Blue or red pill?

[STC]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Ahh geez, just when I thought I finished with my listening room now I gotta add adjustable walls!

I am a fan of JRiver but not a fan of DSP,electronic room correction or ...audio convolution. I have never tried the latter so cant really say for sure. presumably you are trying to create a virtual RT1.5, a bit like "concert hall mode" on some of those old Home theatre amps.I am sure JRivers version would be better.

 

How can I put it another way?  Your original setup is not disturbed in anyway. 

 

This is having a second system whose role is just to act like virtual walls. Technically, you are using second player and send the convoluted sound to a different set of speakers. Your current sound in the main speakers not touched, adjusted or processed in anyway. They remain the same as before nothing is altered. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

How can I put it another way?  Your original setup is not disturbed in anyway. 

 

This is having a second system whose role is just to act like virtual walls. Technically, you are using second player and send the convoluted sound to a different set of speakers. Your current sound in the main speakers not touched, adjusted or processed in anyway. They remain the same as before nothing is altered. 

 

Ah okay, thanks for explaining. I will explore further on the JR Wiki. I have elements to set up a second system and give it a try.

[lmitche]

6 hours 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.

So the Superposition Principle works differently for microphones then eardrums? 

 

It is perfectly clear from listening that, for lack of a better term, "height cues" are captured by microphones and are reproduced by most recordings. Sure, microphone position matters, but usually, no always, height information is there.

 

I am happy to agree to disagree in this one.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

19 minutes ago, lmitche said:

It is perfectly clear from listening that, for lack of a better term, "height cues" are captured by microphones and are reproduced by most recordings. Sure, microphone position matters, but usually, no always, height information is there.

 

I am happy to agree to disagree in this one.

 

Mans appears to be saying that there is no spatial information naturally captured in any recording although he softened in that position a little regarding left and right channel imaging. From my understanding he believes that any spatial information which we can all hear is a function of room interaction and perhaps (from what I can gather) illusion. It is not clear to  me whether the "illusion"is supposed to be totally imaginary or a valid psycho acoustic phenomenon produced artificially post recording. If the latter he hasn't committed whether this should show up in the signal and whether it is measurable.I think it is relevant because Mani may use these cues in discerning audible differences.

[beerandmusic]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Mans appears to be saying that there is no spatial information naturally captured in any recording although he softened in that position a little regarding left and right channel imaging. From my understanding he believes that any spatial information which we can all hear is a function of room interaction and perhaps (from what I can gather) illusion. It is not clear to  me whether the "illusion"is supposed to be totally imaginary or a valid psycho acoustic phenomenon produced artificially post recording. If the latter he hasn't committed whether this should show up in the signal and whether it is measurable.I think it is relevant because Mani may use these cues in discerning audible differences.

 

I was curious when i first asked the question, and did a little research and it seems that there are several things that captures soundstage and depth and spatialism....a lot is in the mixing, which should be in the music (e.g. different volumes of different instruments and frequencies).  Mic'ing would also be able to do this in initial recording, and some hardware is better at reproducing as well.  Additionally room accoustics can play a factor....So the answer is actually all can have impact in regards to soundstage.

 

I didn't know people would still be talking about the question i posed or i would have kept the links from my research...but here is one where they talk about creating depth with mixing using different volumes.

https://www.sonible.com/blog/adding-depth/

[manisandher]

9 hours 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

 

Thanks for this. It's a perfect example of the 'pre-post fallacy' I describe here:

 

21 hours ago, manisandher said:

There's something I came across many years ago while attending a seminar delivered by Ken Wilber. He calls it the 'pre-trans fallacy'. I prefer the 'pre-post fallacy'. Let me give you a simple example:

 

Interviewer: Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light?

Man from street (pre-rational): Yeah, of course. If I put a bigger engine in my car, it goes faster. All you need is a big enough engine in your rocket. Anyway, I seen it on Star Trek the other day.

Scientist (rational): Nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bloody hell, do you have any idea what would happen to our world if this were the case? These guys are nutters who don't know the first thing about physics.

More experienced scientist (post-rational): My esteemed colleague above is correct of course. But there's nothing to say that space itself can't expand faster than the speed of light.

 

Now the problem here is that the man from the street and the experienced scientist sound as if they're saying the same thing, if you don't bother to qualify their answers.

 

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.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

10 hours 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. Mans statements on measurements have been fairly bold eg.

 

 

 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.

 

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

 

 

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".

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 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.

 

Phenomenal post.

 

Mani.

[beerandmusic]

 

I am not really on either side of this testing...i actually have beliefs and disbeliefs on both sides.

I usually consider myself more of an objectivist refusing to accept anything without science or measured proof.

On the other hand, i am convinced i personally have heard differences between usb and enet, and have often swore that enet is better, even though i had a very difficult time accepting that the digital domain can affect the result...e.g....if you can transfer a digital file bit perfectly via enet or usb while shaking the hell out of a nuc 100% of the time, how could the digital source make a difference. Then it was posed that it wasn't that there was a problem with the digital transfer of bits, but that it was noise that caused havoc with the d-a circuitry.  And i thought to myself i guess that is believable, or at least if there was any reason, that could possibly be the ONLY reason.   Then you read about so many people professing that optimizing the software so it is "less noisy" actually produced less noise and a better result SQ.  And then here comes the usb toys all promoting similar concepts....and again a slew of "audiophiles" agreeing, that they too can hear a difference.  You even have threads that rate the different usb toys on how well they iimprove the resultant SQ.

 

Would i like to take a abx test, absolutely not.  But in my own mind, sometimes, when i get the right mix, I say to myself, "now that sounds really good".  and other times, not so much...I have to conclude that the details may be hard to discern, but i am 99.9% confident that some people have better ears, some people are better trained, and there actually is a difference.

 

Either way, whether there is or not a difference, the fact that it is so subjective, so debatable, and with little real proof (even after results of this "UNCONTROLLED" test), that "why does it really matter"?

 

The answer is that it is in just in fun and what audiophilia is really all about.

[Spacehound]

23 hours ago, manisandher said:

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

Which is mere consumerism. We just  buy stuff and listen to it. "Fallacies" of any sort are not involved, no more than they are in buying an egg.

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

Either way, whether there is or not a difference, the fact that it is so subjective, so debatable, and with little real proof (even after results of this "UNCONTROLLED" test), that "why does it really matter"?

 

The answer is that it is in just in fun and what audiophilia is really all about.

 

For me, this is personal ... it really pisses me off that so much audio playback is so bad - I gave up going to live concerts and shows because the sound reinforcement systems were so awful. They can get it right, there have been one or two which showed that there are at least some people out there who know what they're doing - but the majority is rubbish.

 

Anything that advances the state of play in getting a better overall standard of music via amplification chains is worthy of attention - I'm looking forward to the day when decent SQ is always on tap, and not just a rare 'accident'.

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

For me, this is personal ... it really pisses me off that so much audio playback is so bad - I gave up going to live concerts and shows because the sound reinforcement systems were so awful. They can get it right, there have been one or two which showed that there are at least some people out there who know what they're doing - but the majority is rubbish.

 

Anything that advances the state of play in getting a better overall standard of music via amplification chains is worthy of attention - I'm looking forward to the day when decent SQ is always on tap, and not just a rare 'accident'.

 

i think sq is pretty good already, and to preserve the market and the hobby, it will always be subjective....

i actually think i want to explore audio video more...i am not sure there is much more advancement in stereo, and i still haven't explored atmos, but always impressed with the atmos at the shows.  I also like exploring automation...i am moving in more directions before my numbered days are over.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

Phenomenal post.

 

Mani.

 

Thank You Mani for the kind words.

 

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am not really on either side of this testing...i actually have beliefs and disbeliefs on both sides.

I usually consider myself more of an objectivist refusing to accept anything without science or measured proof.

On the other hand, i am convinced i personally have heard differences between usb and enet, and have often swore that enet is better, even though i had a very difficult time accepting that the digital domain can affect the result...e.g....if you can transfer a digital file bit perfectly via enet or usb while shaking the hell out of a nuc 100% of the time, how could the digital source make a difference. Then it was posed that it wasn't that there was a problem with the digital transfer of bits, but that it was noise that caused havoc with the d-a circuitry.  And i thought to myself i guess that is believable, or at least if there was any reason, that could possibly be the ONLY reason.   Then you read about so many people professing that optimizing the software so it is "less noisy" actually produced less noise and a better result SQ.  And then here comes the usb toys all promoting similar concepts....and again a slew of "audiophiles" agreeing, that they too can hear a difference.  You even have threads that rate the different usb toys on how well they iimprove the resultant SQ.

 

Would i like to take a abx test, absolutely not.  But in my own mind, sometimes, when i get the right mix, I say to myself, "now that sounds really good".  and other times, not so much...I have to conclude that the details may be hard to discern, but i am 99.9% confident that some people have better ears, some people are better trained, and there actually is a difference.

 

Either way, whether there is or not a difference, the fact that it is so subjective, so debatable, and with little real proof (even after results of this "UNCONTROLLED" test), that "why does it really matter"?

 

The answer is that it is in just in fun and what audiophilia is really all about.

 

I feel your pain Beery, I think many audiophiles have traveled this path.

 

Like you I remain just as skeptical about claims of hearing stuff as the claims that it is not possible to hear stuff.I have always rejected slavish adherence to dogma irrespective of whatever side of the fence you sit, frankly I find it unintelligent.That is both disrespectful and politically incorrect, so be it. You're right this is just fun, or should be.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I gave up going to live concerts and shows because the sound reinforcement systems were so awful

 

You mean after the sound guy weaponizes the sound ?!

[manisandher]

@Audiophile Neuroscience, could you tell me a little about your background and expertise in all things audio please? I find your moniker intriguing, some of your posts even more so. (A PM would be fine if you're reluctant to do this publicly.)

 

Mani.

[semente]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

A lot better than primitive ...

 

What one looks for is that the sound elements in the pop recording become completely individual - think of the recording being a montage of musical sounds, overlaid upon each other, but still retaining their distinctive attributes, qualities. Poor reproduction will yield a blurred amalgam of those musical entities; but competent playback of the same will allow one to easily mentally focus on a particular strand, and just "watch" what it's doing, in the middle of everything else. As an example, the vocal line will become a completely natural, human voice in the middle of synthesizer carry on - with the same clarity and realism as, say, as one gets on an audiophile girl and guitar combo cliche.

 

Typical progression with just OK pop recordings, as the rig is optimised: firstly, reasonable, pleasant "memory lane" sound; then, sounding messy, overcooked, too "obvious"; next, almost impossible to listen to, too much shrieky detail, "why did I buy this?" sound; final step, it snaps into focus, the complexity all makes sense, and it becomes a joy to listen to, "there is so much going on ...".

With me the last step is not a joy to listen to but it's even more basic and unsophisticated than on TV or the car radio

[semente]

11 hours ago, STC said:

 

We could avoid some of confusions if we use proper terminology. 

 

From the stereophiles audio glossary.

 

 imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."

 

localization In stereo reproduction, the placement of phantom images in specific lateral positions across the soundstage. Also, the specificity of those images.

 

phantom image The re-creation by a stereo system of an apparent sound source at a location other than that of either loudspeaker.

 

pinpoint imaging Stereo imaging that is precise, stable, and focused.

 

depth The illusion of acoustical distance receding behind the loudspeaker plane, giving the impression of listening through the loudspeakers into the original performing space, rather than to them.

 

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

 

spatiality The quality of spaciousness.

 

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. See "soundstaging," "vagueness," "wander."

 

stereo spread The apparent width of the soundstage and the placement of phantom images within it. Generally, a group of instruments or voices should uniformly occupy the space between the loudspeakers. Compare "beyond-the-speakers imaging," "bunching," "hole-in-the-middle."

 

stereo stage The area between and behind the loudspeakers, from which most phantom images are heard. ( how about in front of the speakers?)

 

End of quote. 

 

 

In live unamplified sound, the soundstage exists. It is the size of the ensemble. Localization too exists but the accuracy decreases as you move far away. While a conductor could easily identify out of synch violinist from the stage, such feat often impossible to perform by listeners sitting at row 20.

That’s because once you move away from the first two or three row, the sound that you are hearing consist of almost 90% of indirect sound. 

 

ambiance (pronounced "ambee-onts") The feeling or mood evoked by an environment

 

This is a separate event and happens due to the Hall surrounding. This gives you the feel of large hall or small hall based on the first reflection arrival time within from the side. Too long the arrival time then you will hear echoic like sound. This reflection gives the sense of spacioness and make the sound large ( Not loud). This event is environment dependent and never intended to be captured in the recording in full as this is a separate reproduction that depends where the live or recorded music is going to be played. There will be some ambience captured by the recording of the frontal stage to give you a sense of space and location of the instrument within the soundstage. The reproduction is intended to come from the frontal stage although a live end where the speakers located often screw up the accuracy as the room is now adding its own acoustics information. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot this one:

 

ambience (pronounced "ambee-ints") The aurally perceived impression of an acoustical space, such as the performing hall in which a recording was made.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

[STC]

19 minutes ago, semente said:

You forgot this one:

 

ambience (pronounced "ambee-ints") The aurally perceived impression of an acoustical space, such as the performing hall in which a recording was made.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

 

Now I know you don’t bother to read the entire post. It is there. 

[semente]

7 hours ago, lmitche said:

So the Superposition Principle works differently for microphones then eardrums? 

 

It is perfectly clear from listening that, for lack of a better term, "height cues" are captured by microphones and are reproduced by most recordings. Sure, microphone position matters, but usually, no always, height information is there.

 

I am happy to agree to disagree in this one.

 

From what I have read there's no mechanism creating height in stereo images produced by a pair of speakers.

It's probably your brain that expects certain sounds to come from different heights.

 

The LeCleach presentation I posted previously or this:

 

https://theproaudiofiles.com/width-height-depth-in-a-mix/

 

How to Create Width, Height and Depth in a Mix

 

Height

So let’s start with height.

It’s a strange and interesting phenomenon that we hear high pitched frequency content as coming from above, and low tones coming from below.

Partially this is due to suggestion. We subconsciously equivocated “high” pitch with “high on a vertical scale.” Partially, this is due to common tweeter placement with speaker woofers most often being lower than the tweeter in vertical alignment. Partially, this phenomenon is also caused by the way low frequency tones project. The wider dispersion of low tones allows them to reflect off the nearest surface such as your desk. Higher tones are more directional and will reach your ear without as much near reflection over short distances.

For these reasons and probably others, we tend to hear high harmonic content as “up” and low harmonic content as “down.”

By creating contrast in the extremes of the frequency spectrum we can make a mix sound “tall.”

If just one naturally bright element like a bell or hi-hat is a touch brighter, and one low element like a kick or bass is a touch subby-er, the whole mix will expand.

[semente]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Now I know you don’t bother to read the entire post. It is there. 

 

I'll re-read your post butI only saw mention of ambiance (pronounced "ambee-onts") The feeling or mood evoked by an environment

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

@Audiophile Neuroscience, could you tell me a little about your background and expertise in all things audio please? I find your moniker intriguing, some of your posts even more so. (A PM would be fine if you're reluctant to do this publicly.)

 

Mani.

 

I have been asked that question a number of times before so it's all here on public record.

I have no audio qualifications but have been an audio and music enthusiast my whole life really. In the 90s I probably read every issue of Stereophile and the Absolute Sound. From there I sought out more academic literature and met some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people through connections with audio fora. I am lucky enough to have a fine audio system.

I chose "audiophile" as part of my moniker before I knew it had become a ‘dirty’ word. I don't retract from it. I chose "neuroscience" because I thought it reflected my background interests in the functioning of the nervous system and mind-body relationships. I first did Neurology and then Rehabilitation Medicine morphing into a spine/pain medical specialist. I have formal training in neuropsychology (but no degree) and have also worked in neuropsychiatry. Research methodology and statistics were a necessary part of the training but I have no formal qualifications in that area.

 I have always been fascinated by things perceptual and their physical and psychological influences. Reading as widely as I can in philosophy seems to naturally complement my interests in psyche and soma. Putting together "audiophile + neuroscience" I foolishly thought I could bring some new or different perspective.

I used to put my bio on the CA profile but found some people tended to use the information negatively or to stereotype me. I also used to list my audio system. Then I was recently accused of pretending to have an elitist audio system to pose as an audiophile so I could express anti-audiophile ideas. Go figure!

Cheers

David

[STC]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I'll re-read your post butI only saw mention of ambiance (pronounced "ambee-onts") The feeling or mood evoked by an environment

 

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I'll re-read your post butI only saw mention of ambiance (pronounced "ambee-onts") The feeling or mood evoked by an environment

 

It was taken from Stereophile’s glossary. You are probably looking at the latest glossary. Note the different spelling. 

[semente]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I have been asked that question a number of times before so it's all here on public record.

I have no audio qualifications but have been an audio and music enthusiast my whole life really. In the 90s I probably read every issue of Stereophile and the Absolute Sound. From there I sought out more academic literature and met some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people through connections with audio fora. I am lucky enough to have a fine audio system.

I chose "audiophile" as part of my moniker before I knew it had become a ‘dirty’ word. I don't retract from it. I chose "neuroscience" because I thought it reflected my background interests in the functioning of the nervous system and mind-body relationships. I first did Neurology and then Rehabilitation Medicine morphing into a spine/pain medical specialist. I have formal training in neuropsychology (but no degree) and have also worked in neuropsychiatry. Research methodology and statistics were a necessary part of the training but I have no formal qualifications in that area.

 I have always been fascinated by things perceptual and their physical and psychological influences. Reading as widely as I can in philosophy seems to naturally complement my interests in psyche and soma. Putting together "audiophile + neuroscience" I foolishly thought I could bring some new or different perspective.

I used to put my bio on the CA profile but found some people tended to use the information negatively or to stereotype me. I also used to list my audio system. I was recently accused of pretending to have an elitist audio system to pose as an audiophile so I could express anti-audiophile ideas. Go figure!

Cheers

David

 

Hi David,

 

Given the nature and content of your posts I would have thought your area of expertise to be neuropsychology. All the neurologists and neuroscientists I know are extremely rational.

 

Keep them coming!

 

[semente]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

It was taken from Stereophile’s glossary. You are probably looking at the latest glossary. Note the different spelling. 

 

They mean different things. Ambiance and Ambience are next to each other in Sphile's Glossary. The first is psychoacoustics, the second one venue sound.

 

ambiance (pronounced "ambee-onts") The feeling or mood evoked by an environment.

 

ambience (pronounced "ambee-ints") The aurally perceived impression of an acoustical space, such as the performing hall in which a recording was made.

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

[STC]

Ok. Now I admit I didn’t read your link. I always thought both meant the same thing. 

 

I think I should alert oxford dictionary to include audiophile’s jargons too. 

[mansr]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Mans appears to be saying that there is no spatial information naturally captured in any recording although he softened in that position a little regarding left and right channel imaging.

Two microphones in, say, a standard XY stereo configuration clearly separate sounds on a left/right axis. This is so blatantly obvious that I neglected to explicitly mention it in that post you refer it. Picture a sound source at centre, some distance directly in front of such a microphone pair. The sound arrives at both microphones 45° off-axis, giving equal response from both. If the source moves sideways, it comes closer to the axis of one microphone and further off-axis of the other. As these are cardioids, their responses will now be unequal. The lateral position is thus readily recorded. I doubt anyone disputes this.

 

Now let the sound source move upwards from its original centre position. As it rises, the source moves further off-axis, by equal amounts for both microphones. The resulting response is somewhat diminished but otherwise unchanged. Due to symmetry, the exact same difference obviously is produced if the sound source moves down rather than up. Moving the sound source, still centred, away from the microphones again drops the amplitude of the response. From the recorded signals, there is no way of determining from which point in a plane bisecting the angle between the microphones the sound originated. For an off-centre source, the geometry becomes a little more complicated and dependent on the exact pattern of the microphones, but in general, for any point in space, there are infinite other points where a sound source would produce the same relative response from the microphones. Mathematically speaking, we are dealing with a projection of three dimensions onto two, and this always entails loss of information.

 

The reason we are able to locate sounds is that our ears are not symmetrical. Their frequency response varies with direction, and the resulting change in sound as our head moves, even by a small amount, helps us deduce the location of the source. For this reason, locating the source of a pure tone can be quite difficult compared to a spread of frequencies. In fact, sirens on emergency vehicles have in many places been altered to take this into account. Likewise, electric carts seen in places like airports often emit bursts of pink-ish noise as alerts since this is more easily localised than a tone.