Blue or red pill?

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Ok, so how do you perceive height with only two ear drums?

 

It's often a simple frequency LP or HP filter. Higher frequencies translate to something located above, while lower frequencies to something below.

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, adamdea said:

Beyond a certain level of reproduction any differences are weak compared with  other inputs. I'm not saying this about speakers, but as between dacs even (let alone transport interfaces) you really need controls to be sure. The good news is that you don;t need to buy expensive things for it to work. A lot of people have found that playing with raspberry pis gives them enough interest to enjoy listening to music afresh. Hence the mystery of why those £40 dac cards "sound so good". Small and DIY is almost as good as thick aluminium faceplate. 

In any event as long as people are happy I guess that's great. 

 

Objectively, the differences are slight; subjectively, it's dramatic. The "magic" occurs inside our skulls - and if one has never experienced this aspect in the listening then it will be difficult to understand ...

 

Some people appear to find it impossible to distinguish live music, from hifi - say, just before they enter the room whether the sound is coming from - with conventional playback for me this is trivially easy, obvious - the level of reproduction I'm interested in is where it becomes "impossible" to pick the "fake from real" ... everything else about the situation is vastly less interesting, to me ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This would mean there is an opportunity to discover something new. That's why this particular test is interesting to me. That's the outcome that I would be very interested in seeing, as that would then become a challenge and a puzzle to solve.

 

 

Exactly, ( "this would be an opportunity to discover something new") something in the signal that hasn't been or hitherto cant be measured. Mans statements on measurements have been fairly bold eg.

 

9 hours ago, mansr said:

If something isn't in the signal, it clearly cannot be heard.

 

 Nobody can disagree.It is stated in a fashion of an a priori or self evident truth, like if there is no water in the dam you cannot drink it.

 

9 hours ago, mansr said:

If it is in the signal, it can be measured.

Obviously this is where the money lies and where opinions vary.

 

8 hours ago, mansr said:

A sufficiently accurate recording device would show the difference. Analysis would of course be much easier with a suitable test signal rather than music.

 

IMO  much less of a generalization now and at least acknowledging potential issues, that just maybe the tests have there limits.  More specifically, the "signal" for which all things can be measured has changed to a test tone because that would be "easier".

 

8 hours ago, mansr said:

 

If you suspect jitter, use a test signal designed for measuring this. Anything else is foolish.

 

Now the test has to be specifically designed for the task or it would be "foolish". Again, I do not challenge the logic just that it is IMO a departure form some of the earlier bolder generalizations. More to the point there is a case to be made that you have to know what you are looking for and potential for overlooked things to be missed is inherent in that logic.

 

So statements like "it can be measured" may be true but are IMO not really helpful without the qualifiers, even misleading.

 

 

7 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

Wouldn't test signals specifically made for jitter testing be better?  By disregarding this, aren't you willfully creating a bogus or dubious test?

 

 Mani proposed and offered the test. Everything else can be claimed to be manipulation or "bogus" as it changes the "claim". Note, *I am not disagreeing* that test signals specifically made for jitter are best to test jitter, but that's not the claim initially proposed by Mani.

 

 

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Would it be possible to do abx testing with music, but also record a pure tone or two for analysis?

 

I agree with you and understand that has been agreed upon by Mani and Mans.

 

However, for reasons already stated, and so boldly stated by Mans, if it is in the music signal *it should be measurable* and apparently with great confidence. The "test hypothesis" involves hearing differences in real world music *not test tones*.

 

If you know what you are looking for and go specifically looking for it in test tones, fine. You then MUST also be able to demonstrate that whatever you found in the test tones is *present* in the particular music as heard by Mani.Otherwise scientifically it is far from conclusive. One cannot assume that one specific cohort is fully representative of a totally different cohort (even if the same system/ test environment, NAs vs Local, has been used for the test tones). You have introduced a brand new variable.This holds true no matter how compelling the conclusion appears - any difference/s found must be identified in the actual music signal where audible differences occurred.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Spacehound said:

And the 'depth' is a line between the front of the speakers. Anything else is bouncing off your back wall.

 

Recording room reflections? They go into the microphones just the same as the instruments/voices do.

The microphones have  no way of telling what is instruments (maybe with some incompetent guy slightly behind the rest) and what is reflections.  And so they  come out of your speakers  exactly as above. What you hear is your  room reflections, not  the recording room's. Sure, it may sound different from recording to recording, but that is because the rooms were different sizes so the delays were different, so it is more or less 'delayed' to start with. The above still applies in your room. Which is always a fixed plus or minus from what' s on the recording and applies equally to all  recordings.    

 

It's interesting that you can't perceive the depth in your recordings, considering the quality of your setup - I'm curious as to whether it's a result of of how your internal hearing mechanism organises itself, or the level of optimisation of the rig. For some people, like myself, the sense of depth captured in the recording is as 'real' as hearing live sounds  - and it's relatively straightforward for me to give an estimate of the distance back some sound is coming from, as say a number of metres - just like I can, hearing natural sounds in everyday activities.

[semente]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Objectively, the differences are slight; subjectively, it's dramatic. The "magic" occurs inside our skulls - and if one has never experienced this aspect in the listening then it will be difficult to understand ...

 

Some people appear to find it impossible to distinguish live music, from hifi - say, just before they enter the room whether the sound is coming from - with conventional playback for me this is trivially easy, obvious - the level of reproduction I'm interested in is where it becomes "impossible" to pick the "fake from real" ... everything else about the situation is vastly less interesting, to me ...

 

If this happens (people don't know live from reproduced) then those people are not well acquainted with live music.

Unless you do the Acoustic Research trick.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, manisandher said:

I think this 'pre-post' fallacy is rife in our hobby.

 

Can something sound different to a listener if the difference can't be measured (in any way that we currently know of)? Those of us who say "yeah, maybe" are automatically lumped in with the 'audio nutters'. It's frustrating sometimes.

 

Mani.

 

This bizarre "battle" is core to the audio madness of the current age - those who are obsessed about being sciencey on the journey, to the last degree, can't bear the fact that there may be issues that are too difficult to easily measure - so their solution is to loftily proclaim, "Well, you're just mad to think that way!"

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

It's interesting that you can't perceive the depth in your recordings, considering the quality of your setup -

 

Complete audio 'virgins' (neither musicophiles or audiophiles or musicians etc) can hear height depth and lateral spatial information, however and wherever it is derived. I know because I often ask people to "point" to things in the soundstage and they have no difficulty. I have instances where people volunteer without any prompting that they had never noticed such things before.

 

It ought to be relatively simple to determine whether its signal or room related and relative contributions by testing in an anechoic chamber or just outdoors, No?

 

Spatial information is influenced by the location and shape of the outer ear (pinna) as has been already stated by Dennis. I have had burns patients ( I worked in a burns unit for a short period of time) that lost their ears.It would have been interesting to see if height perception had been impaired. There was no obvious signs to that effect.

[sandyk]

46 minutes ago, semente said:

That's not a proper stereo recording. It's been fabricated in the studio and mixing desk.

 

As are the vast majority of current recordings, other than many classical recordings.

 

Many recordings are also capable of filling the entire listening area with sound, especially if they were recorded in Dolby Surround,(even the old " Q Sound")  despite not needing a Dolby Decoder. The movie " Avatar"  can do this from just 2 stereo speakers. " The Eagles- Hotel California"  , and " Queen -Another One Bites the Dust" from the DVD-As can also do this through better than average gear. Don Dorsey-Ascent from " Timewarp-Erich Kunzel"  also fills the whole listening area with sound.

 

[Sonicularity]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This bizarre "battle" is core to the audio madness of the current age - those who are obsessed about being sciencey on the journey, to the last degree, can't bear the fact that there may be issues that are too difficult to easily measure - so their solution is to loftily proclaim, "Well, you're just mad to think that way!"

 

It was from the science and research that we even have digital audio, not the other way around.  If someone would provide some solid evidence to suggest the math is wrong and the physiological limitations are completely unfounded, it would do a lot to sway my current understanding.  I want answers.  I love to discover new things.  It is not a battle to me, it is a quest for knowledge.   

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

This says it better then I can.  It doesn't address height.

 

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

 

It does at least mention it.

Quote

......a well-made Ambisonic recording, properly reproduced, can offer good imaging all around the listener and even including height information

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 those who are obsessed about being sciencey on the journey, to the last degree, can't bear the fact that there may be issues that are too difficult to easily measure - so their solution is to loftily proclaim, "Well, you're just mad to think that way!"

 

IMO possibly they are not "sciencey" enough. The premises are scientifically and logically true but the conclusions not always so.

 

If it rains the ground is wet

The ground is wet

It must have rained.

 

The conditional statements are correct but the conclusions not.

[mansr]

54 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Ok, so how do you perceive height with only two ear drums?

Through the varying effects of the outer ear and head on sounds arriving from different directions. A stationary source is difficult to localise without slightly moving your head. Regular microphones capture none of this. Binaural recordings heard through headphones can get partway, but they are still quite limited, just like a stereoscopic image is a far cry from a full hologram.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, semente said:

That's not a proper stereo recording. It's been fabricated in the studio and mixing desk.

 

All the more reason to suspect spatial information can be *placed* into a recording?

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Through the varying effects of the outer ear and head on sounds arriving from different directions. A stationary source is difficult to localise without slightly moving your head. Regular microphones capture none of this. Binaural recordings heard through headphones can get partway, but they are still quite limited, just like a stereoscopic image is a far cry from a full hologram.

 

The above is for a skull clamped in a vise.  Au naturele, you will make tiny unconscious head movements as well.

 

Ears are rarely set at the same level on skull too.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

It was from the science and research that we even have digital audio, not the other way around.  If someone would provide some solid evidence to suggest the math is wrong and the physiological limitations are completely unfounded, it would do a lot to sway my current understanding.  I want answers.  I love to discover new things.  It is not a battle to me, it is a quest for knowledge.   

 

Technology, engineering development, rational thinking are marvellous tools for evolving the physical mechanisms used for audio reproduction - but when they try to use the same methodology to give simplistic, unsophisticated 'explanations' for how our hearing mechanisms work, how we make sense of what's heard - then it's being used the "wrong way".

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

All the more reason to suspect spatial information can be *placed* into a recording?

 

It can but at the expense of other to me more relevant aspects of sound reproduction.

Between spatial recreation and sound reproduction I will choose the latter, thank you.

Music is primarily about sound (I listen to Classical, some vintage jazz and a bit of traditional).

 

Wagner went as far as to hide the orchestra...

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The above is for a skull clamped in a vise.  Au naturele, you will make tiny unconscious head movements as well.

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Ears are rarely set at the same level on skull too.

Indeed, and it annoys my sense of symmetry.

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Technology, engineering development, rational thinking are marvellous tools for evolving the physical mechanisms used for audio reproduction - but when they try to use the same methodology to give simplistic, unsophisticated 'explanations' for how our hearing mechanisms work, how we make sense of what's heard - then it's being used the "wrong way".

 

yes, rather than scientific analysis and rational thought, it will be MUCH better to paint yourself blue and dance around an oak tree

 

true understanding will come

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

As are the vast majority of current recordings, other than many classical recordings.

 

Many recordings are also capable of filling the entire listening area with sound, especially if they were recorded in Dolby Surround,(even the old " Q Sound")  despite not needing a Dolby Decoder. The movie " Avatar"  can do this from just 2 stereo speakers. " The Eagles- Hotel California"  , and " Queen -Another One Bites the Dust" from the DVD-As can also do this through better than average gear. Don Dorsey-Ascent from " Timewarp-Erich Kunzel"  also fills the whole listening area with sound.

 

 

A favourite of mine in this respect are the early Led Zep recordings, original releases; these have massive spaces 'artificially' encoded on them - cavernous areas that seemingly go to forever. This is Art, in the true sense - you enter a musical world that is not real in any sense, but it's a fabulous journey ...

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

Indeed, and it annoys my sense of symmetry.

 

yah - thought I'd clarify a bit - I used to teach this stuff to under-grads. so am versed in how ot get it across...

 

is symmetry conserved?  I'll go ask the Walrus.  or the Lagrangian...

[semente]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

As are the vast majority of current recordings, other than many classical recordings.

 

Many recordings are also capable of filling the entire listening area with sound, especially if they were recorded in Dolby Surround,(even the old " Q Sound")  despite not needing a Dolby Decoder. The movie " Avatar"  can do this from just 2 stereo speakers. " The Eagles- Hotel California"  , and " Queen -Another One Bites the Dust" from the DVD-As can also do this through better than average gear. Don Dorsey-Ascent from " Timewarp-Erich Kunzel"  also fills the whole listening area with sound.

 

 

I don't listen to pop and hardly any rock, a bit of alternative music but mostly in the car or as background.

To me, those spatial effects are just gimmicks.

You may enjoy this if you don't know it already:

 

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It can but at the expense of other to me more relevant aspects of sound reproduction.

Between spatial recreation and sound reproduction I will choose the latter, thank you.

Music is primarily about sound (I listen to Classical, some vintage jazz and a bit of traditional).

 

If you are talking about tone and timbre etc I agree but spatial information is still for me part of 'natural' sound reproduction and part of the reason that we can sometimes 'suspend disbelief'.

 

The assertion has been its not possible to record spatial information but thus far I have not seen convincing arguments (just dogmatic statements).You appear to take a more moderate approach but why do you say one is at the expense of the other?

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It can but at the expense of other to me more relevant aspects of sound reproduction.

Between spatial recreation and sound reproduction I will choose the latter, thank you.

Music is primarily about sound (I listen to Classical, some vintage jazz and a bit of traditional).

 

Wagner went as far as to hide the orchestra...

 

Competent replay gives you both ... spatial information, in spades, and beautiful tonality.

 

You can have it all, when playing recordings ... .

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

To me, those spatial effects are just gimmicks.

 

 Spacial effects are a LARGE part of the experience with recordings such as the famous "Jazz at the Pawnshop" live recordings .

Take the track " Limehouse Blues" for example.

[Ralf11]

Sure, but about real jazz?