Blue or red pill?

[semente]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

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

 

Some of the minimally mic'ed recordings I own do create a nice illusion but it still falls short of the real thing.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Exactly, ( "this would be an opportunity to discover something new") something in the signal that hasn't been or hitherto cant be measured.

 

 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Neuro, you're interpreting this the wrong way. The test is the same as was agreed to by Mani and Mans: A/B/X blind listening test.

 

Mani will try to prove to Mans that he can tell the difference between A and B, and Mans will also take the test to see if he can hear such a difference. That's the core of the test.

 

Mans asked if he can make additional recordings and measurement recordings that could later be used to determine the source of differences, should the core of the test show that they are audible. Mani agreed. There is no controversy, no change of test parameters, no new variables. The core of the test remains the same. Are you against trying to determine what caused audible change once it's been demonstrated objectively?

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

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

 

Note that I said, " to give simplistic, unsophisticated 'explanations' for how our hearing mechanisms work,", Mr Bulver.

 

The current field of Auditory Scene Analysis gives excellent insight as to how the ear/brain is so much "cleverer" at working things out than audio objectivists give it credit for.

[semente]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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?

 

A couple of mics recording live acoustic instruments and vocals in a room can only capture horizontal position, width and depth, and even that depends on the mics, the technique and the mic distance. Anything beyond that requires processing or manipulation and in my experience tampering with the signal affects quality.

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Some of the minimally mic'ed recordings I own do create a nice illusion but it still falls short of the real thing.

 

Falling short of the real thing says to me, the playback is not at a high enough level - most of the time what I listen to on my own setups also falls short; because it requires quite a degree of optimisation of the rig and environment at that moment to make it happen - and I need to be motivated to go to the effort necessary. But I know I can always make it happen, if I do the "work" - because I have done it so many times before ...

[mansr]

Jazz at the Pawnshop is a good recording of good music. However, any spatiality you perceive has to be an illusion. It was recorded with multiple microphones and subsequently mixed. There's no way actual spatial information could have been captured and preserved.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Sure, but about real jazz?

 

 I was simply trying to point out that well recorded live recordings can have a fabulous depth of image and precise localisation, and sound quite natural, just like the Jazz bands that I have heard perform live at Manly Beach in Sydney Au.

They did not need to use studio manipulations to achieve this natural sound, as the Ambience cues were picked up by the microphones.( I just briefly revisited the mentioned track before writing this.)

 It's a shame that so many modern Recording Engineers appear to have lost the ability to record things this well these days without heaps of compression etc. They now have far better equipment than back then, including low noise Microphones that are only about 1dB down at 40KHZ, lower noise mixers, and markedly better A/D converters, as well as high res available to them.

[semente]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 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.

 

I like to distinguish between imaging, soundstage and ambience.

The first one results from adequate mic'ing and speaker setup, the second is due to speaker/room interaction and possibly some phase and harmonic distortion or manipulation during editing and mixing of studio recordings, the last one exists only if the recording took place in a venue with natural acoustic reverberation (i.e. church, jazz club or music hall).

 

I listen to live unamplified music on a weekly basis. Soundstage doesn't exist in those events; there is a visual aspect to the performance but if I close my eyes I don't perceive a soundstage such as the stuff you get with some heavily processed multi-, close-mic'ed Audiophile recordings. It doesn't sound natural and it doesn't sound real to me.

[Ralf11]

I agree, Sandy.  "Pawnshop" sounds like you are right there in the club.

 

(unfortunately it sounds like the club has a Scandihoovian combo; and it makes you homesick for NoLa).

[semente]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Falling short of the real thing says to me, the playback is not at a high enough level - most of the time what I listen to on my own setups also falls short; because it requires quite a degree of optimisation of the rig and environment at that moment to make it happen - and I need to be motivated to go to the effort necessary. But I know I can always make it happen, if I do the "work" - because I have done it so many times before ...

 

Alow me to disagree and instead to suggest that your expectations are perhaps not at the same level as my own.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

30 minutes ago, semente said:

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

Edit_ our posts crossed, you have already explained this, thanks

Thanks for the link.I have come across this before but had forgotten about it. Does it not 'demonstrate' that spatial information can be engineered into a signal? Isnt that what has been claimed not possible? As far as a "gimmick" I would use a different term but studio recordings and sound reproduction in general is an illusion of sorts ie fabricated or manipulated to simulate reality.

 

24 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Some of the minimally mic'ed recordings I own do create a nice illusion but it still falls short of the real thing.

 

Yeh but no-one, correction most, do not claim any music reproduction equates with the real thing.

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Neuro, you're interpreting this the wrong way. The test is the same as was agreed to by Mani and Mans: A/B/X blind listening test.

 

Mani will try to prove to Mans that he can tell the difference between A and B, and Mans will also take the test to see if he can hear such a difference. That's the core of the test.

 

Mans asked if he can make additional recordings and measurements that could later be used to determine the source of differences, should the core of the test show that they are audible. Mani agreed. There is no controversy, no change of test parameters, no new variables. The core of the test remains the same. Are you against trying to determine what caused audible change once it's demonstrated objectively?

 

That is also the way I saw it unfolding.I am very much in favour of discovering the causes of audible differences when present. I guess my point was about expressing concern about introducing variables and some aspects of testing and test interpretation as explained in previous posts.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's no way actual spatial information could have been captured and preserved.

 Rubbish !

 The Ambience cues are picked up by the microphones. Even well made Soapies on DTV can have excellent ambience.

 I have previously mentioned a local Soapie ( Home and Away) where a guy was adrift in a small boat , and you could hear the waves lapping around the boat from ALL directions.

I just wish that I had recorded that particular episode !

 

 Incidentally, my suggestion would be to go along with Mani's original plans, and not try to get too adventurous , as several of us have found in Sydney (Audiophile Neuroscience too) it is so easy to run out of time, and end up with unfinished business.

 If the initial session works out well, perhaps further more in-depth tests could be scheduled for a later date ?

 

[Ralf11]

Translation:

 

if you reverse the Coriolis Force, Soapie becomes Soap Opera

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

I listen to live unamplified music on a weekly basis. Soundstage doesn't exist in those events; there is a visual aspect to the performance but if I close my eyes I don't perceive a soundstage such as the stuff you get with some heavily processed multi-, close-mic'ed Audiophile recordings. It doesn't sound natural and it doesn't sound real to me.

 

  Do you have a copy of the track that I referred to ? There is all kinds of background stuff going on before they get into it.

 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

That is also the way I saw it unfolding.I am very much in favour of discovering the causes of audible differences when present. I guess my point was about expressing concern about introducing variables and some aspects of testing and test interpretation as explained in previous posts.

 

 +1

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I listen to live unamplified music on a weekly basis. Soundstage doesn't exist in those events; there is a visual aspect to the performance but if I close my eyes I don't perceive a soundstage such as the stuff you get with some heavily processed multi-, close-mic'ed Audiophile recordings. It doesn't sound natural and it doesn't sound real to me.

 

This has been said many times before and I also have observed the same thing. I do think sometimes it is a matter of your seat/row perspective. Clearly everything morphs into a more or less unidirectional sound the further away you are. However the most enjoyable experience for me is to sit close enough to maintain directionality and spatial relationships. I did this once at a Michael Nyman concert and again at a chamber orchestra concert and they are stand out moments of musical joy.

[semente]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

  Do you have a copy of the track that I referred to ? There is all kinds of background stuff going on before they get into it.

 

 

J@theP was multi-close-mic'ed and probably had some ambience mics too.

I agree that this kind of background noise increases the sense of being in a club even if it is somewhat fabricated. Same with hand clapping.

But I hate listening to the mechanical noises of instruments, the sound of saliva or Jarrett's loud moaning...

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

"Pawnshop" sounds like you are right there in the club.

 Are you sure that you spelled " Pawnshop" correctly ?

Did they have strippers too ?.  

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Alow me to disagree and instead to suggest that your expectations are perhaps not at the same level as my own.

 

Of course ... I'm after the kick, the impact that live instruments produce - if I were to play a recording of a brass band in full cry on your system, and it replicated the live experience then I would be satisfied with its capabilities, to my standards. I have heard only the odd setup by someone else, to date, that could do this type of thing - and I have found that such a standard is a prerequisite for satisfying listening, for myself.

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

But I hate listening to the mechanical noises of instruments, the sound of saliva or Jarrett's loud moaning...

 

  The owner of another forum once commented that with my UL of " Queen-Another One Bites the Dust" that he could hear the saliva in Freddy Mercury's throat. Yes, sometimes things like this may be a little off putting.

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, mansr said:

Jazz at the Pawnshop is a good recording of good music. However, any spatiality you perceive has to be an illusion. It was recorded with multiple microphones and subsequently mixed. There's no way actual spatial information could have been captured and preserved.

 

I only recently heard Jazz at the Pawnshop - and wondered what the fuss was about ... I have plenty of jazz recordings that are far more 'captivating' than this particular example, in terms of the "spatial experience", and the sense of the whole - guess I just don't have audiophile ears, whatever those strange things are ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

However, any spatiality you perceive has to be an illusion. It was recorded with multiple microphones and subsequently mixed. There's no way actual spatial information could have been captured and preserved.

 

Whether recorded naturally or engineered into the signal, spatial information then IS in the signal in order to create the illusion. The key point here is that spatial information being in the signal should be measurable by you,correct?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

snip.........

 

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.

A test was done on this in a sense. 

 

Volunteers were tested for spatial acuity including height.   They agreed to wear implants inside the pinna to reshape it.  Restested and performed very poorly on directional and height acuity.   They were retested periodically after that. 

 

In a few days (may have been one week), the processing in the brain had adapted and their directional acuity matched their natural pinna results.  I seem to recall they volunteered to do this for one month or some few weeks anyway. 

 

A surprising result was found when implants were removed.  Acuity with their natural pinna shape returned in minutes not days.  This prompted them to replace the implants. Directional acuity with those too returned within minutes.   Not the days needed initially.  Almost as if the brain keeps a pattern to match, and once it has developed two of them it can quickly detect one or the other and make the switch.  This is not out of line with other activities the brain relies upon pattern matching to perform (like reading).  

[esldude]

1 hour 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.

Yes, J-J Johnston has noted regular small movements of your head are important in localization.  I myself for some reason find binaural recordings to mostly not work. 

The Smyth Realizer works by detected and compensating for head movement.  I haven't used one, but reports are it helps greatly with sound realism. 

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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.

It’s not clear here whether you are referring to people’s ability to discern spatial information in real life, or peoples claimed ability to decode it in stereo reproduction. The former is not a mystery.