The flaws of blind listening tests

[fas42]

The difficulty with listening tests is using them in the "expectation" that one can use them to find whether one component, or change is "better" than another. Doomed to failure, in my book - what matters is if the system is working to a certain standard or not - and you do what is necessary to achieve that standard. Which may entail anything and everything between, very slightly altering the position of a cable somewhere; to ejecting, discarding the whole chain of components and starting afresh - the latter because you've realised that there is a fundamental limitation in the whole setup, and nothing one can reasonably do will overcome that.

 

You're not wandering around a range of hills, looking for a pretty spot to take some photos; there is a mountain peak in the middle, and you keep your eyes firmly glued on that point, and the landscape between you and that height; and you steadily and unerringly make your way closer and closer, higher and higher - until you are firmly footed on that peak, and can turn in any direction, and see "forever" ...

[fas42]

Why some are disturbed by what I say is because I don't talk in the jargon of conventional audiophile beliefs - I'm not "part of the pack". Well, I used to go down that particular road ... but then realised what's possible - to repeat Yet Another Generality , it revolves around Subtracting Badness, not, Adding Goodness. Since this hobby is obsessed with the latter, "because it's fun!" - and my way involves sitting down and doing lots and lots of fiddly experiments and explorations, the fun factor won't be there - for many. However, it's the way for getting results, with "cheap" gear - and hence an excellent value for money route for those who may be that way inclined ...

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Contrary to your view, IMO, listening tests can be very valuable in determining whether a particular change improves the overall sound quality of a system.

 

"Improve" means something very different from the the way the word "better" is usually bandied around in audiophile circles - so, I indeed use listening to determine whether I have "improved" the integrity of the playback chain.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Very poetic, however when you climb your mountain peak, what you see are the next peaks, higher and more magnificent than the one you’re standing on. When you achieve a system that ‘disappears’ leaving just a big, beautiful soundscape in space...no identifiable sources like speakers....when you’re there, you’ve achieved an important milestone, a system that can trick your hearing and brain into constructing a solid 3 dimensional sound stage. But that’s just a stage along the way. Get there and there are still many improvements that can be made.  Greater naturalness, dynamics, speed, rhythmic drive, beauty, communication of the musical message, emotional responses, listener involvement to name just a few areas that can continue to be improved.

 

True. Improvements beyond that point can always be made, and I've noted that rigs that use premium components are able, now and again, to bring out some of those aspects, in some recordings. However, I normally can try some of my more 'difficult' CDs on such a setup, and they will totally botch the presentation - so, the path is to, firstly, get at least some recordings to present convincingly; secondly, work through all the 'harder' recordings so that they eventually come good; and then, thirdly, advance along all the avenues you mentioned.

 

For a variety of reasons I have gone down the road of working with what many would call marginal gear - so I've made my job harder in one sense; the pluses are that I've learnt more about the whole shebang, and I have no fears with wrecking what I'm working with - I'm game to try anything, to find out what's going on.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

No, not when you have achieved the state of audio nirvana that he claims to have achieved!

 

I've come across other rigs, rarely, that get it right - the point is to understand what needs to be done, each time, to push whatever happens to be in front of you to a plateau of presentation quality.

[fas42]

48 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Have you ever tried putting a CD player or something like an Oppo media player directly on a carpet instead of directly in a cabinet to see if it sounds different ?

 

The business of precisely how to mount each component, and how thoroughly to stabilise the cabinet, by mass loading or locking in some cradle, is a whole field of investigation in itself. Yes, it shouldn't matter, and a well engineered and implement component should show no variation - but, ...

[fas42]

55 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Another "pablum" generality completely devoid of any substantive content. Why don't you tell us how great it is to breathe air? Bye Bye.

 

You appear to have a need for a precise recipe. However, the recipe will be different for every individual, depending upon their particular circumstances. And unless one knows those circumstances, some sort of generalised recipe is not going to be very useful. Time wasting, in fact.

 

However, if you were to start from scratch then there's a chance ... .

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

OK.  So, how about a specific, even if particular, example?

 

Well, on this forum I've laid out the steps on the first rig that came together, 30 years ago. And pointed out the thread, on my blog, that shows the steps I'm going through with the current NAD combo. Is this what you're thinking of?

 

If I was starting from scratch, right now, with money to "get the job done fast", one option I would seriously consider are the Dutch & Dutch active monitors that are the current flavour of the month - they appear to get most things right in raw form; it's highly likely not much extra would be needed to extract the necessary integrity.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Possibly.  Do you have a link to those?

 

The first rig, I can't locate that post as yet. Related ones are

and 

 

 

For the current NAD combo, steps taken are listed in posts in my languishing blog, link in my signature; entitled, A More Ambitious Upgrade - Parts 1 to 18.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Taz777 said:

 

That's why it's a hobby for me - it's the same as cycling, photography, etc. All are wallet-emptying but thoroughly enjoyable and absorbing. It's a top-down approach for me - start off with a sound in your mind that you are seeking and then hook together the tech that delivers that sound.

 

Top-down is a good term to use - you know what you're after, and you do what it takes to achieve that. You and Blackmorec have purchased your way to that goal, which is a perfectly valid approach - I have a technical bent, and am by nature an inveterate fine-tuner; I achieved a high standard in a startling, unexpected way - this had an impact which set my course, ever since. I'm also a cheapskate, , so it pleases me to get the results with the lowest cost methods possible - this has the extra benefit of teaching me a great deal.

 

The sound that I'm after is what's on the recording - nothing of the rig itself should be audible. The content  that was captured has everything to deliver a powerful, immersive listening experience - all that is required is to 'release' that musical detail with the highest integrity.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

John,

I appreciate your opinion. However, IMO the issue in this instance is neither a question of difficulty of expression nor a lack of expertise. Rather, It has to do with repeating the same nonsense about good and bad recordings, including the notion that tweaking playback equipment can convert bad recordings into good ones, absolutely convinced that he is right. For example:

 

I will avoid further frustration by simply ignoring his posts.

 

But I won't ignore yours, . The silliness in your thinking is that you're deciding what is a bad recording, by how it sounds on your rig ... the filter of the weaknesses of your system taints what you hear; you have no way of knowing what "the recording really sounds like".

 

Understanding what's possible with playback has taken me years, decades. Like virtually all in the game, I was firmly convinced there were poor recordings that would always be awful to listen to ... but I kept being proven wrong - over and over again, So, I've "given up" - I accept defeat - that recording that sounds really terrible right now, I know can be presented in a clear enough light, to be fully enjoyed - sometime down the track ... ummm, this is a good news story; why fight it, ?

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Instead of getting mired in a bunch of gobbletygook language (akin to wine-tasting language, but with even less meaning), it is much more effective to understand what is expressed in the 'artistic' language in purely technical terms.  There is NOTHING that can be described in the language of 'feeling' that cannot be described in clear, technical terms.  Sometimes it can be difficult to describe reality instead of feeling -- but it can be very beneficial to do so (or at least, try.)

 

 

The limitation in what you're saying is that the psychoacoustic element is largely ignored, or inadequately understood. Only the most recent research into human hearing is getting a better handle on how the brain operates, with explanations for "how" tied up in the whole 'mystery' of human awareness.

 

What my first "competent" rig did was to throw up a completely convincing sound field - it was literally impossible for me to make myself register that the speakers were the source of what I was hearing - the 'illusion' was rock, solid. Now, this exact same setup could 10 minutes later fall off this high perch, and sound just like an ordinary hifi, just another pretty decent audio combo - and nothing obvious had altered in this time frame. So, what the hell was going on here?!! ... and to this day I still haven't got a fully comprehensive answer.

 

Part of the answer is that the mind "fills the gaps"; when the sound is good enough, the brain adds the extra needed to complete the picture, and a 'mirage' fully forms. But to comprehensively explain that, with a fully technical explanation, is still some time off ...

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, STC said:

 

This is wrong. The better the system is the minor flaws will be more noticable. Which psychoacoustic literature you are referring to?

 

That's the conventional thinking ... however, what actually happens is that the flaws in the recording, and the detail of the actual recorded event are more clearly presented, projected. What is needed is to 'trick' the brain into only registering that greater detail of what the mic's picked up, and to discard the recording, mastering, etc, flaws - this is the Cocktail Party Effect being actively exploited; you are aiming to have the brain ignore what is not interesting - all the "defects" in the recording.

 

Again, this is Auditory Scene Analysis research; this has evolved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_auditory_scene_analysis, which is making machines mimic the automatic processing that humans do.

[fas42]

Just now, John Dyson said:

You gotta realize that the 'psychoacoustical' issues are also able to be expressed in technical terms.  All of this isn't rocket science nowadays -- it might have been 50-70yrs ago, but not today.\..

 

Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA) is very recent, only 20 years old, and vigorously being investigated - in part, it's about how humans look for patterns in what they hear, and if what they hear matches well to stored patterns, then the sound "gets a tick". Precisely how close the match has to be is the yet to be answered question ....

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

 

 

This is irrelevant to what you raised. Cocktail effect is the functioning of the brain to filter out unnecessary sound and focus on the sound you want to hear. It is nowhere says that you brain could somehow magically tinker with a bad recording to make it sound better. 

 

The "unnecessary" sound are the flaws in the recording - they are completely unrelated to the sense of the musical event that was captured. The "magic tinkering" is that your brain smoothly, adroitly, rejects those sounds as being "the next conversation" at the cocktail party - you don't hear them, subjectively.

 

I've had systems slip in and out of the required state hundreds and hundreds of times - when one can literally make it happen, on cue, then you've got something ...

 

Just now, STC said:

 

Totally irrelevant to what you are claiming is possible. This involves algorithm which will not materialize by resoldering the wires like you do AND hardware which the NAD which you are working on is even capable of.

 

 

What the brain reacts to are low level anomalies in the sound - these "give the game away"; distract your mind too much. Therefore, you tweak to remove those 'defects' - it's an exercise that can be repeated as much as one wants.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Trying to work together rather than 'pulling' back is important to solve the perceived problems.  For example (not to digress) but for example, the matter of 'jitter' often described as some kind of transfer of FM/PM noise through a digital system that is resynched at every step is 'nonsense', but the HONEST EE understanding that there might be a real problem somewhere is really necessary to solve the problem.  (BTW, most of the time the problem is analog ground/circuit noise -- but that is neither here nor there.)

 

I agree 100% with this, but not the earlier part of your post, . Unfortunately, that "neither here nor there" is just about everything - if one wants the best standard of playback ...

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Do you mean that EEs can really read minds? 

 

Ummm, no ...

 

32 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

It is the responsibility for both parties to be mature and understand their limitations.  This can make it easier to communicate.  However, that might be too much to ask when people have bought-in to an emotional position.

 

From my position, there is a self inflicted limitation in many people's thinking, in that they have rather primitive view of how people register the sound of music playing. For example, there is standard myth that there is something special about the sound of live, acoustic sound - and that it is impossible to replicate the sensation of this, especially using a simple stereo setup. IME this is completely wrong, people have convinced themselves of this "fake fact", and hence have limited their expectations of what playback can and should do.

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

When doing an audio system -- the neurological 'pattern's, hearing structures need not be understood -- that is the purpose of the production/recording/playback mechanisms to provide transparency of the original arti'sts intent.  How it works inside of the brain/body is outside of the scope of anyone but researchers.  As it is, we have a stereo/quad/10channel or whatever signal with the intentional design of an artist/recording engineer/God or whomever :-).

 

We know that correctly designed/utilized  electronics are now perfect, the digital signal processing as a tool (not always how it is used) is perfect, so we need to know where problems need to be solved.   What else is left?  the coupling of the signal to the hearing system.

 

Right now, we have headphones (which can provide a perfect 1:1 relationship), and we have speakers (which are only loosely and imperfectly coupled.)

The other things include how to deal with the issue of spatial relationships -- do you trust the artist/recording engineer to produce a proper stereo (or other) signal, or do you want to somehow modify it from the original artists design? 

 

 

All the complexity of that, and the mapping you then mention, is quite unnecessary: the hearing mind untangles all the detail, and creates an internal illusion of what was mastered. That is, if the playback chain is of a sufficiently high standard.

 

Now, one can disagree with those decisions made in the mastering - the obvious one, currently, is the absurd levels of dynamic compression applied so often; this  presents AS IF THE MUSIC IS SHOUTING AT YOU, ALL THE TIME!! Very wearisome, so if one is inclined and the material is worth the effort, then modifying the recording to largely reverse this is worthwhile.

 

For myself, the presentations of older, pre-loudness war recordings are fine - I can go with what they put out for the consumer.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

If you are slipping in and out then it got nothing to do with engineering (or the magical tweak as you call them). The beauty of engineering is that when you slip out you just revert to the previous state. Not very difficult and will not take 30 years to do that. The stuff you are describing is more appropriate under human psychology forum discussion. 

 

It is engineering - an audio system has to be in a very good state of tune - think of a violin or guitar here; where the audience can immediately pick up the bum notes; the instrument has lost tune, because of aggressive handling or change of humidity, say. A "well engineered" musical instrument would have an internal mechanism which registers the loss of tune, and 'recalibrates', on the fly - perfect tune, always . However, the musical playing crowd are not interested in that level of sophistication - they make do with manual fiddling ... which is how people like me are currently having to deal with the "bum notes" of audio rigs, .

 

Of course the engineering should be in place, to ensure a high standard at all times. But the raw state of the components is not adequate, currently - and part of my shtick is to explore that "bleeding edge" where a setup needs extra optimising, to make it fully stable and robust(!) while operating at peak SQ.

[fas42]

Some recordings are badly distorted, or very noisy. For a variety of reasons; a degraded master tape or a well worn 78 as the only archive we have available are a couple of obvious examples. So, how are we "to deal with that"? One method is to attempt to salvage the material, reverse the damage by some process - Cedar is a well known company doing that, and John's efforts here - to create a "new mastering".

 

Which may work for some folks. An alternative is to improve the capability of the playback rig, allowing one to "hear through the distortions and noise"'; IME this works extemely well, and means that none of the surviving capture of the musical event has to be discarded, or mutilated, to achieve a positive listening experience - it's a win-win.