Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[esldude]

15 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

"Dave" Katz?   DAVE Katz?

🤣😂🤣😂🤣

 

You mean BOB Katz, who I have met personally and own some of his books.

 

Figures an audiophile would get the name of a nationally known mastering engineer wrong.

 

Is it Bob?

As someone who does a little recording I think of him as Mr. Katz.  But then we have one of those acronyms involved again which will depress you as I'm over 40.  Maybe far enough over my memory falters sometimes.

[The_K-Man]

23 minutes ago, esldude said:

Is it Bob?

As someone who does a little recording I think of him as Mr. Katz.  But then we have one of those acronyms involved again which will depress you as I'm over 40.  Maybe far enough over my memory falters sometimes.

 

Yes, it's Bob. 

 

Both the K-system of loudness metering and the K- in my handle are the first letters of our last names.  

[Sal1950]

On 1/13/2019 at 9:31 AM, ralphfcooke said:

Given the significant differences in the sound  between even very high end speakers;

which swamp any differences in the intervening electronics, why aren't we more concerned about

getting this right?, rather than trying to decide 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'

wrt different DACs, cables, etc?

What the hell was this thread about, what a mess it's been made of.

Oh yea, I remember, see above

[esldude]

I blame @John Dyson for getting us of topic so early. I don't hold it against him. He's some interesting things to contribute.  I think they need their own thread.

 

The op is exactly right. The speaker is by a wide margin our biggest issue. Why isn't it paid more attention? The circle of confusion as described by Toole.  He and co-researchers have made a good start. But in the world of speakers everyone still has their own piece of the elephant. Ironic that by embracing blind testing the blind man could see. Instead he remains blind and goes about this speaker business by feel.

😚

[fas42]

There is a circle of confusion - but it's not centred on the speaker ... .

 

Rule of thumb: the more the subjective signature of a rig varies as different loudspeakers are tried, the more the electronics of the chain need to be looked at more closely - the end result of 'correct' optimising is that you hear only the recording, and not the "characteristics of the speaker" - if it is truly a high end, transparent chain, how can it not be that way ... ?

[John Dyson]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

There is a circle of confusion - but it's not centred on the speaker ... .

 

Rule of thumb: the more the subjective signature of a rig varies as different loudspeakers are tried, the more the electronics of the chain need to be looked at more closely - the end result of 'correct' optimising is that you hear only the recording, and not the "characteristics of the speaker" - if it is truly a high end, transparent chain, how can it not be that way ... ?

 

You are implying the futility of total technical perfection -- it is best to have the equipment that makes the owner perfectly happy instead :-).

 

The best thing that an ideal speaker can normally do is to be clean enough to detect differences more clearly (and not over-enhance the differences as a freq response peak or distortion might do.)  Even if you DO compensate the freq response of a speaker system there are mathmatical limitations as to how accurate you can make the timing & freq response fixes.  Just because of all of the variables it is difficult to make an audibly perfect accuate transducer -- and speaker systems have even more variables and larger scale problems (e.g. mass, varying environment.)  Equalizers don't fix things as well as freq response might imply -- EQs might help, but even a perfect equalizer cannot fix all of the problems.)  DSP equalization can help -- generally having more degrees of freedom than an analog EQ, but there are practical (and some mathematical) limits.

 

(Here is a simple example of all of the complexity that real engineering has vs even a somewhat knowedgeable tech might not know -- did you know that the components of impedance -- resistance and reactance are not normally mathematically independent?  For normal circuitry, there is a simple (but sometimes difficult to calculate) relationship -- most people don't know it. There are so many subtle facts in engineering & physics that makes the world harder to deal with than it might seem.) 

 

So, simplify the environment, minimize the depths of the resonances, decrease the mass, etc.  Even the most expensive OR the very best peaker systems are all going to sound different.

The best that can normally be done -- find a clean sounding speaker system that the user/owner likes best.  Headphones are easier to make accurate, but only decrease the scale of the problem.  Even with headphones, there are geometry issues which make perfection a subjective notion.  (A flat response transducer will not necessary produce an accurate representation in human hearing.)

I am not claiming that 'all is lost', but the only perfection in a practical large mass transducer is going to be that the owner is perfectly happy.

The listener is best to find equipment that makes themselves happy and listen to it -- or enjoy the hobby of continual attempts of getting closer to the desired sense of perfection.  (JUST MY OPINION.)

 

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

You are implying the futility of total technical perfection -- it is best to have the equipment that makes the owner perfectly happy instead :-).

 

Not at all. IME, if I hear the recording and only the recording then I'm fully satisfied - subjectively, there's enough there to deliver everything to make the experience worthwhile.

 

Quote

The best thing that an ideal speaker can normally do is to be clean enough to detect differences more clearly (and not over-enhance the differences as a freq response peak or distortion might do.)  Even if you DO compensate the freq response of a speaker system there are mathmatical limitations as to how accurate you can make the timing & freq response fixes.  Just because of all of the variables it is difficult to make an audibly perfect accuate transducer -- and speaker systems have even more variables and larger scale problems (e.g. mass, varying environment.)  Equalizers don't fix things as well as freq response might imply -- EQs might help, but even a perfect equalizer cannot fix all of the problems.)  DSP equalization can help -- generally having more degrees of freedom than an analog EQ, but there are practical (and some mathematical) limits.

 

(Here is a simple example of all of the complexity that real engineering has vs even a somewhat knowedgeable tech might not know -- did you know that the components of impedance -- resistance and reactance are not normally mathematically independent?  For normal circuitry, there is a simple (but sometimes difficult to calculate) relationship -- most people don't know it. There are so many subtle facts in engineering & physics that makes the world harder to deal with than it might seem.) 

 

Yes, speakers are 'messy' things - but in my explorations their misdemeanours fall below the radar if the rest of the rig is working properly. How this is 'expressed' is that the speakers become "invisible" - it is then impossible to register that the sound is coming from the drivers - scary stuff the first time it happens, !

 

Quote

 

So, simplify the environment, minimize the depths of the resonances, decrease the mass, etc.  Even the most expensive OR the very best peaker systems are all going to sound different.

 

 

Ummm, they will sound the same - the best system I came across recently, that was not my own, used top notch Dynaudio speakers, the best Bryston amplifiers - a long way from what I use ... and this system nailed the recordings. The sense of the event, the tonality was a big tick - 'natural', effortless; it was all about the music, nothing about the equipment.

[Ralf11]

There is a circle of confusion - and it's centred on one poster

[fas42]

Buy a Life in a Vann poster, before they are all sold out,

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Buy a Life in a Vann poster, before they are all sold out,

 

 

Surely that's "Life in a Venn"

[fas42]

Blame this mob! ... https://www.spreadshirt.com/life+in+a+vann+posters-D5bd17fe120517674e83f6a87?sellable=5

[John Dyson]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

 

Ummm, they will sound the same - the best system I came across recently, that was not my own, used top notch Dynaudio speakers, the best Bryston amplifiers - a long way from what I use ... and this system nailed the recordings. The sense of the event, the tonality was a big tick - 'natural', effortless; it was all about the music, nothing about the equipment.

You are making my point -- you are happy with what you heard -- I guarantee you that someone else will not think so.  I spend hours and hours working on audio stuff -- using my finest ability (which isn't good enough) to discern the smallest imperfections...  I doubt that there is ANYTHING which will be 'perfect' to me -- unless it is wired directly into me, or I am there at the performance.

My project sucks -- because the training does odd things to how audio is perceived.

All I know is that the math, physics/etc along with any normal speaker design isn't going to 'nail' the general reproduction of music.

It can sound 'good', but 'nailing it' is an impossibility.  (Headphones come closer, but still don't nail it.)

 

I don't need to use experience -- just knowing what goes into the design of the equipment.

 

John

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

All I know is that the math, physics/etc along with any normal speaker design isn't going to 'nail' the general reproduction of music.

It can sound 'good', but 'nailing it' is an impossibility.  (Headphones come closer, but still don't nail it.)

 

I don't need to use experience -- just knowing what goes into the design of the equipment.

 

John

 

You are not right, at least for part of the population - there is a standard of SQ which triggers the brain into experiencing a convincing auditory illusion; if you haven't personally come across this, it may be because A) your brain is not wired for allowing it, or B) the standard of playback has never been good enough.

[esldude]

Hmmmmmm, if we can't agree the speaker is the biggest problem in the reproduction chain I'm not sure what to think.  

 

OTOH, anyone not discussing this issue, telling us it isn't a problem with no data or evidence is off topic. 

[fas42]

Speakers are the biggest problem in the obvious, physical ways, that are easily measurable.

 

They are relatively unimportant in the subjective registering of the sound, when areas of the remainder of the reproduction chain, which are difficult to measure, are behaving correctly.

 

We're back with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy - or, "I'm only going to look for the causes under the strong street light - because, I can see better there!"

 

[STC]

46 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I doubt that there is ANYTHING which will be 'perfect' to me -- unless it is wired directly into me, or I am there at the performance.

 

Even if you a stereo recording wired directly into you, it will still sound imperfect. The problem is not in the recording or the speakers. It is the lack of understanding how human hear sound.

[STC]

25 minutes ago, esldude said:

Hmmmmmm, if we can't agree the speaker is the biggest problem in the reproduction chain I'm not sure what to think.  

 

OTOH, anyone not discussing this issue, telling us it isn't a problem with no data or evidence is off topic. 

 

Listen to Stradivarius violin  ( from a fixed distance) being played in a gym, bathroom concert hall, cave, open field, in your bed room, kitchen and etc etc. 

 

None of them is going to sound similar and only one or two going to sound great. Replace the violin with a boom box and listen again. At the same loudness level; the best sounding venue will be the same for the violin and boombox. So which one should be more important? Room acoustics or speakers?

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Speakers are the biggest problem in the obvious, physical ways, that are easily measurable.

 

They are relatively unimportant in the subjective registering of the sound, when areas of the remainder of the reproduction chain, which are difficult to measure, are behaving correctly.

 

We're back with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy - or, "I'm only going to look for the causes under the strong street light - because, I can see better there!"

 

If you were a student of mine, I'd have you stay after school and write 500 times:

 

I will not misapply the McNamara fallacy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

 

 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Listen to Stradivarius violin  ( from a fixed distance) being played in a gym, bathroom concert hall, cave, open field, in your bed room, kitchen and etc etc. 

 

None of them is going to sound similar and only one or two going to sound great. Replace the violin with a boom box and listen again. At the same loudness level; the best sounding venue will be the same for the violin and boombox. So which one should be more important? Room acoustics or speakers?

Speakers. 

 

You've gone and done the dreaded false equivalency here.  

 

I agree the room is very, very important.  I'd place it second after the speakers in things we can control on the playback end. 

 

[fas42]

So, how do we hear sound?

 

... and a second question: will a fake piano always sound fake? Before you answer, consider listening to this video ...

 

 

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

If you were a student of mine, I'd have you stay after school and write 500 times:

 

I will not misapply the McNamara fallacy.

 

 

Sorry about that ... everyone should know it only applies to wars ...

[fas42]

Everyone knows tyres are the most important thing about cars - because they're the bits that make sure the car actually follows the road; they're so obviously, in your face, necessary! ... all one has to do is use the 'perfect' tyre, and any car will be a dream to drive ...

 

It's a good thing to keep in mind, that the obvious things are also the most important things.

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Everyone knows tyres are the most important thing about cars - because they're the bits that make sure the car actually follows the road; they're so obviously, in your face, necessary! ... all one has to do is use the 'perfect' tyre, and any car will be a dream to drive ...

 

It's a good thing to keep in mind, that the obvious things are also the most important things.

 

Equally important to tires: Alignment.  A good alignment will make a refrigerator driveable.  A great alignment will help you read the road and the interaction between your car and it, and will keep you out of trouble.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

You are not right, at least for part of the population - there is a standard of SQ which triggers the brain into experiencing a convincing auditory illusion; if you haven't personally come across this, it may be because A) your brain is not wired for allowing it, or B) the standard of playback has never been good enough.

I have done/designed SQ/QS decoders,  and hear the effect.  But it isn't audible perfection either.  (in fact, SQ/QS aren't really that good performers of the quad illusion.)  I know all about the math/etc involved -- in fact my DHDA DolbyA compaitlbe decoder uses similar math (yes ,processing in hybrid/90deg terms -- similar to some of the QS/SQ math.) (If you know much about the math for gain control -- only primitive gain control or slow gain slew schems do the simple 'gain*signal' type operation.  Simple changing gain causes IMD splats all over the place -- probably one reason why digital gain control things somtimes don't sound very good.)

 

All I can tell you -- is that human hearing is subject to brain-processing, and it is amazing how much a person can be fooled into something sounding similar, but it really isn't.  A good example is the perception of spoken language sounds for non-native speakers.

 

John

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

All I can tell you -- is that human hearing is subject to brain-processing, and it is amazing how much a person can be fooled into something sounding similar, but it really isn't.  A good example is the perception of spoken language sounds for non-native speakers.

 

John

 

Which is precisely what one is exploiting in the "art of audio conjuring" - you're making the sound get close enough to the "real thing" that the the brain chooses to be fooled - this is not "cheating"; it's making sure that the essential message of the event captured ticks all the boxes - worrying about flaws in the presentation is like someone counting the floorboards on the stage, when Phantom of the Opera is full flight.