Blind tests can be unreliable.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, STC said:

 However, I find using quick AB method usually would not reveal the difference readily when the change is from long RT to shorter RT. This temporary inability can be explained by how our ears adjust to filter out extra reverbs and takes time to adjust when a sudden reduced reverbs takes place..

 

And I agree entirely. The mind "fills the gaps" - it 'knows what it should sound like', and automatically compensates when something is momentarily missing. And for any length of time, in some situations - pipe organ makers for ages have exploited this human ability; the instrument 'fakes' a very low note being played, by using a combination of pipes to mimic the right acoustic signals - the brain "hears" a lower note happening.

[fas42]

As in, pipe organ makers a hundred years ago were smoking the "right stuff"?

[fas42]

And you are caught up in the usual audiophile bind that only "proper playback hardware" could possibly deliver convincing sound - the ego trap. Only a Porsche could deliver Porsche performance type of thing ... well, if someone drove an older model of such they would find them very, very deficient in many areas, by modern standards - but brand charisma rings loud in many people's heads ... .

 

All audio gear uses standard parts, with various levels of bling added to tease the buyer - the cheap stuff falls down because too many corners are cut - if one knows what corners to address, with a value for money approach, then the Phoenix of competent sound arises, yet again.

 

You see, Virginia, there is no magic in audio ... really ...

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Says he, who explicitly refuses to set up a system which could create some sense of the lower frequencies.

(I now see that STC already said similar)

Frank, maybe we start to see your game; you are creating all kinds of excuses to validate your ghetto blaster which isn't even used. You wouldn't dare to because it may invalidate your illusion. You make up more strong excuses first ad infinitum.

 

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bqn/www/Personen/Terhardt/ter/top/acbass.html

 

Having heard many systems with impressive subwoofers do a poor job of creating the sense of a pipe organ playing, I prefer my methods.

 

[fas42]

 

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

Don't bluff. Your Sharp cannot even touch 60Hz without loosing few dBs. Stop dreaming about pipe organ accurate reproduction via your speakers.

 

Of course it doesn't reproduce low bass frequencies well! But those very low notes are a very, very minor part of what makes pipe organ recitals impressive - it's the rich interplay of the harmonics right through the spectrum, and the space in which the instrument is playing that creates the majesty, the "power" of the sound. Tackling this complexity of sound field is beyond the capability of most rigs - but when the system gets it right, you know it ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, STC said:

Firstly, I now believe that we have three different auditory scenes that we are familiar with. The first is the live sound. Natural sound which originates from  a single source. Then we have stereo which is a crude method to reproduce the sound field of the real performance. Lastly, we have headphones. These three are not the same but IMO we have learned to recognize them separately and identify them for what they are. What we are trying to do now is associating real sound within the realm of what you are familiar with. How real or fake they are is how well they fit into your preferred domain.

 

Conventional quality of stereo is "crude"; optimised stereo SQ presents an experience which matches the perceived qualities of natural sound - to all intents and purposes it's real; because there is nothing audible that hints that it's fake. The listening mind won't be fooled by anything else than a very high standard, which a standard ensemble of components is almost guaranteed not to meet.

 

8 hours ago, STC said:

But we have now learned to associate a sound with three different auditory scenes. Real natural sound, stereo and headphones. The difference between fake and real depends on how to sound is perceived. A real sound originates from a single source. Cues to the pinna, the delays of left and right ears plus the reverberation AND your visual cue identify them to exist. In sound reproduction, via loudspeakers and headphones, we do not have a visual cue. Sound exists in space where the brain tells them that it should be there as sound emitting from the phantom center is fake. How are we ever going to overcome the fundamental difference that distinguishes fake and real? I am afraid the fakeness of sound reproduction is just not a matter of how accurate the original sound is reproduced but more importantly how well it stimulates the natural hearing HRTF fully.

 

Use the force, Luke ... when enough boxes are ticked, the listening mind does the rest, completely automatically. It's a remarkable experience, hearing a setup cross the threshhold; and then, unfortunately, slipping back out of it ...

 

8 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

@sementepost on Rumsey's talk made me think that we could be chasing the wrong thing after all. The uncanny valley mentioned there was something that I came across quite often and it could well be true. 

 

 

 

I haven't watched yet, but I suspect nearly all high end systems lie within the "uncanny valley".

[fas42]

Peter, you will have to do better than just trying to bully your way through.

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Anyway my subject is not about sub-low (although easy to make it that), but I reject that it is sub-relevant like Frank's stance. Actually it is crucial.

 

I only got very good, personal feedback on how unimportant it is most of the time, subjectively, some years ago when the previous rig which did a have a proper, separate subwoofer as part of the package, lost its bass completely now and again. Plenty of experimenting going on, and some of the soldering had poor physical integrity - move something the wrong way, and a joint providing functionality let go.

 

Meaning zero subwoofer action ... and I didn't pick it. Sometimes 2 or 3 albums would go by, until something that really, really needed the bass foundation was put on - and then the penny dropped ...

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Now let's talk further from normal context. Not sure how. But there's a difference in rejecting subwoofers on one hand and ignoring the fact that sub-low representation surely can exist on the other.

IOW we agree long gone and you know it. Now accept and move on (elsewhere).

 

Peter out. 

 

Yes, the lowest frequencies can be accurately reproduced, .

[fas42]

20 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

Generally, a gentleman can sense  what others think about him and take the necessary steps to address or avoid them. Here, we have Fas who got nothing. Not even a proper working  low fi set but talks about getting the sound right simply by repeating the same old mantra quoted from somewhere. In the end, the thread often gets hijacked and as usual none of his stuff would not have anything to do with the OP. 

 

 

 

Which is why mankind gets stuck in a rut, and it takes generational change to move on - wait for the old buggers to drop off the perch, because they refuse to change their position.

 

A rig doesn't need to reproduce the very low bass for convincing sound - if a pipe organ plays a whole piece which is deliberately written to never use a note below 100Hz, will the real instrument sound low fi? And forget about room rumblings ...

[fas42]

The more transparent a rig, the more sensitive it typically is to making changes. And a large part of the reason is that the physical environment is disturbed in the activity of making the change - just the moving of cables to access where you need to make the alteration can be enough to "do the damage".

 

What I've learned is to be extremely circumspect - if you alter, do the absolute bare minumum, in a physical sense especially, to actually implement - you aiming to hear the result of doing one thing, and one thing only. Otherwise, it's a combo of factors that you are hearing the impact of - "stuff has to settle down", again, and you are vulnerable to getting 'wrong answers'.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Which you do not have. A Sharp mini combo speaker is not transparent. 

 

Ahh, I forgot the magic that occurs when the Right Brand name is applied to a cabinet - there's a mystical transformation that occurs, that increases by a magnitude the SQ that can ever be possible, as soon as the right logo is attached ...

 

We will carefully ignore that fact that the drivers often come out of a big factory, that spits them out to suit a large range of 'boutique' makers, as well as the big boys.

 

Quote

 

 

It has been 30 years for you to see the light.

 

Don't rely on your brain to do the job because it doing rather poorly here. It can't even keep on topic and starts to pollute this thread with your fantasy. This thread is not about your brain or your imaginary tweak. But then I feel sorry for you. What can a man with no working audio system could contribute other than hijacking others thread. 

 

ST, you're losing the plot rather badly at this point - you can't even keep track of the fact that the NAD rig has been working quite nicely this week - did a rather pleasant job on a pipe organ plus orchestra CD last go ... care to know what it was?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, KingRex said:

Why does it have to be blind.  I come home, fire up the system.  Then I go and walk the dog.  I get back and work out to music.  Then I pour a drink and relax.  I hope most people are here to enjoy the music.  That's what I'm doing.  Its during the relaxation  time I react to what I like or dislike. If its good I usually leave it alone.  If its not I take note what's wrong, then change it back to original.   If its still wrong, well???????

 

In short, I think people are to quick to judge or rushing to form an opinion.  In those situations I fully buy into bias having lots of influence on what you think you hear. 

 

Yep, it's about the dislike factor. A barely good enough rig will fluctuate in the subjective sense, microscopically sensitive to things like the level of inebriation, to a couple of decimal places worth - if a rig is in a good place, then no matter how you feel, and what you throw at it, it will still sound like 'music'. Most systems live constantly in a state of unstable equilibrium, where ridiculous things matter - getting them into the zone where it always pleases is the goal, and then one can truly say, "Just enjoy the music!"

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

 

Nothing you could show that i am not aware of. 

 

Help! You didn't even follow that I was talking of the CD, the recording, I was playing - NOT the amplifier.

 

Your fantasy is that electronic parts have to certified to be of audiophile standard, before they "can sound good". Which is why the audio industry is currently in this awful mess, where people outside it think those in it are quite mad .. which seems to be partially true, .

 

If one actually applies a little bit of intelligence to the situation, then one can do the experiments to find out what really matters - and the results don't fit the stereotypes.

 

 

 

[fas42]

Sorry I didn't get back earlier on this - was taking a break, .

 

It was this,

 

 

A strange, close to zero recording information on it, disk - not even the orchestra!

 

In fact, it's an almost anonymous release of this,

 

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Berühmte-Orgelwerke-Des-Barock-Famous-Baroque-Organ-Pieces/release/11334288