Jump to content
IGNORED

What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I should have said up to 170 degrees.  It is easy to adjust the angle of the orchestra if you don't like 5th row center.  If you add the surround speakers for hall ambience you can sit in the balcony.  Stereo limits you to 60 degrees max with no control.  I once had a patent on a stereo width control but it only went from 60 to 0 degrees.  I think though when you see the kind of detail, clarity and depth  you can get when you reproduce all that is on an LP or CD without localization cue distortion that you might want to move up a few rows.

 

IMO, audience do not consciously pay much attention to the wide soundstage in concert hall. Human generally adjust their head quickly to face towards the sound that matters directly in front of their face. Most of our listening experience in concert hall or live performances will always be centered at zero degrees as we will be constantly turning our head towards the source. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, STC said:

 

IMO, audience do not consciously pay much attention to the wide soundstage in concert hall. Human generally adjust their head quickly to face towards the sound that matters directly in front of their face. Most of our listening experience in concert hall or live performances will always be centered at zero degrees as we will be constantly turning our head towards the source. 

But it is not just mere localization that is at stake.  In a real hall, all the localization cues are consistent.  In a stereo system they contradict each other.  The result is a sense that the soundfield lacks realism.  Also it is not flat in frequency response in the range where the pinna are active even if the response leaving the speaker is perfect.  It is like printing a perfect color negative in black and white and expecting the brain to see color.. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

But it is not just mere localization that is at stake.  In a real hall, all the localization cues are consistent.  In a stereo system they contradict each other.  The result is a sense that the soundfield lacks realism.  Also it is not flat in frequency response in the range where the pinna are active even if the response leaving the speaker is perfect.  It is like printing a perfect color negative in black and white and expecting the brain to see color.. 

 

Hmmm ... I don't hear contradictions, at all - I find that that if the reproduction, in stereo, is sufficiently well executed then all the localisation cues completely make sense - my brain has unravelled what "it means", and a vista as big as what was encoded exists in front of me.

 

So, I get "colour" if the system works well enough, with just 2 channels.

Link to comment

I recently read this article, "Choosing by Ear" on Dynaudio's site. It includes a good deal of reference to AES20, the Audio Engineering Society (AES) standard for the subjective evaluation of loudspeakers. "It describes a complete set-up, blind listening procedure, scoring system, and set of criteria for judging and comparing loudspeakers. It splits listening criteria up into seven different categories and a total of 29 different tests, each of which help the listener focus on a very particular aspect of loudspeaker performance". Scroll down to this heading: AES20, listening criteria, and choosing your listening material

 

I don't know how much of this is not acoustic-electronically measurable, but it includes several categories that have been discussed in this thread.

 

https://www.dynaudio.com/dynaudio-academy/2015/october/choosing-by-ear-a-guide-to-choosing-the-right-loudspeaker/

 

Interesting quote:

 

Quote

Even discounting the room, the way any one person perceives an acoustic sound source is subject to a lot of variables. From variations in the Head Related Transfer Function (normally used to describe differences in perception between ears for the purposes of source localisation) and auditory filters to more basic ‘internal’ variations in preferences between listeners. The latter is not simply down to taste but could include finding a balance between requirements such as long-term listening comfort, dialogue intelligibility, simulation of other environments or listening conditions, and more.

Read more  

 

See also: http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/64906910.pdf

Link to comment
18 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Thanks for your extended response, Teresa! :)

 

Of the labels you mention, I have a few Chandos items, and they're fine - but I wouldn't have thought that this company was particularly audiophile in intent; Sheffield Lab is the worst offender, nothing from them that I want to listen to; Telarc is a mixed bag, a couple are fine, but I also have some bizarre orchestral efforts from them. I'm not on top of the actual CDs I have at the moment, so if you want the precise items I'll need to get back to you on that, if you're really interested. ^_^

 

Too many times I've listened to a really lack lustre recording brought by someone else, and afterwards I find it's a specifically audiophile recording by some company - I make a mental note to avoid that mob from then on ... that's where I'm burnt, :P.

 

Audiophile remasters don't work, IME. A friend is a keen Yes fan, and we compared the specialist remasters, to the original release - the remasters were all about simplifying and spotlighting the original content, and to our ears were a relatively poor rehash, compared to the first version - the complexity and depth to the music making had been discarded, and weren't in the same league as a listening experience.

 

YMMV ... ^_^

 

Thanks for your detailed response. :)

 

No need to hunt for precise items as we seem to have different ideas about natural sounding recordings. And based on your post, I may very well love some of the ones that sounded bizarre to you. Vive la différence!

 

I see you are not too keen on Telarc. Pre-2009 Telarc is my favorite label, especially their pure DSD SACDs. In 2009 Telarc was purchased by Concord Records Group (they own a few dozen labels). One of the first things Concord did was terminate the Telarc engineering and production crews and started outsourcing engineering and production on a per project basis. The ex-Telarc crews formed their own companies, Five/Four Productions which engineers recordings for a variety of record labels,  and the Sonarc production company which likewise produces for a variety of record labels.

 

I have tried a couple of post-2009 Telarc CDs and one 24/96 download and they sound nothing whatsoever like the pre-2009 Telarc, somewhat harsh and unpleasant. The only Telarc's that still appear to be done by Five/Four Productions are by Hiromi Uehara and they are still recorded in DSD but only released on CD and as 24/96 downloads. Many new Telarc's are now recorded at 24/44.1kHz instead of DSD.

 

Concord let all of the SACDs on the labels they own go out of print, and no longer releases SACDs. Post-2009 Telarc is a very different company from pre-2009 Telarc. I love the old Telarc and dislike the new Telarc.

 

In my system, in my room non-audiophile and major-label recordings usually sound nothing like real live acoustic music I hear in good concert halls. I stick to audiophile labels for sonic realism. That is all I was trying to say.

 

Audiophile remasters don't really work for me either. I only buy them when it is something I want that is not available on an authentic audiophile label. I find the original major label's release usually unlistenable, and the audiophile remaster somewhat better.

 

In my perfect world I would be able to buy all the music I want in authentic uncompressed wide dynamic range audiophile recordings (audiophile from microphones to finished product) but I don't live in my perfect world, so sometimes I have to settle for audiophile remasters.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
18 hours ago, kumakuma said:

Teresa

 

One additional audiophile label I can recommend is Sound Liaison (http://www.soundliaison.com). The four albums they have recorded by Carmen Gomes are especially good.

 

Thanks. :)

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
19 hours ago, fas42 said:

Sheffield Lab is the worst offender, nothing from them that I want to listen to;

 

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

Teresa pointing to Harry James reminded me of one of my test CDs, this onehttps://musicbrainz.org/release/e6cdaff7-f18f-4247-a2d2-f4964e281161

 

These are tracks broadcast on 'The Harry James Show', 1948/47; US Navy transcriptions. Media noises and glitches, but very simple recording technique which has captured the tremendous driving energy and power of this band - this is the first track,

 

 

A system would need to be able to do a totally clean rendition of these tracks, with all the intensity of the powerhouse music making captured here fully expressed, to tick the boxes for me.

 

You really believe that sounds more realistic than the Sheffield Lab three Harry James Direct-to-Discs? The Sheffield DTDs were recorded in Wylie Chapel of the First Presbyterian Church in Hollywood using a single stereo microphone.

 

"In 36 years of recording, I have never been so pleased with the sound. This has been a very enjoyable time for me." --Harry James, at the conclusion of his recording sessions for Sheffield.

 

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment

I'll just add a few Delos is very good, Teldec,Richardson recordings,and a few that I think are engineered for the time very well. Vanguard,Verve,RCA Living stereo,Robert Fine's Mercury and Chess Records. These last one's were done on Ampex 350,351,and the MR70. Richardson,Vanguard,and Kavi Alexander all used the MR70...Kavi had his own label and also recorded for Stereophile. Command Records used the king of analog 35mm film almost all the pre 1970 soundtracks sound wonderful released by  Varese Sarabande

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Teresa said:

In my system, in my room non-audiophile and major-label recordings usually sound nothing like real live acoustic music I hear in good concert halls. I stick to audiophile labels for sonic realism. That is all I was trying to say.

 

Fair enough, :). What I look for is the sense that there are real people in front of me, creating the music. Sonic realism in the sense of what happens in a concert hall may be completely missing, because of the type of music being performed, and how it was produced - that doesn't bother me, because what I'm now enjoying is a sonic spectacle; and all that matters is the integrity of the presentation of that spectacle. Going back to the Springsteen, Born in the USA, material, this was engineered to project an enormous, cavernous acoustic space - and there was a great deal of other popular music at the time that had similar treatment - it's meant to be spectacular, and I fully enjoy the immersion one experiences listening to such. Of course it's "not real", no place where a band plays live has those sort of acoustics - but one should still have no doubt that the voice and instruments are the genuine article; there's no taint of unnatualness in the tonality of the originating sound sources.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

 

You really believe that sounds more realistic than the Sheffield Lab three Harry James Direct-to-Discs? The Sheffield DTDs were recorded in Wylie Chapel of the First Presbyterian Church in Hollywood using a single stereo microphone.

 

Hardly, :D. My CD is a poor quality recording by most standards, that YouTube clip actually sounds quite a bit better than what the track does on my copy - what I find useful is that the album is an excellent "stress test" of system playback - if I get realistic sound levels without the system "getting very messy", and I don't lose the connection to the performers then I can give the playback a tick.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Roger, do you listen to pop or rock material at all?

Yes,but older stuff like Jefferson Airplane,ELP,King Crimson,Beach Boys,Santana,Grateful Dead,CSNY, It's a beautiful day,Cream Eric Clapton,War, Marc Almond,ect. most of my favorites are all from the San Francisco sound...many more too. Plus blues guitar.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, RogerD said:

Yes,but older stuff like Jefferson Airplane,ELP,King Crimson,Beach Boys,Santana,Grateful Dead,CSNY, It's a beautiful day,Cream Eric Clapton,War, Marc Almond,ect. most of my favorites are all from the San Francisco sound...many more too. Plus blues guitar.

 

Excellent! So, how does playing that type of material come across on your system, now, in its "best ever" status ... ?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...