and it's distorting badly - I have done the exercise so many times of good amplifier, lowly speaker - and, the sound rises to the occasion. The conventional wisdom is to pair cheap speakers with a cheap amplifier: result is always, cheap sound! Apply a competent amplifying chain to those same speakers, where the only consideration for the speakers is to stabilise some of the typical weaknesses of such units - result: Big Sound!

 

People have great difficulty connecting the experience of listening to acoustic instruments, at a very close range, to the fact that sound systems are capable of delivering the same sonic sensations. I would suggest everyone try it: go up to a piano being played aggressively, put your head right over the soundboard; sidle up to a trumpet player so you're only a couple of feet away; wander over to the drummer practising, where you can almost touch one of the pieces. You will experience a powerful, overwhelming sound experience - and, the same thing can be delivered by a speaker working well, listening a few inches away. Normally of course this would be a disaster, the distortion would be terrible - but, that is the goal ...

[Dragonfyr]

Horses can count. I didn't think they could either. 

 

http://www.ofhorse.com/view-post/Can-Horses-Count-Yes-They-Can

 

Undeniable evidence that horses can indeed count!!! 

[AJ Soundfield]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

JG Holt was a really fun person who cared far more about the hobby than making money. I really admire him. Doesn't mean I completely agree with him now any more than I did in 1977 though.  He was a great guy, but also an opinionated elitist ass with very poor business judgement. So what?

He addresses the very specific topic of live sound reference vs "whatever sound someone likes"

 

 

[fas42]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

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.

 

OK, as promised - diyAudio is back up - here is where the conversation kicked off, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what-153.html

 

And, kicked off a discrete thread querying people's experiences, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/231797-invisible-speakers-who-has-achieved-experienced.html

 

[AJ Soundfield]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

I live in the "live music capital of the world" and I don't at all think a world class performance by a world class choir in a very well regarded venue is a "pathelogical" example. Even if I do have friends singing in the choir.   Of course, you can choose to disagree. Your opinion is not really going to change my mind, or actually, any one else's either. 

But of course you can't present what recording you are comparing it to or your reproduction system details. Apprehension.

So there is nothing to compare. Again, you avoid that the live reference everyone else is referring to isn't your pathological example.

Not trying to change your mind, you prefer your equipment, whatever that might be, to live PA systems and supposedly a particular acoustic performance. Not surprising given what JG admitted.

 

Quote

All I said is that the measurements for how much or how "good" a recording or performance is are unreliable.

No you claim a billion people need to be measured which is senseless. The only thing that needs to be measured in a live vs reproduced, is the soundfield itself, not people.

Peoples perception of it would be subjectively tested, not "measured" which you are conflating.

 

Quote

And thus something that currently cannot be measured

What "something" can't be measured?

[Ralph Glasgal]

44 minutes ago, semente said:

 

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.

Any suggestions?  How about the difference between optical illusions and real 3D photography?  I wouldn't need to make analogies if high enders would try to understand the physics more 

 

Of course, erroneous or contradictory spatial cues affect the sense of tone or fidelity much more than a little peak at 7493 Hz. or similar and the effect on frequency response of stereo crosstalk is easy to hear.

[AJ Soundfield]

6 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Of course, erroneous or contradictory spatial cues affect the sense of tone or fidelity much more than a little peak at 7493 Hz. or similar and the effect on frequency response of stereo crosstalk is easy to hear.

Luckily 99% of recordings are studio mastered spectrally using stereo 60 loudspeakers, or thereabouts.

[semente]

9 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Any suggestions?  How about the difference between optical illusions and real 3D photography?  I wouldn't need to make analogies if high enders would try to understand the physics more 

 

Of course, erroneous or contradictory spatial cues affect the sense of tone or fidelity much more than a little peak at 7493 Hz. or similar and the effect on frequency response of stereo crosstalk is easy to hear.

 

Unfortunately I have no idea what "real 3D photography" is.

[Ralph Glasgal]

13 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

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

I read that paper years ago and Kimio Hamasaki was a guest at my house.  All the 5.1 papers starting with Tomlinson Holman's are  like the original stereo patent by Blumlein relying on a rather flukey characteristic of the human hearing system.  Like an optical illusion 5.1 cannot be mathematically reconciled with the normal binaural hearing mechanism.  You need to read the papers about Wavefield Synthesis, Ambisonics, and Blauert's book on Spatial Hearing.  There will be all kinds of papers on Auro 3d and Dolby Atmos, are you going to switch from stereo and 5.1 to them?

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

He addresses the very specific topic of live sound reference vs "whatever sound someone likes"

 

 

 

Well, he expresses his opinion on the subject.  

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

But of course you can't present what recording you are comparing it to or your reproduction system details. Apprehension.

So there is nothing to compare. Again, you avoid that the live reference everyone else is referring to isn't your pathological example.

Not trying to change your mind, you prefer your equipment, whatever that might be, to live PA systems and supposedly a particular acoustic performance. Not surprising given what JG admitted.

[/quote]

 

 

 

Seriously?  I of course have the recordings of it, including the master files. Since it is not available to you though, and you didn't attend the live performance, what possible value can it be to you? 

 

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

No you claim a billion people need to be measured which is senseless. The only thing that needs to be measured in a live vs reproduced, is the soundfield itself, not people.

[/Quote]

 

Well, here you are just wrong. The very same objective sound impinging upon two different people's ears will absolutely sound different. You would need a very large number of measurements of said sound field, as well as measurements of the people's perceptions who are listening to it. 

 

To accurately predict what any single person is hearing in a performance, you would need both the physical measurements and a fairly extensive baseline of the measurements of exactly what that person experiences when they "hear" similar sounds in all combinations. 

 

You perhaps know of a way to do this at reasonable cost and effort? 

 

 

4 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Peoples perception of it would be subjectively tested, not "measured" which you are conflating.

 

What "something" can't be measured?

 

People's perceptions are most certainly capable of being measured. It just isn't *easy* - which is why you shy away from it. Predicting those perceptions is even more difficult, at least with any scientific accuracy.

 

Everyone can - and does - take their best guess. People like Alan Parsons know what they like, and what other people have, in their past experience liked, and so can make reasonable guesses as to what will be liked, popular, and well received.  

 

If you really don't grasp the concept, I can supply you with some textbook references. If you don't grasp the intended humor, then that is my fault I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You're not overdriving it - typically, you're overstressing the amplifier, and it's distorting badly - I have done the exercise so many times of good amplifier, lowly speaker - and, the sound rises to the occasion. The conventional wisdom is to pair cheap speakers with a cheap amplifier: result is always, cheap sound! Apply a competent amplifying chain to those same speakers, where the only consideration for the speakers is to stabilise some of the typical weaknesses of such units - result: Big Sound!

 

People have great difficulty connecting the experience of listening to acoustic instruments, at a very close range, to the fact that sound systems are capable of delivering the same sonic sensations. I would suggest everyone try it: go up to a piano being played aggressively, put your head right over the soundboard; sidle up to a trumpet player so you're only a couple of feet away; wander over to the drummer practising, where you can almost touch one of the pieces. You will experience a powerful, overwhelming sound experience - and, the same thing can be delivered by a speaker working well, listening a few inches away. Normally of course this would be a disaster, the distortion would be terrible - but, that is the goal ...

 

I would call that over driving the speaker, even if the base cause is over driving the amplifier.  But I get your point. 

 

There are very efficient speakers that politely sip current from an amp that sound great of course. And there are powered speakers that remove the whole problem if external amplification. 

 

But every speaker I know of has to be driven to a certain loudness before they really exhibit their best sound. The speakers to me make a much greater impact on the sound than the amplifier. So driving any set of speakers to their best volume with clean power will give the best sound from that particular combination, everything else being equal and non-contributive.  A cheap set of speakers properly driven does have the potential to sound better than a really good set of speakers being poorly driven. 

 

But really good speakers appropriately driven will always (at least in my experience) sound better than less capable speakers appropriately driven.

 

 

 

-Paul 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, he expresses his opinion on the subject.  

No he confirmed what you claim. Fidelity is no longer to live unamplified music, it's to whatever you think is "good".

He's agreeing with you.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

I of course have the recordings of it, including the master files. Since it is not available to you though, and you didn't attend the live performance, what possible value can it be to you? 

I'm always interested in perceptual soundfield reconstruction...if that is what you claim to have.

But you continue to dance around. What is this "master file", who recorded it, using what encoding scheme, etc.

and why does it sound "better" to you on your mystery playback system? What about your playback is "better" than hearing this supposedly live at some location in this mystery place.

The story is rather lacking in any facts.

 

Quote

Well, here you are just wrong. The very same objective sound impinging upon two different people's ears will absolutely sound different. You would need a very large number of measurements of said sound field, as well as measurements of the people's perceptions who are listening to it. 

That is fantastic to know, given that you claim a capture of it that is better than live. So now you are saying it is only better to your ears alone and what sound was impinging upon your ears/heard?

Well that sounds an awful lot like just a single individuals strange preference. I wonder how many other attendees would agree?

 

Quote

People's perceptions are most certainly capable of being measured. It just isn't *easy* - which is why you shy away from it.

No, I'm just not a mental health expert or audiophile, i.e. I try to stick to what I know.

No "measurement" of a person is going to tell what they prefer, That requires an actual listening test. Again, you conflate the two due to confusion and lack of knowledge in the field you are speaking of.

 

Quote

People like Alan Parsons know what they like

Right and Stevie Nicks, both amplified performers. It is most likely that you prefer amplified rock music and simply don't like unamplfied acoustic, so have come up with this elaborate scheme as to why live acoustic isn't the reference for audio High Fidelity. You're a rocker aren't you?

[NOMBEDES]

On 6/6/2017 at 1:37 PM, semente said:

 

As for reviewers dismissing or downplaying the importance of shortcomings, there's an interesting text by Arthur Salvatore named "AUDIO RELATIVISM"-THE NEW DISEASE AND EXCUSE":

 

What is Audio Relativism?

It is the belief system that virtually every component has strong merit and can produce "great sound", for someone's "tastes", if it is matched correctly with other components.

What are (some of) the ultimate implications of this theory?

1. Every component has some validity in the audio marketplace.

2. No component is inherently superior to another.

3. All sound reproduction differences are just a simple matter of taste.

4. There is no objective standard to aim for.

5. (High) Fidelity to the source, or in general, is irrelevant.

6. Audio is an "Art Form", like poetry and sculpting, rather than a science.

This "belief system" is very convenient for its creators; the audio magazines and their 'reviewers'. It provides them with the ability (and the excuse) to find some "good", or some "justification" to purchase, within every single component that is reviewed by them. How?

Because, if their belief is true, each and every component, under the right conditions, can equally satisfy listeners as much as any other component, for either the money or in the absolute sense. It's just a matter of time, or luck, before you find the right "match".

In effect: this theory means that all component performance is "relative" and with no "absolutes"; only "possibilities" exist.

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel

 

I don't agree with much of the above but I thank @semente for the posting. 

 

Item 3 (All sound reproduction differences are just a simple matter of taste) may be more true than we want to admit.

 

I do believe that given human hearing variations and the wide differences in musical/sonic taste and the sonic character of each listening room, there is not much value in "audio reviews" as a basis for spending your audiophile dollar.  

 

As is often stated in this forum and others you have to kiss a few frogs to find a prince.  An expensive and time consuming hobby at best.

 

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Luckily 99% of recordings are studio mastered spectrally using stereo 60 loudspeakers, or thereabouts.

Of course, headphones now are likely used even more in mastering and this makes it much easier to panpot a spot mic object into position.  Most recording engineers I have worked with or talked to are fully cognizant that the home user is not hearing flat response.  Some do correct for the bass boost but they can only do that if the bass instrument is mono and isolated.  This is never done for classical music.  

 

It is a common rationalization myth that recording mastering engineers are skilled enough to pre cancel or compensate for the crosstalk inherent in the sixty degree stereo triangle.  It not just a simple matter of equalization.

[Ralph Glasgal]

Tutorial 1:  Interaural Time Delay

In physics there are only a few well known proven ways to detect from where a sound originates.  In the case of the human head there are only three methods that obey the laws of physics.  One of these is the time difference in arrival of any compression or rarefaction at the outer ear.  Since sound waves from the side can go around the front, the rear, under the chin and every path in between and the head can nod, lean, and rotate we can assume that the brain computer has leaned to cope with this and based on these time differences decide on a probable location for the source of the sound rays producing this interaural delay.  Since the human head is only about 7" wide, the maximum delay the brain copes with in real life is about 700 microseconds and such a delay indicates a sound at the far right or left.

 

Now a microphone like the SASS or a dummy head or ORTF or many other narrow spaced Omni arrays can record a time delay of 700 microseconds for an instrument like a trumpet at the far side of an orchestra.  Such TD values then are on the CD or LP since a single orchestral instrument's localization cues are not easily changed now or in the LP/CD era.  Now when this TD is reproduced via two speakers placed 60 degrees apart, this 700 microsecond is reduced to about 220 microseconds followed by bogus interaural time delayed compressions and rarefactions of 700 and 920.  You can think about which ear gets which signals.  Questions?  Maybe wrong forum for this.

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Tutorial 1:  Interaural Time Delay

In physics there are only a few well known proven ways to detect from where a sound originates.  In the case of the human head there are only three methods that obey the laws of physics.  One of these is the time difference in arrival of any compression or rarefaction at the outer ear.  Since sound waves from the side can go around the front, the rear, under the chin and every path in between and the head can nod, lean, and rotate we can assume that the brain computer has leaned to cope with this and based on these time differences decide on a probable location for the source of the sound rays producing this interaural delay.  Since the human head is only about 7" wide, the maximum delay the brain copes with in real life is about 700 microseconds and such a delay indicates a sound at the far right or left.

 

Now a microphone like the SASS or a dummy head or ORTF or many other narrow spaced Omni arrays can record a time delay of 700 microseconds for an instrument like a trumpet at the far side of an orchestra.  Such TD values then are on the CD or LP since a single orchestral instrument's localization cues are not easily changed now or in the LP/CD era.  Now when this TD is reproduced via two speakers placed 60 degrees apart, this 700 microsecond is reduced to about 220 microseconds followed by bogus interaural time delayed compressions and rarefactions of 700 and 920.  You can think about which ear gets which signals.  Questions?  Maybe wrong forum for this.

 As this is page 37 of a long thread, not specifically on this topic, I request starting your own thread on the issue.  I think it would be of interest to many, and should not be buried in a thread like this.   Not sure how you would wish to approach it.  Maybe issues with conventional 60 degree stereo playback?  Something like that.  Or examination of 60 degree stereo playback. 

[AJ Soundfield]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

But every speaker I know of has to be driven to a certain loudness before they really exhibit their best sound

What is this "best" sound if not referenced vs live music?

What is the reference that your loudspeaker designers used, that was not the live sound that you claim is not the reference?

I certainly design towards that goal, since it is the only "reference" I have. I have no idea what Stevie Nicks and Alan Parsons et al are supposed to sound like. A stack of PA speakers in mono with feedback?

I know of several speaker designers/manufacturers who design vs "live" reference.

Here are at least 2:

Henry Kloss (AR, KLH, Advent).

In the early 1960s, AR conducted a series of over 75 live vs. recorded demonstrations throughout the United States in which the sound of a live string quartet was alternated with echo-free recorded music played through a pair of AR-3s. In this “ultimate” subjective test of audio quality, the listeners were largely unable to detect the switch from live to recorded, a strong testament to Acoustic Research's audio quality.

Jim Winey (Magnepan)

Bill played them for me, and my God! It was the closest thing to a live performance I had ever heard. I flipped. It put the seed in my mind, and I decided to apply myself to electrostatics. I started acquiring all the literature and patents.

So clearly the designer of those speaker use "live" as reference.

I'm really curious how the designers of your speakers designed them to sound better than live to you.