16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

IOne doesn't have to be an expert in order to realize that one doesn't like something. There are people here who find classical music and jazz not to their liking, but I dare say that they haven't heard and didn't need to hear much of either genre to decide that there was nothing in that music for them. Oh, and I don't excoriate them for holding that opinion either, making me wonder...

 

It's one thing to say that you hate a certain genre of music and don't listen to it. OTOH, I have neither seen nor do I expect to see anyone who dislikes classical music or jazz suggest that it is absolutely terrible or make ridiculous outlandish statements equating either to "an indicator of the decline of western civilization".

 

Enough already with the silly hyperbole!

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Jud, that’s the kind of testing Harman / Toole and Olive have been doing for a while. Have you read some of their papers and articles? They specifically test for preferred speaker response among multiple speakers and test subjects.  

 

Was hoping you'd mention that. If you read about test subject preparation, they were trained to recognize deviations from flat audible range FR, then listened to speakers and liked those better that deviated less from flat audible range frequency response. Quelle surprise!

[Ralf11]

"the decline of western civilization" was caused by Franks, Huns, Visigoths and others

 

but maybe the former Roman slaves did better after that(?)

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Jud said:

Can't say that's a bad thing to do.  But for me, that may not help me establish which speakers, for example, will help the music I play sound most real and "grab" me most emotionally.

If you know the minimum levels you can detect of various forms of distortion, and an item under consideration falls below this level for, say, frequency response, you will know that this aspect won't be a problem. That should be useful. The real issue is that what you perceive as more real may in fact be quite far from a perfect reproduction. In fact, I'd expect this to be the case. Now you have to decide, do you want accurate sound, or do you prefer realer than real (in some respects) even if this is a fabrication? Neither choice is wrong, but one should still be honest about it.

[pkane2001]

53 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Was hoping you'd mention that. If you read about test subject preparation, they were trained to recognize deviations from flat audible range FR, then listened to speakers and liked those better that deviated less from flat audible range frequency response. Quelle surprise!

 

Have you taken the software audio training course they published? It has nothing to do with flat frequency response, but everything to do with learning to detect and qualify small differences. You’ll find much more detailed answers to your training ‘bias’ question here:

 

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html?m=1

[fas42]

6 hours ago, bachish said:

 

Fas42, I'm not following you here. It seems you are confusing the so-called 'cocktail party effect' and the 'masking effect ' with 'comb filtering'.

 

The 'cocktail part effect' is the ear/brain's ability to block out other sounds and focus its attention on another sound source, such as at a noisy cocktail party when talking with another person. 

 

The masking effect states that any sound source -80 db or more below another sound spurce it will be inaudible (such as a whisper at a rock concert).

 

Neither apply to the phasing issues in an acoustically untreated room.  Sound waves cancel, weaken, strengthen, and gather in certain areas as they bounce around the room. No amount of focusing you attention on the sound source or masking will help. If you turn your speakers up, the sound bouncing off the walls will  be louder as well.  

 

The only way around the comb filtering effect is to absorb the reflections (particularly the early ones or the first reflections) to avoid any phasing issues.

 

 

 

OK, comb filtering is an example of the physical, measurable aspect of the situation. As is a flat  or otherwise FR. Cocktail party effect and masking are in the arena of what the mind "tunes into" - unconscious, internal manipulation of the sound field so that we hear what is most important, at that moment.

 

And phasing issues fall into the category of being internally adjustable, and likewise with FR. With the latter, I had an excellent working example at one point many years ago, with a pretty decent Sony amp, with tone controls. Most of the time the latter sounded just like one of their ilk, and varying the bass and treble did what one would expect; yet, by a sequence of procedures to 'condition' that amp - one of my many experiments - I could coax a much higher standard of SQ, for a very short period of time, from it - and 'magic' happened! The tone controls seemed to have lost their ability to alter the tonality of what I was hearing - what on earth was going on!! Well, my explanation is that my mind had taken over, and was automatically compensating for the changes in the spectrum, with perfect fluency. Yes, this may not happen for many people, but I suspect that it still does so for a very high percentage of the population, and certainly for me.

 

And that's what happens with the sound bouncing in the listening room - unconsciously, our minds "know" that those echos don't correlate with the presentation from the playback, and rejects them. They are another "event", which the brain is not interested in, and hence fall out of our awareness, cocktail party like.

 

Is it only me? No, the others around me at the time have the same reaction to the sound, so that gives me confidence in saying it's more universal.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

"the decline of western civilization" was caused by Franks, Huns, Visigoths and others

 

but maybe the former Roman slaves did better after that(?)

 

Gosh, I'm guilty of that too! ... I hang my head in shame ...

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Alex, that "Moth to Flame" track is using classic phase manipulation to produce that illusion -

 

Most pop recordings these days are manipulated in various forms. The same applies to when playing Movies , whether they are surround encoded or just using special effects. Many people use their system for watching movies as well as listening to music.

You STILL should be able to play these recordings as the record producer intended them to be heard.

 If you can't , then your system or room is lacking.

[semente]

2 hours ago, rando said:

 

You might be interested to know how old the marimba is.  One of two naturally occurring instruments still in use today (albeit in manufactured form).  It's existence has nothing to do with European history or what most would call religious music.

 

Interesting, but what does this have to do with the post you replied to?

[semente]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Was hoping you'd mention that. If you read about test subject preparation, they were trained to recognize deviations from flat audible range FR, then listened to speakers and liked those better that deviated less from flat audible range frequency response. Quelle surprise!

 

Are you implying that the research was conducted in a certain manner to achieve a desired result?

Speaker manufacturers have their pet techs: Vandersteen and Thiel phase, BnW kevlar, Magico and YG and Vivid aluminium, Toole power response, Tannoy and Kef concentric drivers, etc. It doesn't surprise me.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Are you implying that the research was conducted in a certain manner to achieve a desired result?

 

I am saying it shows people can be trained to recognize deviations from flat FR through the audible range, but not necessarily that this is something essential to an illusion of reality for the vast majority of untrained listeners.

 

By "illusion of reality" I mean elementary and fundamental aspects of reproduction of the real such as ability to tell what instrument is playing and where it is located.

[semente]

Just now, Jud said:

 

I am saying it shows people can be trained to recognize deviations from flat FR through the audible range, but not necessarily that this is something essential to an illusion of reality for the vast majority of untrained listeners.

 

By "illusion of reality" I mean elementary and fundamental aspects of reproduction of the real such as ability to tell what instrument is playing and where it is located.

 

I downloaded their software but can't remember if they tested with pink noise...

 

It would be interesting to compare the three different aspect you mentioned.

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I am saying it shows people can be trained to recognize deviations from flat FR through the audible range, but not necessarily that this is something essential to an illusion of reality for the vast majority of untrained listeners.

 

By "illusion of reality" I mean elementary and fundamental aspects of reproduction of the real such as ability to tell what instrument is playing and where it is located.

 

It's not deviations from flat that it teaches you to recognize, it's deviations or differences. But, I think you are asking for impossible. Nobody can teach you how to distinguish a better 'illusion of reality'. That's something that is totally up to you, within your conscious and subconscious mind. Maybe Frank can help you with that one

[Jud]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

It would be interesting to compare the three different aspect you mentioned.

 

There's an old experiment that removed the inharmonic attacks (initial transients) from the sounds of various instruments. Then college music students who'd heard these instruments several times a week for years were asked to identify which instruments were making these sounds with the transients removed.  There's a nice  chart of the results I'd love to find (or for someone else to find) and post here.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's not deviations from flat that it teaches you to recognize, it's deviations or differences. But, I think you are asking for impossible. Nobody can teach you how to distinguish a better 'illusion of reality'. That's something that is totally up to you, within your conscious and subconscious mind. Maybe Frank can help you with that one

 

Just asking what designers should aim for in doing a better job of reproduction. Assuming perfection in all things is not attainable, which characteristics should be maximized to provide most people the ability to do things that seem relatively easy with live music, like distinguishing instruments from each other and placing them in space? 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

No, but you'd be wrong to declare them "not food" and hold them responsible for the (supposed) decline of civilisation.

Irrelevant. The question was in response to a charge that I couldn't judge rock-'n-roll because I'd heard so little of it. Mansr, you are not an honest debater. You continually take things out of context in order to "win" points. It won't work with me. I'll call you on it every time. 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

If you know the minimum levels you can detect of various forms of distortion, and an item under consideration falls below this level for, say, frequency response, you will know that this aspect won't be a problem. That should be useful. The real issue is that what you perceive as more real may in fact be quite far from a perfect reproduction. In fact, I'd expect this to be the case. Now you have to decide, do you want accurate sound, or do you prefer realer than real (in some respects) even if this is a fabrication? Neither choice is wrong, but one should still be honest about it.

 

Is level frequency response over the visual range important in providing a viewer with a realistic visual representation of a checkerboard in the video below?  If not, what *is* important?  In reproducing the most convincing and useful visual representation, shouldn't we concentrate on these most important aspects?  Shouldn't we do the equivalent in reproducing audio?  Then what *are* the most important aspects?

 

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

none of those are racial groups

Only when they serve serve your purpose? 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

It's one thing to say that you hate a certain genre of music and don't listen to it. OTOH, I have neither seen nor do I expect to see anyone who dislikes classical music or jazz suggest that it is absolutely terrible or make ridiculous outlandish statements equating either to "an indicator of the decline of western civilization".

 

Enough already with the silly hyperbole!

Enough already with this entire stupid thread! It serves no purpose. 

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Just asking what designers should aim for in doing a better job of reproduction. Assuming perfection in all things is not attainable, which characteristics should be maximized to provide most people the ability to do things that seem relatively easy with live music, like distinguishing instruments from each other and placing them in space? 

 

Well, if you agree that there may be some validity to Toole and Olive’s studies, then a flat, tilted frequency response with a slightly elevated bass and reduced higher frequencies.

[Sonicularity]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Enough already with this entire stupid thread! It serves no purpose. 

 

It has been entertaining, which is good enough for me.

[Hugo9000]

35 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

There's an old experiment that removed the inharmonic attacks (initial transients) from the sounds of various instruments. Then college music students who'd heard these instruments several times a week for years were asked to identify which instruments were making these sounds with the transients removed.  There's a nice  chart of the results I'd love to find (or for someone else to find) and post here.

From 1964, Kenneth Berger's “Some factors in the recognition of timbre” in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

 

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.1919287

 

Similar studies have been done at various universities since that paper.

 

Sorry that I don't have any charts from any of these studies, but the above may help someone else find some, perhaps.

 

 

Here is a paper regarding training an artificial neural network, dealing with the same issues of the tone envelope of instruments:

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04971.pdf

 

 

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Only when they serve serve your purpose? 

 

hardly - there is only a single extant race of humans

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, Sonicularity said:

 

It has been entertaining, which is good enough for me.

I'm glad somebody enjoyed it, because I wasn't one of them!

[gmgraves]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

hardly - there is only a single extant race of humans

Ah, You're one of those! Actually, I agree with you, but most people still think along the lines of Mongol, Caucasian, Negro, and French ?. But in the context that I was asked the question: "What if someone postulated that one race was smarter than another?" My answer was appropriate.