Audio Blind Testing

[STC]

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

And of course, that person shouldn't know which device is being "hooked-up" any more than the listeners shotld. Otherwise it's not a true DBT.

 

The co-inventor (with Ben Muller) of the ABX comparator, one Arny Krueger,  invented the thing (by his own admission) in order to prove that everything (except speakers) sounded the same. This is a point that he argued on Usenet for years against me and others (and notoriously against John Atkinson in a famous, public debate). After debating with his nonsense for years about amplifiers, DACs, disc players and vinyl setups, I came to the conclusion that he couldn't hear. He made so many ridiculous assertions, that as far as I'm concerned, the man has no credibility whatsoever!  Some of his assertions were: the original Dynaco Stereo 120 Solid-State amplifier from the 1960s sounded exactly like the then latest Amps from Krell, Pass, Audio Research, etc. This was at a time when it common knowledge that anyone could see (and ostensibly hear) the nasty crossover notch from a sine wave on the oscilloscope caused by the 2N3055 output transistors on the ST120 being too slow to switch fast enough and too fragile to be biased far enough into class AB to eliminate the notch. The amp sounded awful and was only tolerated by the audiophile public because it was cheap, and powerful (for the day) and the audio press was touting the "transistor sound" as being a good thing! He also asserted that the (then) latest $100 Japanese receivers from Costco sounded exactly like "so-called high-end amplifiers" costing upwards of one-hundred times as much! He also maintained that he was still using the original Sony CDP-101 player from 1982, and that it sounded just exactly like the latest high-end players from MSB, dcS, etc. and that they were a rip-off! Another of Krueger's classic idiotic assertions was that the latest turntable/arm/cartridges were no better than those of the 1960's and that absolutely no progress had been made in that field! While it is true that some decks from those days can still be satisfying performers when restored (Garrard 301, 401, Thorens TD-124, TD 125, the AR turntable (sans arm), etc), arms and cartridges and decks have improved in leaps and bounds. I've had turntables from the '60's, '70's, '80's  up to the present, and I can tell that the best vinyl rigs of today will knock the sox off of the best that any 20th century playback rig had to offer (not to say that these older decks can't sound good, but they simply cannot retrieve from the grooves the level of SQ that today's best vinyl rigs can. It's an eye-opening experience to hear what even old LPs can sound like on a state-of-the-art rig from Walker, VPI, or Air Force or Clearaudio (to name a few)!

My point is how can an ABX comparator designer like Krueger make a totally transparent comparator when he can't hear the difference between transparent and non-transparent or the differences between the equipment likely to be tested by it? 

 

Are you referring to rec.audio-high end newsgroup? I vaguely remember the "debate" which got him banned from the group before readmitting him after about year.

 

Arny never claimed that everything sounded alike. The blind test data clearly showed a difference between Dyna400 and a tube amplfier. Even the Sony and Philips CD players sounded different under blind testing. 

[STC]

53 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I am referring to rec.audio-high end. And the Arny Krueger that I remember, argued most vociferously that everything sounded the same when I was contributing to that group. After I left, I don't know what might have transpired. 

 

Did he? But the original ABX website contained many equipment that actually sounded different under ABX. 

 

All I remember, he only insisted some did not sound different. 

[STC]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

The "3D quality" of the presentation is another way of describing attributes of higher level playback; and this happens, automatically, when the low level detail in the recording is clearly rendered - the ear/brain can now make sense of what "all that muffled stuff" means - and full clarity of the sound field is perceived.

 

Expecting 3D sound from stereo is like seeing 3D picture with 2D televsion which is impossible. In audio, 3D sound got nothing to do with low level details, although that is desirable. Even a multi channel recording is far better than the 2D sound of stereo which you claimed to hear 3D sound with..

 

The real 3D sound that you can experience is binaural recording with headphones such a this 

 

Play this with your system and compare to the sound heard with headphones. Unless your system ever produced sound like this than your reference of the so called 3D sound that you claimed to have heard is just a figment of your imagination. That is not wrong as most of us to let our imagination play a bigger role to experience sense of space with stereo.

 

Other real 3D sound  that you could experience with playback is Symth. Another new comer is https://www.ossic.com/ but I do not how good it is.

 

Having said that, if you were to listen  music where single source is recorded to each channel than the possibility of real 3D sound is possible with stereo.  Say, a solo vocal is recorded to the left channel and sax to the right. Such playback is 100% accurate as in real performance. A real 3D with stereo.

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Luckily, you're wrong ... the ear/brain is remarkably adept at recreating a full sound field

 

Not the ear but brain is capable of recreating whatever you want to see or believe, be it 3D or height when it is non-existent.

 

That reminds me of an incident long ago. In a dark room, I dropped a coin/metal object and asked the listener to guess the exact location. 4 of us managed to get right give or take 1 meter except for the most experienced audiophile. He was consistantly pointing to a direction that was way off and one occassion on the opposite side.

 

I agree with you. Some are capable of extra ordinary hearing and I understand their predicament why they could not replicate or demonstate what they hear to others. It's unique experience only they could appreciate.

 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I can guarantee that an assumed high price will make your wine taste better, and your cables sound better even if they are cheap.

 

The former was tested by scientists with remarkable results, and published in one of those peer-reviewed journals that some try to kick sand at.

 

Confirmation Bias is insidious which is why any prudent purchaser will take steps to guard against it.

 

In other words, it was proved by scientists that wine tasted better when you know the high price. That is real as another region of your brain gets activated to give more pleasure. The experience is real and not disillusion. 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it was proven that cheap $5 wine tasted as good as $90 wine when you are falsely told the  price was $90

 

 

 

As I said, satisfaction depends not only on taste. The price is a factor that triggers emotional satisfaction that attribute non existent quality. It is their perception and it is natural. 

 

If the same person were to taste the $90 wine with holding their nose and the $5 wine without holding their nose, the $5 wine is going to taste better. All I am saying, the look, price, the room and brand reputation have a role to play in perception.

[STC]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Binaural+ Series

Chesky Records would like to introduce its new Binaural+ Series. Binaural sound has been around for a long time, but until now it was just for headphones and could not be enjoyed on speakers.

Our Binaural+ Series recordings sound great on headphones and speakers, and capture the sound of music as you would if you were sitting in front of the band. The Binaural+ Series sessions were recorded in high-resolution 192-kHz/24-bit sound with a special Binaural head (a "dummy" human head with specially calibrated microphones where the ears would be). The headphone market is booming and we think it is important to bring the ultimate in high-resolution sound to this sector of the record business. Now headphone users will hear the same three-dimensional sound and imaging as audiophiles have for the past 25 years with Chesky Recordings. Also these new Binaural+ Series albums capture even more spatial realism for the home audiophile market, bringing you one step closer to the actual event.

 

I do demo with Chesky's binaural+ recording and I can tell you that it is not even close to real binuaral heard through headphones with the standard 60 degrees speakers separation although they are better than most stereo recordings.

 

BTW, there is no height information in stereo although we may perceive with some good imagination.

"Height information is not intentionally recorded in stereo, but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height of the AS. The height is perceived at a greater distance than the loudspeakers and not as above the listener, because he "looks" into the AS in front of him."

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/accurate stereo performance.htm

[STC]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I have no problem if someone wants to pay extra for a look they like.  But the consumer needs to make that decision with full knowledge of what $$ put where provides SQ vs. ergonomics, or aesthetic visuals.

 

In act, ergonomics was part of the reason I bought my current pre-amp - it happens sound pretty good too (ARC LS25 Mk II)

 

When it comes to cables99% of the population would rather trust their ears. They wont hear the difference so they know where to put their money.

[STC]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I've only used stereo; I've mentioned many times what happens when a true mono recording is played over stereo speakers: there is a full sense of depth to the presentation, which exists on a somewhat narrow stage in front of you, which tracks your lateral position with respect to the speakers - the latter is quite remarkable; I was amazed when I first heard how stable this illusion could be. A way of describing it could be that a open doorway exists in a wall between oneself and the performance, and that doorway moves laterally as you do.

 

I've explained many times the approach I use - I listen to a system, hear where there are audible anomalies; from experience, and guesstimates locate the causes, and fix or bypass the causes. Alex just mentioned that the bias at the front end of an amplifying stage was a problem - every setup will have its own, distinctive issues, each of which has to be identified and sorted.

 

My results fall out every time, if I sort all the critical ones - I have the big advantage that I know exactly what I'm after, and I'm confident it will happen, from experience. What will be difficult for many people is learning to listen the 'right way', being able to identify the misbehaviour, and accurately diagnose the cause.

 

Mono recording is made with only one channel and the correct way to play them is to use only one speaker. If you were to use two speaker than you are producing the same sound from two source. On singer becomes two, one trupet becomes two, etc etc. 

 

This is altering the original recorded sound and whatever sound field you created depends on the speakers location and the phase accuracy between the two speakers. It is possible to experience just like intentionally playing stereo sound with speakers out of phase. Try to catch your friend by playing unfamiliar track and see if he can point out the "flaw" in the recording.

[STC]

21 minutes ago, esldude said:

You can find numerous tests about wine like described saying pricing, color and label have a much larger effect than the wine itself on which is judged superior.  I do mean numerous.  I'll not even bother to provide examples.  With google you have several in seconds if you wish. 

 

Just helping out

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with "a system that sounds like live instruments playing in a real space". No reproduction system is so good that it would fool anyone into thinking that they are listening to live musicians playing in a space where there is nothing between the musicians playing and the listener's ears but air. T'ain't gonna happen!

 

I don't think many could tell the difference. For most live permonce mean seeing the performance live but the question is whether the sound is unamplified or through the speakers. In the latter case, theoratically such live performance and normal replay of recorded music at the same venue should sound similar. That is subject to the speakers arrangement.

 

There are many examples of live performance were nothing but just a replay of prerecorded recording of their performance.  The audiance were fooled many times. That includes the famous live vs recorded performance (in the 50s or 60s) which you can find reference in Sean Olive's blog. 

 

Obama's inauguration is another example. Thousands were fooled thinking the were listing to live performance of Yo-Yo-Ma and co. Another example is, Pavarotti's final performances were all prerecorded. The truth only emerged two years after his death. China's Olympic's performance and the infamous Milli Vanilli all went unnoticed in the so called live performance.

 

Any sound reproduced via speakers in live performance can be reproduced accurately in the same space with speakers. Technically, it should not be any different. The only difference is reproducing them exactly how the sound were channelled to the respective speaker during the live performance. That includes mono sound.

 

 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Well, that's probably true, but it is ultimately irrelevant. The first time that I became startlingly aware of this difference between live a recorded music, was once when I was on a business trip to New Orleans. I was walking down Bourbon Street one evening and was passing night spot after night spot. It was a warm night (aren't they all in the Big Easy?) and all the places had their doors open. As I walked past each, without looking I could say to myself; "There's live music in here." or "That's a sound reinforcement system in there", or "That music's canned." It was really easy to tell from the street, with all the ambient noise of a crowded Latin Quarter evening scene! Since then I've noticed the phenomenon many times. I'll be walking down a street, a door to some restaurant or bar would momentarily open and I would hear the unmistakeable sound of live music momentarily wafting forth. It's unmistakeable, and it's un-recordable and un-reproducable! 

 

 

When was the last time you visited a night spot that was not using any kind of speakers or keyboard? A digital piano sound is from speakers. Even if the person were to play a Sax, the sound will come out from the speakers. The singer will be singing into a mic. So how that sound suddenly have a different quality from a recorded sound?

[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. 

[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?

[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. 

 

 

[STC]

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

When I was a teen, Acoustic Research (AR) had a showroom on Broadway (Avenue of the Americas?) in NYC. They held live vs recorded demos several times a day. What I noticed was that these demos were carefully set up with a string quartet that played quietly without much dynamic contrast. At first, youngsters like me could always tell when the tape was playing and the quartet was playing because of the tape hiss. It was apparent to me because I could hear it clearly. Oldsters... not so much. Then they got smart and left the tape playing even when there was nothing on it so that there was tape Hiss even when the musicians played live. Then, later they did it another way. They took the musicians and a pair of AR3ax outdoors and recorded both the musicians and the speakers playing a recording of the musicians  onto a second tape, and played that in their showroom. 

 

The point is that it isn't hard to fool people if you rig the test sufficiently. AR rigged the test sufficiently to say that people couldn't tell the live from the playback through AR's speakers. Well, believe me with a nice jazz group sporting trumpets, trombones, saxes and a drum kit , they would have fooled no one.  

 

Thank you. You just confirmed that without the hiss it became harder to distinguish. Will they be doing another demo with DSD recording?

[STC]

3 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

Channel number is not base of sound hologram reproduction.

 

For design hologram reproduction system we define reproducing field precision.

 

And after we account room configuragtion/construction.

 

The design algorithm have output:

1) Channel number;

2) Channel speaker locations.

 

In short, 2 speakers are not enough for realistic live performance. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

I'm agree. Objectively (measurable with some precision) ideal audio system can re-produce the sound hologram next the ears.

But it don't guarantee, that we listen same sound after the ideal reproduction.

 

Many known product which can do this?

[STC]

 

 

1 minute ago, audiventory said:

I don't know ideal systems. There are issues, that I don't know: how to implement currently.

 

So you are talking about a system that you have not heard? How can you even be sure that it will sound like live performance?

 

 

 

 

[STC]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

When the replay through them is not of adequate quality, that's true. In the currently rare instances when it is, then the condition are met, for at least a percentage of the listeners - where realistic means, for example, that blinded listeners are not capable of determining what the true situation is. This also covers a wide variety of musical styles, and instruments - not just the "easy stuff".

 

Such rare occasion can happen with 2 speakers when each channel is playing distinct solo instrument. 

 

For an example, Sonny Rollins I’m an old cowhand. The drums on right and sax on the left. Two mono sound from the speakers just like two mono sound in live performance where the sax is on left and drums on the right. 

[STC]

Simple! Ask why dialogues sound better with center speaker than the side speakers. 

 

If Tracy chapman were to sing Behind the wall in front of you, the voice is one going to your two ears. When you use two speakers to reproduce the center with two speakers, you have two Tracy chapman singing simultaneously. Can that be correct and natural? 

 

 

[STC]

Are you referring to this?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis

 

and the difficulties..

 

“For reproduction, the entire surface of the volume would have to be covered with closely spaced monopole and dipole loudspeakers, each individually driven with its own signal. Moreover, the listening area would have to be anechoic, in order to comply with the source-free volume assumption. In practice, this is hardly feasible.”

 

[STC]

46 minutes ago, semente said:

 

One is enough. You need one of these per instrument reproducing an anechoic recording:

 

 

In anechoic chamber the only sound that will reach your ears would be the direct sound. The is no reflection to capture and therefore any microphone attempting to capture the non existent sound would be redundant. 

 

Maybe if you give the link to the photograph, we may able to understand what the picture trying to convey. 

 

BTW, I have anechoic recording made by Denon (or was it JVC). It included single instrument and a classical piece. The sound is so dead.

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

There is a reason for people not being able to tell the difference: direct/reflected sound ratio.

 

I don’t understand what you are trying to convey. Please elaborate.