Understanding the Audiophiles community.

[STC]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

Okay, then what exactly are you discussing?  I question that any listener can be "unbiased", even young music students.  

-Paul

 

 

If you were to record someone voice in mono( one channel only) and play them with a single speaker that is closest representation of the real voice. That's accuracy. 

 

Recording the same vocal and playing them with stereo system ,although often preferable by most due to other reasons, is not accurate.  But if the test is to puck which one sounds identical to the real voice the sound from the single speaker will be preferred. Just like mono beatles. Some like the mono version and some like the stereo version. To those who grew up listening to them with single speaker, they would probably like the mono although mono should be played with a single speaker like in a multichannel systems center speaker. 

 

This is a the main problem of reproducing accurate vocal. In stereo, that’s not possible because the brain can recognize that the source is not one but two. 

 

Here is the animation of a vocal ( or any single source). Reaching your ears. 

 

 

and when you try to get the same sound from your stereo speakers, you get

 

 

Credit: ISVR

 

So what accuracy is there you can get by using vocal or any sound to get accuracy?  Can cables, DSD, resoldering joints like Frank can correct the destructive double wave?  

 

Audiophiles do not want to acknowledge the very basic problem with the reproduction that a real live performance is not possible. 

 

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, STC said:

This is a the main problem of reproducing accurate vocal. In stereo, that’s not possible because the brain can recognize that the source is not one but two. 

 

...

 

Audiophiles do not want to acknowledge the very basic problem with the reproduction that a real live performance is not possible. 

 

 

This is the "problem" that is solved by the type of optimising that I do - the brain finds itself incapable of recognising that the source is two folded. Of course at some deeper level this is not true; but at the conscious, aware, subjective level the wool is pulled completely over the, err, ears; I can go to any place in the room, as lopsided a spot with respect to speaker that I want to try - and the person singing is ... right ... there; a precise place in the room, just as if there was a genuine set of vocal chords standing there.

 

The corollary is that the tonality is spot on; everything falls into place. It works, because the ear/brain is being fed enough good information, with sufficiently low level of bad, confusing mush - not from the room, but from the playback chain! I've experienced this behaviour 100's of times, over 35 years of playing with it - it's rock solid as a characteristic of what can happen.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This is the "problem" that is solved by the type of optimising that I do - the brain finds itself incapable of recognising that the source is two folded. Of course at some deeper level this is not true; but at the conscious, aware, subjective level the wool is pulled completely over the, err, ears; I can go to any place in the room, as lopsided a spot with respect to speaker that I want to try - and the person singing is ... right ... there; a precise place in the room, just as if there was a genuine set of vocal chords standing there.

 

The corollary is that the tonality is spot on; everything falls into place. It works, because the ear/brain is being fed enough good information, with sufficiently low level of bad, confusing mush - not from the room, but from the playback chain! I've experienced this behaviour 100's of times, over 35 years of playing with it - it's rock solid as a characteristic of what can happen.

 

That’s your power of imagination which i am not good at. But thanks for letting know how others also ignore the elephant in room. It is all in the mind. 

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

 

That’s your power of imagination which i am not food at. But thanks for letting know how others also ignore the elephant in room. It is all in the mind. 

 

You have difficulty understanding this because, a) some people will never, ever hear this illusion because their brains are wired differently; b) only rigs at a very high level of tune - the 0.001% of the population - get enough right ... a combination of a) and b) ensures that it's a very rare occurence, at the moment!

 

You can ignore the fact that this fell out of thin air for me, over 3 decades ago, if you like  - and was a huge shock ... "Why didn't anyone say you could get this sort of sound!" - playing "current science" games is not going to cut it ...

[STC]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You have difficulty understanding this because, a) some people will never, ever hear this illusion because their brains are wired differently; b) only rigs at a very high level of tune - the 0.001% of the population - get enough right ... a combination of a) and b) ensures that it's a very rare occurence, at the moment!

 

You can ignore the fact that this fell out of thin air for me, over 3 decades ago, if you like  - and was a huge shock ... "Why didn't anyone say you could get this sort of sound!" - playing "current science" games is not going to cut it ...

 

Those are the perfect waves. All the tweaking that you do will still be subjected to those destructive waves. That’s a problem. It exist. Whether it is a million dollar system or just few hundred dollars. That’s the problem. Ask yourself, would my tweak sound better if I can somehow get rid if the destructive wave?  Stare at the picture and ask yourself if your brain could ignore the destructive wave which altered the original signal so much then why it is still not able to ignore the little faults in the recordings which requires your intervention? Stare hard. Those are two perfect signals. That’s what make your system sound as they sound. That’s what stops your system from creating the live performance. 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

If you were to record someone voice in mono( one channel only) and play them with a single speaker that is closest representation of the real voice. That's accuracy. 

 

Recording the same vocal and playing them with stereo system ,although often preferable by most due to other reasons, is not accurate.  But if the test is to puck which one sounds identical to the real voice the sound from the single speaker will be preferred. Just like mono beatles. Some like the mono version and some like the stereo version. To those who grew up listening to them with single speaker, they would probably like the mono although mono should be played with a single speaker like in a multichannel systems center speaker. 

 

This is a the main problem of reproducing accurate vocal. In stereo, that’s not possible because the brain can recognize that the source is not one but two. 

 

Here is the animation of a vocal ( or any single source). Reaching your ears. 

 

 

and when you try to get the same sound from your stereo speakers, you get

 

 

Credit: ISVR

 

So what accuracy is there you can get by using vocal or any sound to get accuracy?  Can cables, DSD, resoldering joints like Frank can correct the destructive double wave?  

 

Audiophiles do not want to acknowledge the very basic problem with the reproduction that a real live performance is not possible. 

 

 

Well, thinking out loud here...  given that human speech recognition is inherently binaural, what you are describing is a point source; that is a very old argument indeed. Effectively, audiophile stereo listening replicates a point source, though of course, not perfectly. A line array time smears the heck out of things, and digital correction is not really ideal. As soon as the listener moves, even a tiny bit, the digital correction is off. 

 

So, yes - you are 100% correct. There is, of course, several other issues that come into play, such as voice discrimination in a noisy background. Stereo reproduction of a mono signal source can actually improve that.  But perhaps a different animal altogether. 

 

Yours, Paul 

 

 

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Those are the perfect waves. All the tweaking that you do will still be subjected to those destructive waves. That’s a problem. It exist. Whether it is a million dollar system or just few hundred dollars. That’s the problem. Ask yourself, would my tweak sound better if I can somehow get rid if the destructive wave?  Stare at the picture and ask yourself if your brain could ignore the destructive wave which altered the original signal so much then why it is still not able to ignore the little faults in the recordings which requires your intervention? Stare hard. Those are two perfect signals. That’s what make your system sound as they sound. That’s what stops your system from creating the live performance. 

 

 

See, you're playing the "current science" game ...

 

The mind understands how to discard, ignore the significance of the destructive wave - because, it wants the sound to make sense! If the cues are all in place then, yes, a switch flicks over inside one's head - and a convincing illusion forms.

 

My rig 35 years ago kept slipping in and out the necessary SQ, over and over again - it was 100% repeatable, there was a sequence of actions which guaranteed I could always get the switch to trigger. It was bloody amazing to experience; I still shake my head when it happens sometimes - as you say, simple science says it shouldn't be so ...

[STC]

13 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Well, thinking out loud here...  given that human speech recognition is inherently binaural, what you are describing is a point source; that is a very old argument indeed

 

Speech recognition is inherently binaural?  Never heard of this before. I know human hearing is binaural but what it got to do with speech recognition?  I am all ears for your explanation. 

[STC]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

See, you're playing the "current science" game ...

 

The mind understands how to discard, ignore the significance of the destructive wave - because, it wants the sound to make sense! If the cues are all in place then, yes, a switch flicks over inside one's head - and a convincing illusion forms.

 

My rig 35 years ago kept slipping in and out the necessary SQ, over and over again - it was 100% repeatable, there was a sequence of actions which guaranteed I could always get the switch to trigger. It was bloody amazing to experience; I still shake my head when it happens sometimes - as you say, simple science says it shouldn't be so ...

 

Please confine this to your FAS24 Magic thread. It is irrelevant unless you have a working demonstration that others can experiment with. In 35 years, we have moved a long way from analogue to digital. 

[Paul R]

28 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Speech recognition is inherently binaural?  Never heard of this before. I know human hearing is binaural but what it got to do with speech recognition?  I am all ears for your explanation. 

Oh? Sorry, I just assumed you were familiar with the subject.  Yes, human speech recognition is inherently binaural, so much so that if one has moderate hearing damage in one ear, the "good" ear will compensate so well that a subject can pass lab tests with degraded signals being provided to them. It's kind of amazing... 

 

Let me go see if I can find a reasonable web reference. 

 

Here's one out of the hundreds returned from a Google search. Didn't know the subject was so popular. I chose it because (a) I could access the abstract and (b) it was a little less dense than some of the others. 

 

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1601196

 

I knew about it from the 70's, when we put young sailors through testing to determine if they could identify submarine noise sources with slightly damaged hearing. P-3s have this ungodly 58hz noise from the engines...

[STC]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Well, thinking out loud here...  given that human speech recognition is inherently binaural, what you are describing is a point source; that is a very old argument indeed.

 

As you assumed that I do not know much about this subject. Could you explain how is Feuerstein paper support the statement that speech recognition is inherently binaural?  Wonder how phone users deal with this?  They seemed have no problem hearing the words nor recognize the speaker just by using one ear.   

 

As you assumed, I am unfamiliar with this subject. So any help with precise reference will be useful. Thank you. 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Oh? Sorry, I just assumed you were familiar with the subject.  Yes, human speech recognition is inherently binaural, so much so that if one has moderate hearing damage in one ear, the "good" ear will compensate so well that a subject can pass lab tests with degraded signals being provided to them. It's kind of amazing... 

 

Let me go see if I can find a reasonable web reference. 

 

Here's one out of the hundreds returned from a Google search. Didn't know the subject was so popular. I chose it because (a) I could access the abstract and (b) it was a little less dense than some of the others. 

 

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1601196

 

I knew about it from the 70's, when we put young sailors through testing to determine if they could identify submarine noise sources with slightly damaged hearing....

 

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Please confine this to your FAS24 Magic thread. It is irrelevant unless you have a working demonstration that others can experiment with. In 35 years, we have moved a long way from analogue to digital. 

 

It's going to be far easier for people to create their own ... note, that original rig used probably one of the best CDPs of that time, the top of the line Yamaha; which had smart digital volume, and a good output impedance; easily able to drive the power amp ... it was the simplicity of the setup that allowed it to happen, in large part.

 

Do you need me to point again to where I was conversing with people on other forums, who understood what I'm talking about?

[STC]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's going to be far easier for people to create their own ... note, that original rig used probably one of the best CDPs of that time, the top of the line Yamaha; which had smart digital volume, and a good output impedance; easily able to drive the power amp ... it was the simplicity of the setup that allowed it to happen, in large part.

 

Do you need me to point again to where I was conversing with people on other forums, who understood what I'm talking about?

 

You dont have a working product to show. You could have created a 3D performance like the real event 35 years ago but you cannot repeat that now. Without evidence there is nothing further to discuss. Please share actual evidence. Not what you do or should be done. I am asking you the same question if a visitor says a certain cable would have lifted by system’s performance another 5%. They did and I have a Black and Decker power code cables that I use as speakers cable and ask them to identify. The main speakers cable that I use was audioquest. Usually, the conversation and friendship ended there. 

[fas42]

It's not a working product, it's a process of 'debugging' a particular setup so that it achieves the necessary standard, in that particular environment - which I have done any number of times in the intervening years. Whether I have such a status right now is irrelevant - it's called, motivation ...

 

Games of identifying changes is silly, and pointless. What you're after is premium performance - you've found which brand and model of spark plug leads just happen to best suit your vehicle, playing "spot the slightly less optimum type!!" while driving serves no purpose, both for you, and the guest.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Whether I have such a status right now is irrelevant - it's called, motivation ...

 

It has been two years since I know you and still it is always WIP. You should know by now when to quit.   

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It has been two years since I know you and still it is always WIP. You should know by now when to quit.   

 

You know something ... ? Life, gets in the way at times ... I mighty pleased that, in contrast, you're having a good run ...

[STC]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

You know something ... ? Life, gets in the way at times ... I mighty pleased that, in contrast, you're having a good run ...

 

Yes. I understand. Hope you can resolve them soon. Meanwhile, my working product is here. I have not heard BACCH but I think I have a pretty solid product. 

 

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

As you assumed that I do not know much about this subject. Could you explain how is Feuerstein paper support the statement that speech recognition is inherently binaural?  Wonder how phone users deal with this?  They seemed have no problem hearing the words nor recognize the speaker just by using one ear.   

 

As you assumed, I am unfamiliar with this subject. So any help with precise reference will be useful. Thank you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I assumed you were familiar with the subject, but you indicated you had never head that speech recognition is binaural. A simple Google search found over a hundred papers talking about it.  What is it that you find difficult to believe about speech recognition being binaural?  Do you ever mistake a phone conversation for one in real life?

 

Try Facetime, or better yet, a high end video conference, you can easily mistake someone talking for a person who is physically present, at least you can in the better systems. These things are smart. They can even sonically locate a person speaking in a pretty close estimation of their "real" position. It is uncanny actually.  

 

Yes, as discussed, it is a point source, but it isn't done with a single speaker - more like a tunable phased array actually. And of course, beam forming or other similar technology for microphones. It's really a step up in virtual presence. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You know something ... ? Life, gets in the way at times ... I mighty pleased that, in contrast, you're having a good run ...

 

Aw common guys - play nice, please? 

 

[STC]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I assumed you were familiar with the subject, but you indicated you had never head that speech recognition is binaural. A simple Google search found over a hundred papers talking about it.  What is it that you find difficult to believe about speech recognition being binaural?  Do you ever mistake a phone conversation for one in real life?

 

Try Facetime, or better yet, a high end video conference, you can easily mistake someone talking for a person who is physically present, at least you can in the better systems. These things are smart. They can even sonically locate a person speaking in a pretty close estimation of their "real" position. It is uncanny actually.  

 

Yes, as discussed, it is a point source, but it isn't done with a single speaker - more like a tunable phased array actually. And of course, beam forming or other similar technology for microphones. It's really a step up in virtual presence. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

Yes, i have never heard about “speech recognition is binaural”. And still waiting for the source from you. 

 

You may also want to clarify about point source but let’s wait for your citation first. 

 

With each post we are throwing new questions. So let’s start afresh from here.  

[Paul R]

Did you read the link I included, or do a Google Search?  You obviously think it isn't, so the best I can say is to have a look at what is out there. 

Speech recognition is most definitely something that was evolved to be binaural in humans. There are even some indications that when you have 

damage in one ear, the other ear will help with the recognition patterns. That's astonishing. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[STC]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Did you read the link I included, or do a Google Search?  You obviously think it isn't, so the best I can say is to have a look at what is out there. 

Speech recognition is most definitely something that was evolved to be binaural in humans. There are even some indications that when you have 

damage in one ear, the other ear will help with the recognition patterns. That's astonishing. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

With respect, that paper was about the role of binaural hearing to aid speech recognition in noisy environment. What you said cannot be true as the role of binaural hearing is not for speech recognition. If only you could download the paper in full then you will know what the research was about. 

 

I disagree with you on this unless you can show me exact papers to back up your assertion. 

 

Can we move to point source?  

[Paul R]

You are welcome to disagree of course, but it would be kind of you to tell me where you are coming from. I did note that I learned this initially with the Navy in the 1970s, chasing submarines around the Atlantic and Med. 

 

I need to move on to bed actually, tired and kinda late. 

[fas42]

Sweet dreams ...

[fas42]

Just to let everyone know - a good rig can present every vocal capture on recordings so that it's "as good as the real thing" - a heavy rock number, the instruments are going beserk, the vocalist is screaming his lungs out; yet, his voice is still obviously that of a person who could happen to be in the room with you. This is marvellous stuff, and a delight to the ears ...