Audio Blind Testing

[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.

 

 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Haven't you read his posts (one is enough). Apparently, he can make any old boom box play sublime music just by looking at it sternly.

 

Obviously, he's full of crap and a waste of time. I recommend ignoring him.

 

AFAIK, this is my first encounter with him on this subject. He's chock full of little green apples on this subject if you ask me. So I suspect that from now on, I'll just ignore him. I simply do not get how anyone can ignore reality like that.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Wrong. It's all on the recording, and always has been ... one of my "show off" recordings would be a classic, full strength brass band recording - no funny games in the capture of such. This is fabulous to listen to, the grunt of what's happening is tremendous, and a basic speaker will do this, easy, peasy. If driven properly.

 

Don't tell me "wrong!" I've made thousands of live recordings in my time, and recorded many a boys choir and many a symphonic band and jazz band as well as symphony orchestras, small jazz ensembles, chamber groups and vocalists. I've recorded to analog tape, 16-bit 44.1KHz to Video tape, DAT, 24/192 PCM, and 512 DSD and no recording medium can capture what you assert. I've used Telefunken ELA-M-270s, Neumann U47s, U87s, Sony C-500s, Sony C-37Ps, AKG-451s, RCA-B77As, and about every other pro recording microphones that has come down the pike, and none of them can produce the perfection that you claim. I have no idea what your playback chain is (and apparently you won't say), but I can only deduce that you are delusional. 

[fas42]

I understand the reality of normal audio, far too well - surely other people will have some grasp of what's possible, in reproduction, I thought back then ... but no. I spent lots of time seeking out other systems - the best of them had major aspects in order, but no-one had the full package working ...

 

Which is quite sad ... I can't be bothered listening to conventional audiophile rigs, they get so many things wrong, and the listeners are completely oblivious to the defective nature of the playback they'e subjecting themselves too.

 

Which is why sound reinforcement setups are so often atrocious, in shows. No-one has decent standards to aspire to, and one has to suffer abominable sound, for the duration. Gave up wasting money on "live" shows many, many years ago - when they can consistently get the sound to a decent standard, well, perhaps ...

[gmgraves]

53 minutes ago, STC said:

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.

 

 

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! 

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I understand the reality of normal audio, far too well - surely other people will have some grasp of what's possible, in reproduction, I thought back then ... but no. I spent lots of time seeking out other systems - the best of them had major aspects in order, but no-one had the full package working ...

 

Which is quite sad ... I can't be bothered listening to conventional audiophile rigs, they get so many things wrong, and the listeners are completely oblivious to the defective nature of the playback they'e subjecting themselves too.

 

Which is why sound reinforcement setups are so often atrocious, in shows. No-one has decent standards to aspire to, and one has to suffer abominable sound, for the duration. Gave up wasting money on "live" shows many, many years ago - when they can consistently get the sound to a decent standard, well, perhaps ...

 

Well I suppose anything's possible when you live in your own world, unfettered by reality. Enjoy it. I'm done with this discussion. 

[opus101]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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!

 

That's a statement about the quality of the sound re-inforcement systems in use. Try this experiment with one of fas42's approved systems playing.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Don't tell me "wrong!" I've made thousands of live recordings in my time, and recorded many a boys choir and many a symphonic band and jazz band as well as symphony orchestras, small jazz ensembles, chamber groups and vocalists. I've recorded to analog tape, 16-bit 44.1KHz to Video tape, DAT, 24/192 PCM, and 512 DSD and no recording medium can capture what you assert. I've used Telefunken ELA-M-270s, Neumann U47s, U87s, Sony C-500s, Sony C-37Ps, AKG-451s, RCA-B77As, and about every other pro recording microphones that has come down the pike, and none of them can produce the perfection that you claim. I have no idea what your playback chain is (and apparently you won't say), but I can only deduce that you are delusional. 

 

How do you assess what those microphones have picked up? By listening to playback - and that's where the problem lies: is that part of your monitoring chain telling you the full story?

 

I marvel at how capable mics are - they've done a brilliant job of capturing the sound field, over all the decades they've been in use. Trouble is, you have to listen to a playback chain to "measure" the result, and that's where it comes undone.

 

Plenty of chains used: current is old NAD CD player and integrated amp, and Sharp speakers. As an example of what the combo was doing awhile back, this was a simple USB mic pickup of what it sounded like then:

 

 

Not finished, still some way to go.

[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?

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

With Electronics, arguments don't always cut it these days. It often takes a personal equipment demonstration to prove someone wrong.

 

The point was philosophical, Alex, not technical. The same logical fallacy exists regardless of whether the issue relates to an argument or formal proof. Disagreement should be based on substance, not bias.

[sandyk]

49 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

The point was philosophical, Alex, not technical. The same logical fallacy exists regardless of whether the issue relates to an argument or formal proof. Disagreement should be based on substance, not bias.

 

Allan

 What part should philosophical arguments have in evaluation of Audio sound quality ?

Most members don't give a shit about Logical Fallacies, or for that matter the incessant demands for DBTs every time a member reports an improvement due perhaps to a higher specification Interconnect or mains cable/socket ( improved shielding, improved connectors etc.) or a technically superior USB cable with improved isolation between Data and Power, AND still meets the relevant USB specifications for wire gauge, impedance etc.

Of course, if the Boutique USB cable, for example , does NOT meet the relevant specifications, then this demand may be a bit more justified, as it may actually degrade performance in other systems, and other members should be made aware of this possibility.

The same applies to higher quality after market power supplies of similar (or higher) current ,improved  voltage tolerance specifications,and lower output noise level  where it should be obvious that they should at least, perform as well as the original, perhaps even better.

 

Alex

[audiventory]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That's irrelevant. A system that sounds exactly like music would sound like a piano or a violin or a trumpet no matter where in the concert hall it was.

 

1. Sound is a wave field.

 

2. Musical instrument is omnidirectional wave source.

 

3. Sound of the musical instrument is sum (interference) of acoustic rays in listening point.

 

4. The acoustic rays are:

  - direct (from source) and

  - bounced from surfaces of concers hall.

 

5. Concert hall impact to sound of musical instrument by distance to listening point and bounced rays.

 

Conclusion:

Musical instrument sound differently in different concert hall.

[audiventory]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

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!

 

In my quote, that you commented, present words "impossible [in exact demands] at current technical level".

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Most members don't give a shit about Logical Fallacies, or for that matter the incessant demands for DBTs every time a member reports an improvement due perhaps to a higher specification Interconnect or mains cable/socket ( improved shielding, improved connectors etc.) or a technically superior USB cable with improved isolation between Data and Power, AND still meets the relevant USB specifications for wire gauge, impedance etc.

Of course, if the Boutique USB cable, for example , does NOT meet the relevant specifications, then this demand may be a bit more justified, as it may actually degrade performance in other systems, and other members should be made aware of this possibility.

The same applies to higher quality after market power supplies of similar (or higher) current ,improved  voltage tolerance specifications,and lower output noise level  where it should be obvious that they should at least, perform as well as the original, perhaps even better.

 

Alex

 

One of the key things I learned 3 decades was that the little things really mattered, the big things much less so - so all the items that, say that Alex is pointing to here, could be highly relevant. The fact that they are not exciting, not coated with bling, may be a disappointment to some - but unfortunately they are frequently the real answers ...

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

One of the key things I learned 3 decades was that the little things really mattered, the big things much less so - so all the items that, say that Alex is pointing to here, could be highly relevant. The fact that they are not exciting, not coated with bling, may be a disappointment to some - but unfortunately they are frequently the real answers ...

 Another non-exciting product that may result in a small improvement. and has the possibility of being far more reliable long term.

sandyk   

• Masters Level Member
• 
•  
• 9,606 posts

• Report post
•  

Posted 4 minutes ago

39 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Here is a way to waste money on grounding ?

http://www.nordost.com/qrt/qbase-ac-distribution.php

 

...a tiny lift in the earth impedance......

 

 

 

 I would certainly expect this product to outperform a typical Bunnings hardware store product. Cheap power boards have a tendency to go high resistance due to the contacts of the sockets losing tension after repeated insertions.

 

 Attached is an enhanced photo of the Australian version.

Click on the image to obtain a larger image.

[Ralf11]

Most deluded people don't give a shit about Logical Fallacies, or for that matter the demands for DBTs every time a member reports an improvement due to confirmation bias...

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Visually that seems to be the case, but I proved otherwise to myself over and over again ... Bose did a famous demo, dispelling that myth, decades ago. You only need size to move a lot of air, for very low bass - everything else is covered by having drivers capable of large excursion, handling the power, and amplifiers up to it - the latter is the most important, in fact.

 

The trade-off to long excursion is distortion.

And the trade-off for using a single driver from sub-bass to upper-mids is intermodulation distortion.

Then there's baffle step.

 

Maybe your not as demanding as I am.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

The trade-off to long excursion is distortion.

And the trade-off for using a single driver from sub-bass to upper-mids is intermodulation distortion.

Then there's baffle step.

 

Maybe your not as demanding as I am.

 

Have we been here before? ...

 

I'm not as fussy as many about pure speaker performance, because that is not where the big gains are - I want a system to be able to deliver satisfying reproduction of any recording I choose to put on, and I have never heard a system with highly sophisticated or accomplished speakers, which lack in the earlier areas in the chain, achieve this.

 

A basic requirement is that a piano is done right, at volumes matching the "real thing" - and I find simple speaker arrangements are capable of this. If everything is working at a high order then, yes, one could go with superior speakers - but it's not a first priority.

[Albrecht]

On 1/10/2018 at 11:22 PM, marce said:

Yawn, yawn yawn... You and GUTB could be twins.... Patronising.

No more to be said from me, sick of the patronising attitude of some, who presume because of what kit you have now means you've listened to lo-fo instead of high end which is more often than not not true fidelity, to many systems voiced... LOL

LOL yawn, yawn, yawn,

 

So sick of the patronizing from the "everything-sounds-the-same" crowd who have no experience, - yet make assertions by what they've read on the internets. Of course, - most everyone with experience, - has the opposite viewpoint.

And, - it doesn't matter what anyone owns, - it's what they've ACTUALLY HEARD; that is what matters. The website is not called "Computer ANTI-audiophile."

 

[esldude]

47 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

LOL yawn, yawn, yawn,

 

So sick of the patronizing from the "everything-sounds-the-same" crowd who have no experience, - yet make assertions by what they've read on the internets. Of course, - most everyone with experience, - has the opposite viewpoint.

And, - it doesn't matter what anyone owns, - it's what they've ACTUALLY HEARD; that is what matters. The website is not called "Computer ANTI-audiophile."

 

So everyone that agrees with you has experience.  And anyone who disagrees has no experience.   Neat.  Does it leave room for anyone who has experience to disagree with you?

 

Does it matter whether what they've ACTUALLY HEARD is related to the sound that was ACTUALLY IN THE AIR?

[gmgraves]

18 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

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?

 

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 near the stage. I tell whoever is in charge that I came to listen to live music, not speakers. If I wanted to listen to speakers, I could've stayed home where I have far better speakers than those up there on the stage! Sometimes the managers understand what I'm on about and sometimes they don't, but I let my displeasure be known anyway. I won't listen to live music that's been adulterated by a PA system. 

On another note, I often have to record jazz groups that have electronic instruments such as a keyboard instrument or sometimes an electronic xylophone or vibraphone. In those cases I often take a direct feed from the output of the instrument (I "Y" off-of their feed to the amplifier/speaker) but when I don't, I just treat the speaker as if it were the "business end" of the instrument and treat it just as I would if it were a Sax, or a real piano, etc. I don't "do" rock, so I rarely have to deal with electric guitars, and never with solid-body types (IMHO, the worlds most horrible sounding "musical" instrument).

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

1. Sound is a wave field.

 

2. Musical instrument is omnidirectional wave source.

 

3. Sound of the musical instrument is sum (interference) of acoustic rays in listening point.

 

4. The acoustic rays are:

  - direct (from source) and

  - bounced from surfaces of concers hall.

 

5. Concert hall impact to sound of musical instrument by distance to listening point and bounced rays.

 

Conclusion:

Musical instrument sound differently in different concert hall.

 

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. So, what are you trying to say?  

[Ralf11]

I thought  GUTB's twin was fas2

 

[Allan F]

18 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Allan

 What part should philosophical arguments have in evaluation of Audio sound quality ?

 

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.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I thought  GUTB's twin was fas2

 

 

Hahh!! As Dennis is indicating, everyone listens differently, and everyone is coming to the current party via a completely distinct set of experiences. I have no interest whatsoever in expensive gear - because they don't come as a full solution ... I'm not turned on by bling, but rather, fascinated by how "cheap" stuff can be cajoled into delivering so much.

 

Competence is the name of the game, and as George points out that means instruments always register as correct, no matter how or where you listen - gotta get that right, before worrying anything else.

 

BTW, note that how Ralf11's comment was a perfect example of a Bulverist retort ...