Audio Blind Testing

[Ralf11]

be good and I'll give you back the 4

[STC]

53 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Don't get me started down that road. I've walked out of concerts (actually demanded my money back) when I've entered a performance venue and see speakers piled-up on or nea.....

 

Ok...my reply did not come out as I intended. All I wanted to say, many are equating live performance as a barometer of good sound. 

 

That can can only be correct if,

 

1) you are listening to unamplified  sound. 

 

2) the acoustics environment is good. 

 

Except for a concert hall performance with acoustics instrument , we are often exposed to digital and reinforced sound. The distinction has been blurred long time ago. 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

You seem to be missing the point, Alex. The advancement of substantive arguments as opposed to resorting to ad hominem ones applies to the evaluation of audio sound quality as much as it applies anywhere else.

 

 No. I am not missing the point. Substantive arguments do not necessarily prove anything with the vast majority of Subjective reports in this forum at least, They are often opinions based on existing technical knowledge which in many cases appears to be either out of date or incomplete, especially in the area of USB Audio.

 For the vast majority of the general population, the phrases "Logical Fallacy" and "Ad Hominem don't even exist in their vocabulary ,let alone in regular use ! 

They are mainly used here as an intimidatory tactic to demonstrate that the poster has a higher degree of education than your average person, and is thus more believable, sometimes without even realising it perhaps ?

In your case, they are more likely to just be as a result of your occupation, and not deliberately used to intimidate or belittle other C.A. members.

 

 I come here to exchange ideas with others having similar interests, NOT to participate in pointless debating where there is rarely a clear cut result. 

[Ralf11]

your entire posting history is mostly pointless debating and angry personal attacks

 

 

you know, ad hominem stuff

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

No. I am not missing the point.

No, you are the point.

[fas42]

Ahhh, I was just in the mood for a good round of Bulverism - thanks! ...

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, mansr said:

No, you are the point.

 

The other members will decide whether they are more interested in intellectual snobbery from several members like yourself ,who rarely (in a few cases NEVER. e.g. Ralf11) contribute anything of substance to further improve Computer Audio, or whether they are more interested in trying solutions posted by other members that may improve their own audio system.

There is a great deal more General Member participation in other areas of the forum, where ancient Latin phrases are rarely, if ever, used.

Most members have absolutely no desire to see Computer Audiophile degenerate into another Hydrogen Audio with it's heavy censorship and strict guidelines as to what can, and can't be posted.

[Ralf11]

sandman - you better ask yourself if you are the victim or the crime

 

 

 

I'll avoid commentary on the incredible irony of your last paragraph

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 No. I am not missing the point. Substantive arguments do not necessarily prove anything with the vast majority of Subjective reports in this forum at least, They are often opinions based on existing technical knowledge which in many cases appears to be either out of date or incomplete, especially in the area of USB Audio.

 For the vast majority of the general population, the phrases "Logical Fallacy" and "Ad Hominem don't even exist in their vocabulary ,let alone in regular use !

 

Thank you for proving that you missed the point entirely. End of discussion, at least from me.

[audiventory]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Then the perfect system would make them sound different when recorded in different concert halls. But the perfect system would always sound like that instrument played in that hall, it wouldn't make, for instance, a violin sound like a trumpet. It would always sound like a violin, and you, as the listener would always recognize it as a violin.

 

Difference sound between violin and trumpet is not matter even for old systems. There too big difference in initial wave forms, generetad by the instruments.

 

But we don't know reference sound of the violin as itself.

 

In ideal case we know how it sound in:

a) our head and memory;

b) the concert hall;

c) the location of the concert hall.

 

 

 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Difference sound between violin and trumpet is not matter even for old systems. There too big difference in initial wave forms, generetad by the instruments.

 

But we don't know reference sound of the violin as itself.

 

In ideal case we know how it sound in:

a) our head and memory;

b) the concert hall;

c) the location of the concert hall.

 

 

 

 

But we have built a memory of the distinctive qualities of the sound of these instruments, from a lifetime of exposure to the sounds. If we are about to walk into a room, where a real instrument is playing, we are absolutely certain about what we will see, even from just a whiff of the sound.

[audiventory]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

But we have built a memory of the distinctive qualities of the sound of these instruments, from a lifetime of exposure to the sounds. If we are about to walk into a room, where a real instrument is playing, we are absolutely certain about what we will see, even from just a whiff of the sound.

 

It is no matter of instrument recognizing. I suppose, trained people can distinguish recorded sound of certain violin instances. I think, it is not matter for old audio systems even.

 

Different concert halls have audible sound difference.

Extremal example: compare sound in a room with big glass surfaces, a room with brick walls, a room with furniture and a room with carpets.

 

As example, we discuss, PCM vs. DSD: what is more "natural"?

It is not matter "what is instrument"?
But now main problem of recording/playback systems is wave field reproduction, that finally bring sound form concert hall to our ears in our listening room.

[sandyk]

52 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Thank you for proving that you missed the point entirely. End of discussion, at least from me.

 

53 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Thank you for proving that you missed the point entirely. End of discussion, at least from me.

 

Then it looks like you didn't make the point too well Counsellor !

The moment that people like yourself start quoting phrases from a dead language, where not even Prescriptions are written in Latin anymore, I lose interest completely. 

Even Politicians don't talk like this in Parliament when debating ! (At least they don't in Australia .)

 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

Ok...my reply did not come out as I intended. All I wanted to say, many are equating live performance as a barometer of good sound. 

 

That can can only be correct if,

 

1) you are listening to unamplified  sound. 

 

2) the acoustics environment is good. 

 

Except for a concert hall performance with acoustics instrument , we are often exposed to digital and reinforced sound. The distinction has been blurred long time ago. 

 

Some might be, but I won't listen to sound reinforcement. It's somewhat easier for me than many, I don't listen to either pop or rock. I don't mind when a vocalist uses a PA, after all, the human voice doesn't have the carrying power of say a trumpet or a Sax, or massed strings. But it is simply not necessary for acoustic instruments to be amplified except in a very large venue and those are seldom good listening places. I will be attending a performance of the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center here on the 20th, and if I see sound reinforcement equipment, It's a refund for me and out of there. BTW the Nightingale theater at the UNV Reno is a great small hall of about 750 seats and fantastic acoustics. So far, I have not seen any SR during a concert engagement.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

Difference sound between violin and trumpet is not matter even for old systems. There too big difference in initial wave forms, generetad by the instruments.

 

But we don't know reference sound of the violin as itself.

 

In ideal case we know how it sound in:

a) our head and memory;

b) the concert hall;

c) the location of the concert hall.

 

 

 

This is all irrelevant. The ideal system will accurately reproduce all performances of all music from all venues. No matter what our memory tells us, no matter what concert hall the performance took place in, or where that concert hall is. We don't need to know the reference sound of a violin. When we attend a live concert where there is nothing between our ears and the musical instruments being played, we don't questions these things, we just listen. The ideal, perfect system (which doesn't exist) will reproduce music in such a way that everything between our ears and the musical event to which we are listening disappears. There would be no difference between us sitting in the best seat in the house, listening to the concert live, and us sitting in our easy chair in our listening room listening to the concert being reproduced there. That cannot be done, not today, and probably not tomorrow. End of story.

[STC]

20 minutes ago, audiventory said:

is no matter of instrument recognizing. I suppose, trained people can distinguish recorded sound of certain violin instances

 

Trained people could not even recognize the so-called superior sound of Stradivarius violin. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

This is all irrelevant. The ideal system will accurately reproduce all performances of all music from all venues. No matter what our memory tells us, no matter what concert hall the performance took place in, or where that concert hall is. We don't need to know the reference sound of a violin. When we attend a live concert where there is nothing between our ears and the musical instruments being played, we don't questions these things, we just listen. The ideal, perfect system (which doesn't exist) will reproduce music in such a way that everything between our ears and the musical event to which we are listening disappears. There would be no difference between us sitting in the best seat in the house, listening to the concert live, and us sitting in our easy chair in our listening room listening to the concert being reproduced there. That cannot be done, not today, and probably not tomorrow. End of story.

 

Bit that is not answering various demos of live sound vs recorded sound performed in concert hall where the audience couldn’t tell the difference. So what live performance should be the reference?

[audiventory]

 

29 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

The ideal system will accurately reproduce all performances of all music from all venues. No matter what our memory tells us, no matter what concert hall the performance took place in, or where that concert hall is. We don't need to know the reference sound of a violin. When we attend a live concert where there is nothing between our ears and the musical instruments being played, we don't questions these things, we just listen. The ideal, perfect system (which doesn't exist) will reproduce music in such a way that everything between our ears and the musical event to which we are listening disappears. There would be no difference between us sitting in the best seat in the house, listening to the concert live, and us sitting in our easy chair in our listening room listening to the concert being reproduced there. That cannot be done, not today, and probably not tomorrow.

 

Way to implement "ideal system" is re-produce sound hologram of concert hall.

 

The "hologram" term is not abstract.

 

"Sound hologram" is acoustic wave field in given point of concert hall.

 

It is absolutely same to optical hologram. Because both terms are based at common wave theory (physics).

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, audiventory said:

As example, we discuss, PCM vs. DSD: what is more "natural"?

It is not matter "what is instrument"?
But now main problem of recording/playback systems is wave field reproduction, that finally bring sound form concert hall to our ears in our listening room.

 

Yes, the goal is being "natural". So, what if we were to walk into that room I just mentioned, to be greeted by a playback system, only? That's how it should work - but nearly always doesn't ... it is the sound field in the room that matters, but we only get fooled when nothing gives the game away. What most people don't appreciate is that it's the little things in the sound that matter, not the big things - our ears are a harsh mistress ...

[audiventory]

28 minutes ago, STC said:

Trained people could not even recognize the so-called superior sound of Stradivarius violin.

 

I don't met some researches of the same instrument recognition. But Stradivarius sound differently then cheap violin, isn't it?

[audiventory]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What most people don't appreciate is that it's the little things in the sound that matter, not the big things - our ears are a harsh mistress ...

 

Our ears and brain are big "sound changers". There ideal system can't help us

[opus101]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 

Then it looks like you didn't make the point too well Counsellor !

 

 

It looks that way to you, I'll grant. But to me he did a fine job.

 

That's individual perception for ya I realize its not a dead language but would 'chacun à son goût' scare you off?

[fas42]

Just now, audiventory said:

 

Our ears and brain are big "sound changers". There ideal system can't help us

 

Which is precisely why live sound works so well - our brains are also fooling us when we hear the "real thing"; what the sound waves are in the room when listening to an acoustic instrument does match subjectively what we are "seeing" - all sound is manipulated, so to speak, always!

 

Which means a reproduction system only has to reach a certain quality, that corresponds roughly to the live thing - and we "hear the illusion".

[fas42]

Just on a point of the value of DBTs, and why they are unnecessary ... we have a member who asserts here, very forcefully, that certain sounds, like brass instruments, can't be reproduced convincingly; I see things otherwise, because I have heard otherwise. So for me to know how good a system is, I could just put on some brass instrument recording, and listen. Either it does the job, or it fails - if the latter is the case it's like a luxury vehicle with poor shock absorbers - it gets a fail mark, because it's obviously deficient. Foolin' around with blind tests is just dumb, when a straightforward listen tells one whether it can clear the hurdle.

[STC]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

I don't met some researches of the same instrument recognition. But Stradivarius sound differently then cheap violin, isn't it?

 The point is once you cross a certain threshold of sound quality, the difference doesn’t matter. They still meet high fidelity. There can be differences between two well made same class amplifiers but you could only tell which is which when comparison is done with a familiar track. Change the track to one picked randomly without listening to the other your ability to recognize the amplifier sound disappears. This applies to all types of subjective comparison. 

 

I have earlier given given the example of live performance vs recorded playback in concert hall which proved my point. 

 

You only need good quality amplifier and speaker speaker to reproduce a live performance. However, the manner how you reproduce them accounts for the difference. In nature there is no stereo sound and therefore you cannot reproduce live performance accurately with two speakers stereo. However, if you were to channel each sound to a single speaker and placed them accordingly as in live performance, it should sound as good as live performance.