Audio Blind Testing

[Ralf11]

you should start your own forum - maybe in Iran

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Again you seem to miss the point of the discussion on long-term sonic memory.

 

And you seem to miss the point about what one is listening for! You have an annoying rattle in your car - do you need a DBT to make sure the rattle is same one as you heard last time you were in the car?  Or is making sure relevant?

 

I listen for "rattles" in audio systems - most are a cacophany of such; most everyone else are so used to them, "that's just the way it is", they think. If a system "rattles", it's faulty - "sonic memory" is completely irrelevant to the exercise of eliminating the annoying, unwanted sound ...

[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.

 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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..

 

 

 

Luckily, you're wrong ... the ear/brain is remarkably adept at recreating a full sound field, if all the cues are right - but is also a harsh critic; and completely rejects an attempted illusion, if all the clues don't add up. 99.9% of systems don't get the clues sufficiently right - which would include all of those done by researchers, who then attempt to fool the brain using more crude techniques.

 

I have had systems of all sorts slip in and out of "3D presentation" over many, many years - depending upon how fussy I was in getting everything right - I know the behaviour characteristics as intimately as the back of my hand, so to speak. That researchers using results from less than competent setups to assert that something can or can't happen is meaningless ... and will eventually move forward to better understanding ...

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Dear Audio Ayatollah - please don't mischaracterize me or my position

 

it just makes you look worse than usual

 

BTW, people can use meters to match levels.  Not hard.

Now, now, apparently matching levels in comparisons is on the order of difficulty equivalent to the LIGO experiments.  Or so one would think with the excuses audiophiles come up with for not doing this one vital, simple and helpful thing.  

 

An incredibly large number of mythical differences vanish like a light fog on a sunny morning if levels are matched.  

 

[esldude]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Luckily, you're wrong ... the ear/brain is remarkably adept at recreating a full sound field, if all the cues are right - but is also a harsh critic; and completely rejects an attempted illusion, if all the clues don't add up. 99.9% of systems don't get the clues sufficiently right - which would include all of those done by researchers, who then attempt to fool the brain using more crude techniques.

 

I have had systems of all sorts slip in and out of "3D presentation" over many, many years - depending upon how fussy I was in getting everything right - I know the behaviour characteristics as intimately as the back of my hand, so to speak. That researchers using results from less than competent setups to assert that something can or can't happen is meaningless ... and will eventually move forward to better understanding ...

So do we need stereo?  Can the brain remarkably create full 3D from a mono recording? 

 

In any case we have an authoritative judgement on the issue.  All we had to do was ask.  Oh, and you can't explain to anyone else how to replicate your results as usual...right?

[sandyk]

55 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Expecting 3D sound from stereo is like seeing 3D picture with 2D televsion which is impossible.

 

A much better than average system is capable of providing an illusion of width, depth, and height with very well recorded material when ambience cues aren't lost in low level noise. Dolby Surround encoding may also assist in that regard, even without the use of a Dolby Decoder. Several years ago, in an episode of the local Soapie "Home and Away" there was an episode where an injured character was adrift in a small boat in the ocean.

 I clearly heard the waves lapping around the boat from ALL directions.( I was listening via a very good DIY DAC, Class A amplification and speakers)

Some of the Nelson Pass Class A amplifiers do a very good job of presenting HEIGHT , in say a good recording of a passing storm, such as in a Chesky recording , as well as being able to make you involuntarily jump if the rest of the system is as good.

 

P.S.

 The attached is a quote from Chesky Records.

 

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.

 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, esldude said:

An incredibly large number of mythical differences vanish like a light fog on a sunny morning if levels are matched

 

Perhaps in your system using Class D amplification and room correction software they do !

[pkane2001]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

Music lovers have no interest in having their findings peer reviewed or published in Scientific journals !

 

True, but they should probably be interested in whether that $5000 cable actually makes an audible difference or if seeing the many zeros in the price tag causes a catastrophic failure of common sense.

[sandyk]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

True, but they should probably be interested in whether that $5000 cable actually makes an audible difference or if seeing the many zeros in the price tag causes a catastrophic failure of common sense.

 

 Of course they should, but perhaps by carefully sorting through the wheat from the chaff in reports about their performance in more than just one forum or review.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Of course they should, but perhaps by carefully sorting through the wheat from the chaff in reports about their performance in more than just one forum or review.

 

You should've seen how many folks jumped on me when I posted that I prefer to see some measurements of equipment before I buy it. This is no longer permitted by audiophile ethics, apparently. Seems I'm only allowed to rely on subjective reviews of people I don't know, whose hearing is suspect, and whose room, system, and taste in music are all completely different than mine. Go figure!

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You should've seen how many folks jumped on me when I posted that I prefer to see some measurements of equipment before I buy it. This is no longer permitted by audiophile ethics, apparently. Seems I'm only allowed to rely on subjective reviews of people I don't know, whose hearing is suspect, and whose room, system, and taste in music are all completely different than mine. Go figure!

 

 

 I like to see some confirming measurements too, but for me they aren't the be all, end all.

I also tend to take note of reports by a few friends who are also C.A. members, where we have usually been in agreement at our previous listening sessions.  Most of the time I can't afford what they recommend though !

[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.

 

[Ralf11]

37 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

True, but they should probably be interested in whether that $5000 cable actually makes an audible difference or if seeing the many zeros in the price tag causes a catastrophic failure of common sense.

 

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.

[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. 

[Ralf11]

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

 

 

[pkane2001]

58 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.

 

Just saw this blind test. Look up Mike Lavigne if you don't know who he is. Opus Transparent cables (around $40k at the time of the test) compared to the run of the mill Monster ‘cheap’ cables:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html#post12255000

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

And you seem to miss the point about what one is listening for! You have an annoying rattle in your car - do you need a DBT to make sure the rattle is same one as you heard last time you were in the car?  Or is making sure relevant?

 

I listen for "rattles" in audio systems - most are a cacophany of such; most everyone else are so used to them, "that's just the way it is", they think. If a system "rattles", it's faulty - "sonic memory" is completely irrelevant to the exercise of eliminating the annoying, unwanted sound ...

We seem to be talking apples and orangutans here. I.E., not communicating at all.

[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

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Just saw this blind test. Look up Mike Lavigne if you don't know who he is. Opus Transparent cables (around $40k at the time of the test) compared to the run of the mill Monster ‘cheap’ cables:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html#post12255000

 

 

Yes good to see that brought up. 

 

Comedy Gold!

 

Comedy because Lavigne learned the wrong thing from this experience.  Doubled down on wrongness.  

[Ralf11]

43 minutes ago, STC said:

.... All I am saying, the look, price, the room and brand reputation have a role to play in perception.

 

 

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)

[fas42]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

So do we need stereo?  Can the brain remarkably create full 3D from a mono recording? 

 

In any case we have an authoritative judgement on the issue.  All we had to do was ask.  Oh, and you can't explain to anyone else how to replicate your results as usual...right?

 

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.

[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.