Concert Hall sound

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, STC said:

Apparently they got the smaller version now. I have not seen the new ones yet.

 

 

 

This sort of speaker is what I last investigated - the potential is certainly there ... as always, the quality of the driving electronics will dictate the quality of the experience.

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

My god, Frank, you're getting in deeper all the time! You don't know what Stbbulebine's "playback chain" even was at that moment or at any other times for that matter. You're right, you can't buy that quality because you can't buy the master tape! 

 

I don't need to ... what you're telling me is that the quality is of a very high standard - it's a chain that can handle a 100 lbs pull, so to speak.  And, the master tape is not 'magical' - the same information is on the CD ... really ...

 

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Jeez, what a hard head you are. for the 23,569th time my system is just fine because MY master recordings whether on analog tape or digital, sound just like they did while I was recording them! I don't think one can get much more accurate than that!

 

Ummm, do I hear an echo of, gulp, "expectation bias" - you know what those recordings should sound like, because you were there - your head is filling the gaps . With an "unknown" recording you've got nothing to hang on to, to help guide you ...

 

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Basically, you are full of it Frank!

Earlier you said that recording quality doesn't matter (which is absolute nonsense), and then in your very next post you said "Everything matters!" Which is it Frank? Does everything matter or doesn't it? Can you see now why  the things you say have no credibility? Well, things like that are certainly one reason. Another is that you make pronouncements about things that you can't possibly know! You have no idea what my system sounds like or anybody else's system for that matter! You have no way of knowing whether a release sound recording sounds as good as the master. BECAUSE YOU HAVEN"T HEARD THE MASTERS! All you post is nonsense and then, to make things worse, you then defend that indefensible nonsense in spite of the fact that it makes you sink deeper into your own morass!

 

Right, open your exercise books, children; pen in hand ...

 

With the playback chain, Everything Matters!

With the recording, better quality helps, but it still works if it's mighty dodgy ...

 

Okay, hands up those who think they can repeat this, without looking, 10 times ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

If that's the case, I misunderstood so many things. I give up. Do you have anything to contribute about concert hall sound? 

 

I hope so ... the core of what I'm saying is that the concert hall sound is encoded already on many recordings; better replay SQ brings it out, automatically. If one wishes to make tracks which were mastered to be intimate sound as if they were indeed in a concert hall, then the ideas that you pursue are very valuable ... it's up to the individual to decide what path ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

You are not entirely wrong. The necessary cues are already in the stereo recordings. It can be retrieved as explained by the various research literatures. 

 

Why extract it 'artificially', if one's head can do it all by itself, subconsciously? The only requirement is that this information is not contaminated by too much distortion, making it that much harder for the mind to make sense of it all.

 

Quote

 

All I am asking for, maybe there are few more others, is there anyway you can document what you are doing and can that be repeatable without trial and error? Is there any valid scientific papers that could confirm your stand? 

 

 

The key requirement is that the standard of the reproduction is to an adequate level. With the current standards of how components are implemented, and systems are assembled, this standard is hard to reach; if enough setups were working to this standard then any depth of research could be done, to validate all the parameters.

 

For me, Bregman's "Auditory Scene Analysis" and all the research that's been inspired by his thinking are the "explanations" as to what happens - if the brain has sufficient information then it can extrapolate as necessary to construct a sufficient internal picture of the intended sound field.

 

Quote

How does your tweak address the inherent crosstalk in stereo? How is your method could magically recreate the ambience directional cues with just two front channel speakers?

 

Because the mind has learnt how to deal with 'unusual' access to sound data, from a lifetime of doing so. If  a live orchestra was heard via two widely spaced doorways in a wall between the sound and you, it would not stop sounding like the "real thing", just because there was no "direct sound".

 

Quote

 

You have not addressed this but you keep on telling about your imaginative abilities where you could recreate the concert hall sound in your head. That's not helpful. We cannot reproduce what your are claiming. That's not helpful and often a distraction. Please be constructive. There are places where we can talk about magic, belief and one's own imaginative power. This is not the thread. 

 

The requirement is to enable a higher standard of replay - there is no point in concerning oneself about tyre safety at 120 mph, if no car can go faster than 90 mph. The tragedy in audio is that the cars can easily go at very high speeds, but they all have faulty brakes, which drag on the vehicle, and prevent higher velocities.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Because you will be accused of  hallucinating.  In dreamland, we can do whatever we like but I am talking about real world.

 

We're in the realm of the Black Swan Fallacy here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. Anything that's unusual, or rarely occurs can hit this barricade - it just takes a few rounds of exposure to move everyone on ... I've engaged enough with other people to know that that it doesn't happen often, but sufficiently to confirm how it works.

 

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Nothing to show. Not a single photograph of your system. Not a single measurement. No independent verification.

 

Images don't tell you anything. This is a sensory experience, and the people around me validate that they hear it too. Amusingly, a hard core audiophile took an hour or so to come off his high horse - he was constantly trying to hear "audiophile things", which weren't there. Female listeners get it straightaway, - it just sounds, 'right'.

 

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

Show me the relevance of the paper which supports your tweaks. Just one.

 

 

We're talking a major book here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_scene_analysis

 

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Yes...yes...yes.. I said it before. That doesn't mean we stop at that and let imagination takes over.

 

Again. Meaningless post that helped no one except yourself reiterating that your imagination is very convincing.

 

People can be shown how to become aware of where the sound quality is deficient, and what to look for to remedy the situation. A local audio enthusiast has caught the bug, and has wrought very impressive sound from "trivial" gear.

 

What is being done is not stimulating imagination; it's skillfully crafting an illusion from the information in recordings, by enabling the brain to do the hard work.

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

It could be MES. Musical ear syndrome. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Musical earsyndrome (MES) describes a condition seen in people who have hearing loss and subsequently develop auditory hallucinations.  You fit the description perfectly.

 

Nice one, ST !!

 

A couple of years ago I checked my hearing with, oh dear, the now dead Philips rig - my right ear could still pick up 18kHz tones, the left 15k. Not tooo bad ...

 

If I hallucinate, I sure wish that it worked well enough to disguise the huge gulf between the qualities of live sound, and that of normal hifi - closing that gap is where the fun is; because it ain't much joy listening to the usual standard ...

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

No, frank, it's NOT. I have the Koch International "Vox Box" CD or the "Daphnis and Chloe" and the Mobile Fidelity SACD of it and they don't sound alike. By your whacky reasoning, they should sound identical on the same system. Not even close. Some of the same information is on the tape and the discs, sure (DUH!), the Master tape was better. I have master tapes that I have transferred to CD and some that I have transferred to DAT. when compared to the master on the same playback chain used to transfer the tapes to digital, the master and the digital copies do not sound the same. The master, whether analog tape or digital, always sounds better (although the difference is always less between the digital master and digital copies). 

 

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.

 

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

It's possible, but even so, if there was great chasm between what I heard when making the recording and what I hear  when playing it back on my home system, I'd know it. How do you know that all of "your method" tweaks and the fabulous improvement in seven mundane equipment that continually report, isn't expectation bias on your part?

 

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.

 

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Caught with his pants down, Frank can do nothing but make fun of the person who caught him by calling him children, and then follow it up with a lame bit of back peddling that even Frank can't possibly believe himself! Honestly Frank, if everything matters in playback, why shouldn't it matter just as much on the recording side?

 

You can't do anything about the recording - well, that's not really true, but I'm saying that you start with the data that's there, and "make the best of it". Luckily, that's still good enough to deliver a powerful experience - the "master tape at Stubblebine's studio" impact can be delivered, every time ...

[fas42]

Hmmm ...

 

 

[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 ...

[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.

[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 ... .

[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' ...

[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, .

 

[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.

[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.

[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 ... !!"

[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 ..

[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.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Agreed that they should be. But in reality, there seems to be plenty a slip twixt the cup and the lip. 

 

The "slip" is that digital replay chains vary in their ability to reproduce material when it's stored in 24 bit versus 16 bit, say. A simple solution is upsample, or downsample all one's recordings to that format which the rig is best competent with - a long-winded and irksome exercise, but something I would do, if "forced" to "live with it".

 

IOW, exactly what many of the download sites do, in order to supply the market ... .

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

But, in an earlier post you said that was no such thing as a poor recording!

 

Subjectively, it's a mantra which is very useful for getting the best from your rig ... objectively?? As has been said, an Edison roll, versus a 24 bit digital ... ?

[fas42]

Actually, one aspect about this MES red herring is rather hilarious - it's infectious! These days, the audio friend down the road, younger by some decades, has no trouble picking up the variations in SQ - sometimes, he notes something before I do, and without saying anything gets up to make an adjustment ...

[fas42]

And, to put this MES silliness to bed, properly - Musical Ear Syndrome: What Do We Know? - viewcontent.cgi

 

Quote

The    purpose    of    this    study    was    to    review    the    existing    literature    regarding    Musical    
Ear    Syndrome    and    other    related    auditory    hallucinations.    While    the    existence    of    
auditory    hallucinations    is    evident,    their    cause    is    unclear    and    widely    understudied.    
There    was    a    need    for    existing    information    to    be    compiled    for    use    in    the    healthcare    
field.    This    review    of    existing    literature    will    aid    speech-language    pathologists,    
audiologists,    nurses,    psychologists,    and    physicians    in    understanding    this    condition    
and    what    differentiates    it    from    other    various    disorders.    This    will    allow    these    
professionals    to    better    understand    the    experiences    and    needs    of    those    with    Musical    
Ear    Syndrome.

 

and ...

 

Quote

Dr.    Neil    Bauman,    who    coined    the    term    “Musical    Ear    Syndrome”,    has    defined    it    
as    “hearing    non-tinnitus    phantom    sounds    (that    is,    auditory    hallucinations)    of    a    non-psychiatric    nature,    often    musical    but    also    including    voices    and    other    strange    
sounds”    (Simpson,    2014,    p.    19).    As    previously    stated,    Musical    Ear    Syndrome    (MES)   
is    a    type    of    nonverbal    auditory    hallucination    “characterized    by    the    perception    of    
music    in    the    absence    of    external    acoustic    stimuli”    (Bhatt    &    Carpenter,    2012,    p.    615)

   

Okay, everyone can settle down now ...

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

For example, you recommended a digital audio player in another thread.

 

I have a very good one and very good IEMs.

 

Guess what?

 

Good recording sound fantastic and "bad" recording sound like shit.

 

No miracles. No magic. No "tipping point". No "mind filling in the blanks".

 

Just what's in the original (shitty) recording...

 

A digital audio player can be a very good starting point for getting the SQ one's after - the friend who has investigated these for years just doesn't plug them in, and play - he has developed a whole suite of little tweaks which all add up - to give the best result. I have heard these units of his playing, often, and when they're not in the "zone" they sound like, well, shit too ...

 

Driving headphones directly, alone may be enough to disturb the quality you want - he has gone to great lengths experimenting with buffering the output, to optimise performance.

 

Until one has investigated every aspect of some part of an audio rig, one can't really say where the weaknesses are - every situation is different.

[fas42]

Harking back to the theme of this thread, here is some light reading  ... http://caseyocallaghan.com/research/papers/ocallaghan-nudds-2009-Introduction.pdf - "Introduction: The Philosophy of Sounds and Auditory Perception" ... I came aross this again when chasing down the speaker designer who was mentioned in regard to people stepping in front of you when listening ...

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

The next question to ask is whether an active intervention by tweaks triggers certain region of his brain to perceive impossible to exist auditory event. Relevant reference starts here  . 

 

 

 

Sorry, struck out again ...

 

Quote

 

The human brain routinely fills in missing bits of information to form the perception of patterns—even when no such patterns exist. We may see a cat crouched on the sidewalk, when in reality it is the shadow of a mailbox. Or we think we hear our name, when it is only someone calling out for another. “The brain doesn’t like to have holes,” says Josef Rauschecker, a tinnitus researcher at Georgetown University.

 

Auditory hallucinations, however, are formed out of whole cloth. The brain doesn’t mistake one thing for another, it invents the perceived stimulus altogether.

 

 

Yes, to the first para; no, in the second.

 

Key point is that the imagined music bears no relationship to what is actually in the sound field.

 

 

All this chatter to try and explain away an "impossible to exist auditory event" - it would warm the hearts of all those who recorded music over the decades to hear that it's impossible to experience what they heard in front of the mic's,  .