Blue or red pill?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes!

 

 BTW, Mani's gear is well above average, and he obviously has excellent hearing too, as he was the person who noticed the audible glitch in a well known DAC that was later confirmed and rectified.

 

[sandyk]

37 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

It's not in the fact that they were uploaded, that they sound different....

at least as far as the context of this thread so far...they sound different because they are played from different interfaces...

 

tell the entire testing scenario...

 

 

 

 

I didn't say that the uploading caused the differences they reported hearing.  They were sent to them because they did sound different here, and all 3 participants confirmed that they did hear differences between both versions of " Ein Straussfes-Erich Kunzel  - Unter Donner und Blitz Polka,Op.324"

 

" I am 100% confident that the "normal" emailing of a wav file will not change it's contents. "

 

 I have uploaded many 100s of comparison .wav files over the years to numerous recipients and that hasn't been my experience. I have also had an E.E. in The Netherlands (Frans de Gruitjer) send back my files to myself and other recipients, where they sounded decidedly worse than those stored this end, or the uploaded files saved by the other 2 recipients.(U.K. and Spain)

That is why my preferred method of delivery is now via a USB memory stick, or on a good quality CD-R.

 

Let's leave it at that for now, and see what happens after Mansr visits Mani.

 

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, lmitche said:

Mansr, this could not be further from the truth. I hope you get a chance to listen to some better systems. Height and depth are always there. Plus one can hear naturally occuring room reflections from the room where the recording was made. This occurs in almost every recording.

So true !

 A good example of this is the track " The Storm" from the RBCD layer of " Dr. Chesky's 5.1 Surround Show SACD"

 Both Audiophile Neuroscience and myself heard this track via Nelson Pass Class A monoblocks.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Some examples?

 

Mani.

I would like to know this too.

 

On a couple of occasions Dennis himself has come perilously close to agreeing that he heard differences between .wav files with identical checksums that I supplied, even admitting that he thought he heard differences initially , but at a later attempt was unable to hear any differences.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I wasn't referring to you or your posts Mani.

 

Some others seem to be almost desperate in wanting to alter or invalidate the procedure you and mansr have in mind.

 

 You still haven't explained this

Quote

      4 hours ago, esldude said:

I think I smell fear in some responses.

Perhaps you could also educate mansr and Spacehound how it is possible to create an illusion of height using microphone techniques like Chesky and others do too, while you are at it !  You have previously posted about this aspect of sound reproduction. 

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

OMG. Here we go again.

 

Like it or not, but if mansr does either hear the differences, or finds that Mani is able to as he reports, it's going to open up a bloody big can of worms !

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I don't know  much  pretend science other  than  that in  a thoroughly recommended and highly amusing book called "Cults of Unreason" which I found in our IBM Research Lab 

 

Plus  expensive audio cable  manufacturer's  nonsense  of course,  and some gibberish about FLAC and WAV (which we invented to digitally record  the  sound of NASA rockets).

 

So now you are claiming credit for Josh Coalson's work too ?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 

 

 Reply deleted.

[sandyk]

Mani

 While you are at it, do you also have some material that can demonstrate to mansr that the illusions of  Height and Depth of image are also possible with a way better than average system ?

Alex

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Hey Alex, I don't blame you for responding. Let's just leave it there now.

 

Mani.

 

I had already deleted my reply

[sandyk]

50 minutes ago, semente said:

With proper 2-channel stereo you can't get the impression of sound coming from outside of the space between the speakers either.

 Yes you can.

 " Moth To A Flame -Olivia Newton John" does exactly that, with a simulated moth doing an anti clockwise sweep behind both the speakers and listening position as well, with a decent system and listening room. There are numerous other examples of this .  

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

 

[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

[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 ?.  

[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.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Many who think they are hearing two channel recordings are hearing at least 4 channels mixed to two.  And those are also very, very rare. 

 

Actually, I have located several Quad to Reel recordings from DVD-A that still sound very interesting when Downmixed to Stereo using DVD Audio Explorer. e.g. " The Carpenters-Now and Then" , and " Carly Simon -Hotcakes" etc.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Thanks David. Neurology, hey? Very interesting.

 

Mani.

 

 His hearing isn't too bad either !

It probably helps being trained to accurately interpret what is heard via a Stethoscope as a Medical Professional too. I gather that it is a fine art that has to be learned via experience, possibly a little like learning how to interpret Sonar information buried in noise ?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes, old research from the 1930's.  Still worth reading.

 Yeah.

 So is this old one.

Inside the Vacuum Tube - J. Rider (1945) WW.pdf

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

George Graves 

@gmgravesuses a microphone that has the diaphragms aligned vertically in one package, and he reports his recordings display height.  Maybe he could provide a snippet of one that can demonstrate. 

 

 That could be quite interesting to listen to..

[sandyk]

40 minutes ago, adamdea said:

What does this tell us about localisation in term of cues a) in the recording/sound I am currently hearing and b) not in the recording?

 

 Can you prove that those Cues are not embedded in the recording due to phase differences ?