Concert Hall sound

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My "expectation bias" doesn't help me get a system to the necessary standard in a robust manner! The amount of frustration over the years, because I get close, but no cigar, on so many occasions - I'm talking of what's possible; I would never say it's easy to do ... but the results are always worth it, if you can make it happen.

Do they have insane asylums in Oz, Frank? Don't look now but the men in white coats are coming up your driveway with big nets now!

[fas42]

Hmmm ...

 

 

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, different masterings are different recordings - unless they deliberately tried to be identical, I would very much expect there to be variation ... .

 

Master tapes that are digital should match a CD copy. Analogue masters are using a different playback route, and this may be enough to differentiate from a digital copy replay.

 

Different masterings are different releases from the same recordings.

 

Master tapes will only match the CD if the master "tapes" are also in Redbook (16/44.1) format.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Different masterings are different releases from the same recordings.

 

Master tapes will only match the CD if the master "tapes" are also in Redbook (16/44.1) format.

 

The masterings use the raw material of the original recording sessions in different ways; highlighting certain instruments, and attenuating other contributions very strongly - the Led Zeppelin remasters are notorious for completely changing the character of the original releases; I find the later ones spineless in comparison. Had an interesting session with the audio friend up the road one time  - he was a keen Yes man, and we compared about 4 masterings of a classic album - umm, the original won hands down; the later versions had been "audiophiled" - simplified and emasculated so that one could fetishsize about the vocals, or the single instrument playing - all the subjective complexity was lost.

 

If tapes are in digital, 24 bit, etc - resampling to Redbook should have zero impact - if the digital replay is doing its job properly ...

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

If tapes are in digital, 24 bit, etc - resampling to Redbook should have zero impact - if the digital replay is doing its job properly ...

 

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

 

I find it bizarre that you say that - "objectivist" thinking is that Redbook is perfectly adequate for replay, and i agree with that 100% ... I have done many experiments, 'trashing' very high res material by downsampling to CD quality; then resampling to the original format - all that is "lost" is ultra sonic twaddle, of zero musical interest.

[kumakuma]

 

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I find it bizarre that you say that - "objectivist" thinking is that Redbook is perfectly adequate for replay, and i agree with that 100% ... I have done many experiments, 'trashing' very high res material by downsampling to CD quality, then resampling to the original format - all that is "lost" is ultra sonic twaddle, of zero musical interest.

Just checked my JRiver library. Of the 149,407 files in my library, 71,121 have a sample rate higher than 44.1kHz.

 

Guess I'm not an "objectivist"...

[STC]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I know it's off topic. I'd love to see all the subjective reviewers post their audio band sensitivity chart. Include it with the system profile or in the signature. Wonder if there would be any takers?

Oh, alright, objective also.

 

 

That's not going to happen. This hobby depends on subjectivity, belief and believers. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I know it's off topic. I'd love to see all the subjective reviewers post their audio band sensitivity chart. Include it with the system profile or in the signature. Wonder if there would be any takers?

Oh, alright, objective also.

 

 

Of course, this is irrelevant. If a listener, no matter how "poor" his hearing is, can distinguish that it's a hifi playing, as compared to live acoustic sound - then his ears are doing a good enough job ... .

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course, this is irrelevant. If a listener, no matter how "poor" his hearing is, can distinguish that it's a hifi playing, as compared to live acoustic sound - then his ears are doing a good enough job ... .

 

Yes Frank, of course the 0.00001dB difference caused by soldering instead of using a screw-in connection is much more significant than the 50dB drop in hearing in the middle of audible frequencies. What was I thinking???

[STC]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course, this is irrelevant. If a listener, no matter how "poor" his hearing is, can distinguish that it's a hifi playing, as compared to live acoustic sound - then his ears are doing a good enough job ... .

 

Can you please stop for a moment and read up on MES? You are describing sound inside your head which befits MES symptoms.

 

Everything you have written here is pointing to hearing sound inside your head which you have admitted many times that you let your brain to reconstruct the sound. Perhaps, medically this may not fall under MES but then research on MES is at the infant stage and diagnosis is difficult unless you can absolutely establish that you are hearing sound that doesn't exist outside your head.

 

I always believe that our brain is capable to fill in the gaps based on past exposure. I have experienced it where I couldn't hear the obvious fault. The Swedish experience probably would fall in this category. Most recordists and musicians do perceive satisfaction with their own recordings despite the inherent flaws because they can reconstruct the actual music in their head. This what makes this hobby to be very subjective. I cannot tell what and how a sound is reconstructed inside your head. 

 

New researches suggest that constant sound such as whitenoise, airplane jet noise or fan noise can trigger MES episode where you can hear beautiful music inside your head. Medication, past illness or alcohol can trigger this condition too. Some are so good with it where they can tune what music they want to hear inside their head.

 

Ask yourself whether there could be remotely a possibility that when you are saying that your brain could reconstruct the sound inside your head it fits MES description?

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes Frank, of course the 0.00001dB difference caused by soldering instead of using a screw-in connection is much more significant than the 50dB drop in hearing in the middle of audible frequencies. What was I thinking???

 

Human hearing reacts to something "not being right" - that's how we learnt to survive in the jungle, with wild beasts in the offing - once you are aware of that "oddness", your focus zooms in on it - the tiny itch becomes 'huge'. The task is, get rid of, yes, that 'tinyness' ...

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Human hearing reacts to something "not being right" - that's how we learnt to survive in the jungle, with wild beasts in the offing - once you are aware of that "oddness", your focus zooms in on it - the tiny itch becomes 'huge'. The task is, get rid of, yes, that 'tinyness' ...

 

So why doesn't it react the same way to things "not being right" in a recording?

[fas42]

Okay, ST, just to humour you ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_ear_syndrome. Ummm ... " complex form of auditory hallucinations where an individual may experience music or sounds that are heard without an external source" ... " Romantic composer Robert Schumann was said to have heard entire symphonies in his head from which he drew as inspiration for his music, but later in his life this phenomenon had diminished to just a note that played ceaselessly within his head"

 

That's pretty damn impressive - a whole album goes by, with "no electricity running anything" - might get to that one day - I can only try, .

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Human hearing reacts to something "not being right" - that's how we learnt to survive in the jungle, with wild beasts in the offing - once you are aware of that "oddness", your focus zooms in on it - the tiny itch becomes 'huge'. The task is, get rid of, yes, that 'tinyness' ...

 

Sure. And 50dB drop in the middle of the audible range doesn't qualify as something "not being right". Nobody would notice! But a solder joint instead of screw connector, now that'll make a huge difference. Get real, Frank. You're making this up as you go. You are consistent. Consistently wrong.

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

complex form of auditory hallucinations where an individual may experience music or sounds that are heard without an external source"

 

Frank, i have been following development of MES for about 3 years and the quote is on the other hand of the spectrum. That's the point where one can really tell they are hearing sound inside their head.  In 2017 research, they found that many teenagers to suffer from them despite having perfect hearing. Of course, early stage of MES will be difficult to diagnosis because you are interpreting a sound differently. The sound exist but the perception of what you hear is different and impossible.  I hope this forum will archive this post because I believe this too is a form of MES. We fill in and make up own sound in the head all the time. Some are capable of doing so despite no sound exists in the environment. 

 

The description of the sound that you claim to exist cannot exist. That can be scientifically established. You already admitted that's your head is doing the reconstruction. End of story.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So why doesn't it react the same way to things "not being right" in a recording?

 

Yes, very good point. I have the same problem as others do with poor recordings - if the rig is below par, the "things wrong" in the source material can make it unlistenable to - which provides the feedback that I need to work more on the situation. What apparently is going on is that there is a tipping point, inside one's head - when the complexity of "things wrong" with the sound field overall is too great, there is overload: the mental agility to handle anomalies is pushed beyond what it can cope with - and it "sounds awful!!"

 

The combination of "things wrong" in the recording, and "things wrong" in the playback provide too great a  burden, for our minds - the answer is, reduce the "things wrong" in the playback chain to the lowest possible level, so that those anomalies don't 'intermodulate' with issues within the recording. And I know that I'm making progress, when the "worst" recordings still work - the problems of the playback rig are now so low in amplitude that my mind only has to deal with the recording "funnies" - and can successfully compensate for them.

[STC]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

What apparently is going on is that there is a tipping point, inside one's head - when the complexity of "things wrong" with the sound field overall is too great, there is overload: the mental agility to handle anomalies is pushed beyond what it can cope with - and it "sounds awful!!"

 

That's the smoking gun!

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure. And 50dB drop in the middle of the audible range doesn't qualify as something "not being right". Nobody would notice! But a solder joint instead of screw connector, now that'll make a huge difference. Get real, Frank. You're making this up as you go. You are consistent. Consistently wrong.

 

Ummm, with live sound - someone walks in front of you, completely blocks the direct sound ... the chamber group doesn't disappear into a hole, for that moment ... our minds 'grok' the situation, and compensate, beautifully.

 

A manufacturer of high end speakers was the one who brought my attention to this 'test' - with good audio sound "someone can walk in front of you" and you don't lose the sense of what you're hearing.

 

IOW, "holes in the sound", whether from circumstances, or changes in hearing are dealt with by the mind - anomalies of the wrong type are not discarded - they disturb us, distract us, spoil the listening experience.

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, very good point. I have the same problem as others do with poor recordings - if the rig is below par, the "things wrong" in the source material can make it unlistenable to - which provides the feedback that I need to work more on the situation. What apparently is going on is that there is a tipping point, inside one's head - when the complexity of "things wrong" with the sound field overall is too great, there is overload: the mental agility to handle anomalies is pushed beyond what it can cope with - and it "sounds awful!!"

 

The combination of "things wrong" in the recording, and "things wrong" in the playback provide too great a  burden, for our minds - the answer is, reduce the "things wrong" in the playback chain to the lowest possible level, so that those anomalies don't 'intermodulate' with issues within the recording. And I know that I'm making progress, when the "worst" recordings still work - the problems of the playback rig are now so low in amplitude that my mind only has to deal with the recording "funnies" - and can successfully compensate for them.

 

I think STC may be right. You've got something going on there that is causing you to perceive music in a different way than the rest of us.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

 

That's the smoking gun!

 

It's in the head, for everyone - and my experience, to date, is that when it sounds right to me, then it also sounds right to others in the room ...

 

When I mentioned the posts reacting to my mentioning the Jarre Zoolook album, by others, my Bev said a few words you don't repeat in polite company - things along the lines of "They don't have a clue ... !!"

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, with live sound - someone walks in front of you, completely blocks the direct sound ... the chamber group doesn't disappear into a hole, for that moment ... our minds 'grok' the situation, and compensate, beautifully.

 

A manufacturer of high end speakers was the one who brought my attention to this 'test' - with good audio sound "someone can walk in front of you" and you don't lose the sense of what you're hearing.

 

IOW, "holes in the sound", whether from circumstances, or changes in hearing are dealt with by the mind - anomalies of the wrong type are not discarded - they disturb us, distract us, spoil the listening experience.

 

Frank, I'm sorry if all this is caused by a medical condition. Certainly wouldn't won't to argue with something you have no control over. 

 

Just an FYI -- if someone stands in front of me and blocks direct sound and vision in a live performance, while I can still hear, I hear a completely different quality of sound than when no-one is blocking it. This is normal. What you are describing is not.

 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I think STC may be right. You've got something going on there that is causing you to perceive music in a different way than the rest of us.

 

If you have no trouble distinguishing live musicians from a playback system, before you can see what's going on, then you're in the same boat as me ..

[STC]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's in the head, for everyone - and my experience, to date, is that when it sounds right to me, then it also sounds right to others in the room ...

 

When I mentioned the posts reacting to my mentioning the Jarre Zoolook album, by others, my Bev said a few words you don't repeat in polite company - things along the lines of "They don't have a clue ... !!"

 

English is not my first language. Not even my second. So I have to look up in urbandictionary for the meaning of Bev. Then I read the galactic wanderer's reply to you. The wanderer's is right.

 

Please start a new topic and post your inside the head experience there. Most of what you have written here is not relevant to the OP.

 

Thank you.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Just an FYI -- if someone stands in front of me and blocks direct sound and vision in a live performance, while I can still hear, I hear a completely different quality of sound than when no-one is blocking it. This is normal. What you are describing is not.

  

 

No, it's not a medical condition - people hear in different ways, listen for different things in the sound. It's a standard piece of humour that wives put up with what their partners want in the sound - but find nothing in it of interest, for themselves.