Bits is bits?

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Ok....lets start with a classic......Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells 2003 ...I stream mine from Qobuz in CD resolution

 

Right from the get go this album should be lighting up your room and ‘Introduction’ will do just that. With massive vibrancy and great musical power it should sound hugely energetic and exciting. The soundstage is nicely balanced with excellent width and depth. Tonal colours are accurate and dense Not so much height ceiling wise but the soundstage is nicely layered with some instruments set higher than others. 

Play the whole album cos its all good, but I’ll highlight a few tracks

Next try Basses.  This track will show you how well your system weaves rhythms. 

Wild, exciting, exuberant, intense introduction...some lovely mid-bass power and rhythmic involvement of the highest order. There’s a purposeful lack of focus in the soundstage that creates a sort of cloud of sound, which then resolves into Chrystal clear and highly focussed guitar which servers beautifully to highlight your system’s treble abilities, transparency and ability to handle high high-frequency energy. There’re lovely gentle guitar notes with oodles of timbre, demonstrating your system’s ability to portray warmth

 

Thrash....The Strummed guitar is brilliant, lovely driving rhythm like a warm, stiff breeze. 

 

Russian...and more lovely acoustic guitar; full, warm, centre stage then we’re offffff

Listen to that soundstage.....full of atmosphere, the room full of deep rolling bass played low with other instruments layered above. Instruments introduce stage left then gradually take their place in the soundstage. The music energises the room 

 

Caveman lovely bit of fun....lovely solid beat and entertaining sound stage with various characters popping up everywhere.....then it gets serious....speed, dynamics, pace, rhythm, timing....if this does get you moving, book a medical. 

 

Ambient guitars possibly some of the nicest ambient music you’ll ever hear because there’s simply oodles of emotion and aural beauty...and beautiful use of the huge spaces offered by the sound stage. 

 

Finally Sailor’s Hornpipe 2003....nothing more to say!

 

So there you are. The above album contains tremendous soundstage width and depth  and demonstrates that height differentiation in a recording is a system/recording attribute  (not all systems will resolve height...its one of the last things to appear during system optimisation.  All in all a very nice album with a tremendous presentation that is key when listening to the music. I will however post a couple of albums that have considerably more height content, whenever I come across them. 

 

Which indeed shows you have full understanding of what audio replay can conjure up ... interestingly, all the examples you mention don't overlap with what I've got, in albums. When I want to experience a massive musical roller coaster, I put on something like Jarre's Zoolook, which plays with just about every aspect of spatial presentation, and dynamics.

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

OK, I had a hunch I remembered which album I was ‘quoting’ and I found it first try. 

Again Qobuz in standard resolution 

 

Shpongle - Tales of the Inexpressible 

So if you want a soundstage that fills your room, goes floor to ceiling and beyond and has electronic generated tones that do the floor-to-ceiling thing, here it is. This album is about music,  but a lot of the artistry lies in its presentation. Soundstages are massive, instruments and tones highly agile and there are sections of this album where the acoustics are so different and altered they’ll feel like they’re altering your consciousness.  A good percentage of this album happens at ceiling height. 

 

I have a suspicion that the ability to hear height Involves the pinna of the ear as much as the stereo system as it helps to rest your head against the chair’s headrest when listening, which has the effect of tipping your head back slightly, which really allows you to hear the height element perfectly. It isn’t however about tipping the head, as only part of the music happens at ceiling height...the rest is divided between floor and ceiling. All tipping your head back very slightly does is allow you to differentiate and therefore hear the height element much more clearly. 

 

 

I had forgotten about this album

 You can even hear it jumping around, and up and down with headphones.

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

You keep ignoring, deliberately, the fact that I only took audio really seriously for a very short period, for less than a year after the digital era started,

 

OK. I didn't know that. I thought you have been seriously soldering and desoldering all these years. Now the "35 years" makes sense.

 

I am not critical against you. I am the only one around here who do not look at equipment and visit everyone who would like to share their system unlike some senior audiophiles who only visits when it fits their agenda. The disagreement I have with you is that you have nothing concrete to show. And it is frustrating when you make comments which doesn't help. I even asked you to list one equipment and show me which part you soldered and I will do the same but you evaded that question.  You talk about stereo playback by using mostly pan-potted mono and insist their are absolute reference. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

"The Storm" is track 6 in the album that I posted a photo of.

Even esldude will concede that it is possible to give height information with appropriate microphone replacement.

A group of us heard the height in this track via a pair of big Nelson Pass 100W Class A monoblocks. 

 A nearby lightning strike in the recording made us jump a little involuntarily.

 You can even notice the height of the rolling thunder as it moves across the sky via a good headphone amplifier set up.

 I had this track near the end of a compilation CD and momentarily dozed off while listening on the bed with headphones on.

I woke up looking through the window for the storm to realise it was bright blue sky outside.

 

 Perhaps your gear isn't as good as you believe it is ? 

 

We have been off topic for well more than a page already.

 

Can stereo encode height information? The answer is NO.

 

Can you perceive height information during playback? Yes. And I have given the reason why that is so. We tend to localize HF and certain sound like birds chirpings or thunder storm to be coming from above us. In some system the effect is better than the others. A lower ceiling or ceilings with diffusers can reflect the sound and magnify the perception of height to sound(s) usually associated to be coming from above. The height of the speakers/tweeters can also contribute to this perception. 

 

Speaking of thunder storms, I leave where a thunder rumble can continue for  more than 15 seconds long none stops. This is usually a low frequencies and would rattle the windows. There is no apparent direction for this rumble but each time I here them the only place I look is outside the window at the cloud above the mountains.

[STC]

10 hours ago, JanRSmit said:

Basically our hearing system had little if any capability to hear in vertical direction.

 

My understanding is we learn about vertical direction based on spectral modification. 

[STC]

11 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

In nature, a point source sound reaches both ears at different times, obviously with a different phase and with a different amplitude. The brain checks the signals, sees they belong to the same source because of the time/amplitude/frequency relationship and it makes  conscious a sound emanating from that single location, with the location’s information relative to you.

 

What is the major difference ( if any) between a point source sound in nature and a point source sound from ONE loudspeaker? What mechanism do think capable of telling the brain this sound is from a speaker and therefore do not localize it?  

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I am not critical against you. I am the only one around here who do not look at equipment and visit everyone who would like to share their system unlike some senior audiophiles who only visits when it fits their agenda. The disagreement I have with you is that you have nothing concrete to show. And it is frustrating when you make comments which doesn't help. I even asked you to list one equipment and show me which part you soldered and I will do the same but you evaded that question.  You talk about stereo playback by using mostly pan-potted mono and insist their are absolute reference. 

 

And it's frustrating for me too when I don't have something right there, right now, to show! So far I've found the typical audiophile hardest to get on board, because they're usually looking for the wrong things - the spouses are the ones who clap, because they appreciate the lack of distortion in what they're hearing. At the moment the aim is to get an easily transportable rig, which is so simple that it's relatively easy to thoroughly 'debug', and to make robust against the electrical environment it may encounter - i.e., the results as posted in the Simple Media Server thread I started.

 

Your remark about which part I soldered again shows you misunderstand my approach - nothing I do has the smell of a ritual behaviour; they are all the results of finding where something is weakly implemented, to the point where it has an audible impact ... I have repeated over and over again that I always hardwire all the links in the playback chain - that's a perfect example of a soldering that I find critical; but you choose to disregard this, because it doesn't suit you to have to deal with this requirement.

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, STC said:

 

What is the major difference ( if any) between a point source sound in nature and a point source sound from ONE loudspeaker? What mechanism do think capable of telling the brain this sound is from a speaker and therefore do not localize it?  

 

Why the magic apparently happens is that in high SQ rigs, or in a listening setup carefully optimised for hearing soundstage, that the acoustic information which provides the clues as to location and depth is so clear, so precisely defined, that it overrides the usual giveaways that the speaker driver is the source - the brain has to make a decision about where the sound is coming from; and this is where the concept of a switch comes in - there is no halfway house as far as the mind is concerned; it's either coming from the driver, or, it's coming from somewhere behind it. Even if the sound is a vocal close to microphone, in a very low reverb soundbooth, it still doesn't sound like merely the speaker working; it still has a sense of space.

[STC]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Why the magic apparently happens is that in high SQ rigs, or in a listening setup carefully optimised for hearing soundstage, that the acoustic information which provides the clues as to location and depth is so clear, so precisely defined, that it overrides the usual giveaways that the speaker driver is the source - the brain has to make a decision about where the sound is coming from; and this is where the concept of a switch comes in - there is no halfway house as far as the mind is concerned; it's either coming from the driver, or, it's coming from somewhere behind it. Even if the sound is a vocal close to microphone, in a very low reverb soundbooth, it still doesn't sound like merely the speaker working; it still has a sense of space.

 

 

I said ONE speaker.

[fas42]

 

14 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

I said ONE speaker.

 

When one is merely inches away from a speaker on one side of a stereo, directly in front of it, you are effectively listening to one speaker - if someone were to disconnect the other speaker while I was was listening this way, I'm sure it would be essentially an invisible operation, as far as the ears were concerned.

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

When one is merely inches away from a speaker on one side of a stereo, directly in front of it, you are effectively listening to one speaker - if someone were to disconnect the other speaker while I was was listening this way, I'm sure it would be essentially an invisible operation, as far as the ears were concerned.

 

The question is :-  What is the major difference ( if any) between a sound event point source sound in nature and a sound event point source sound from ONE loudspeaker? What mechanism do think capable of telling the brain this sound is from a speaker and therefore do not localize it?

 

Edit: Point source is incorrect in this context.

[plissken]

On 8/6/2019 at 2:57 PM, Indydan said:

I found this article through Darko. The author makes a case that it isn't a case of Bits are bits. I wonder what others think?

 

 

https://www.upscaleaudio.com/pages/bits-is-bits?fbclid=IwAR20r8A_bUYGlDjzsbFfEKzNAB06vDsYOgTf_TUf7xXwpps6-kdggIay4bU

 

Ugh. The 'author' delves right into the 'Antenna Affect'. For balanced digital cabling Siemons and Texas Instruments have 100% debunked this and there are threads where the relevant papers are linked and also quoted from.

 

Digital audio is highly buffered and playback continues even if a cable is removed.

 

If any here are Tidal users just login to Tidal, start playback and give it 30-45 seconds. Pull the cable and enjoy uninterrupted playback.

 

Did the sound improve, degrade, or stay the same.

 

 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

The question is :-  What is the major difference ( if any) between a sound event point source sound in nature and a sound event point source sound from ONE loudspeaker? What mechanism do think capable of telling the brain this sound is from a speaker and therefore do not localize it?

 

Edit: Point source is incorrect in this context.

 

The quality of the 'reproduction' - the original has 100% integrity, the loudspeaker some number less than that - below some, 'magic', percentage the brain says, "no way is this what it's pretending to be" - and 'points' to the speaker.

[plissken]

On 8/7/2019 at 9:29 PM, sandyk said:

 On several occasions I have offered to provide you proof of my main claim but you have made it very clear, as several other members have done, that you are not interested in any proof that I have offered to provide.

 My main claim has always been that Music files with identical checksums do not necessarily sound the same, even when stored in the same folder of the same storage media, or for that matter,  Video files with identical checksums look exactly the same either.

 

I'll offer again to setup a testing rig and operate it remotely where you don't know what is in play. You supply me the .wav files.

 

You keep not wanting to perform this sort of control however.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'll offer again to setup a testing rig and operate it remotely where you don't know what is in play. You supply me the .wav files.

 

You keep not wanting to perform this sort of control however.

 

I don't need your ill prepared and biased tests.

 I already have verification by another 4 high profile qualified members in the last 4 months alone., and NOT just with .wav files either.

The same mechanism affects Digital Video as well, and BOTH A and V at the same time with Digital Video files.

 In other words, both your ears and eyes are telling you the files are different despite what the checksums may insist..

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I don't need your ill prepared and biased tests.

 I already have verification by another 4 high profile qualified members in the last 4 months alone., and NOT just with .wav files either.

The same mechanism affects Digital Video as well, and BOTH A and V at the same time with Digital Video files.

 In other words, both your ears and eyes are telling you the files are different despite what the checksums may insist..

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

[plissken]

Ethernet cable bullshit: WireWorld StarLight CAT8

 

 

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

 That is obvious from your posts.

Closed minded people like yourself demand DBTs as the so called "Gold Standard" ,but when the results don't go the way you expect,  as with the series of 6 correctly implemented DBT sessions performed several years ago with files that I supplied, you refuse to accept the results. That was 6 separate sessions with 8 repeats in each session, for a total of 48 out of 48 positive results.

 

I have no interest whatsoever in anything further you have to say.

BYE !

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

 

and if you did it would only think about oats and other horses

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, plissken said:

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

 

Horses for courses.

[Blackmorec]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

What is the major difference ( if any) between a point source sound in nature and a point source sound from ONE loudspeaker? What mechanism do think capable of telling the brain this sound is from a speaker and therefore do not localize it?  

Now there’s a good question!

In nature a sound is emitted as circular sound waves which travel away from their source. When they reach you, depending on your position, the sound wave will enter both ears. Again depending on your position the sound-wave will have to travel further to enter one ear vs the other and when it does enter the ears it will have a different amplitude and a different phase...one will also be very slightly delayed. This difference between the 2 signals is computed by the brain, which combines the 2 signals into a single signal with direction.  You may then turn your head in the direction of the signal.....guided by the fact that as you turn your head the signals reaching each ear become equal. At that point your eyes are pointing direct at the sound source, allowing you to identify what it is and where it may be. Survival capability....purely instinctual. Its happens fast and automatically, so part of the autonomous nervous system. This is not a learned skill and the best you can do is refine your capabilities, like a tightrope walker trains his balance. 

 

When you are in your listening room listening to one loudspeaker, let’s call it Ch1, the exact same thing happens. The signal from Ch1 reaches both ears Ch1.1 and Ch1.2 and your brain hears a single source with direction. 

 

Now switch on your second loudspeaker.Ch2....essentially what you’ve just done is to replace Ch1.2 with Ch2. So now the 2 signals reaching your ears are Ch1 and Ch2

 

The brain can’t localise a speaker because its not getting a single speaker signal to both ears. Your  second ear’s signal is swamped by the 2nd speaker Ch2 and visa versa. So the brain still has 2 signals reaching each ear, so what does it do? Well assuming that the relationship between the 2 signals is correct in terms of timing, phase, amplitude and frequency content,  it processes everything normally, as if it were sound-waves from point sources so now you hear the musicians with their spacial location.....business as usual for the brain.  But for this trick to work, as i’ve said dozens of times, the 2 signals in each ear must relate properly. If the brain can’t find that relationship it assumes that the signals have different sources and will then process them as such, presenting you with 2 loudspeakers and their locality. 

This detection of location is not just a matter of amplitude and nothing else. If it were, crosstalk between the 2 ears would become problematic. Fortunately your brain has algorithms that will identify certain signals and ignore others....meaning you can still pick out directionality in the presence of a lot of interfering noises, either autonomously or simply by focusing your conscious attention on what you want to hear and ignoring the rest. Again survival. 

[Blackmorec]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

And it's frustrating for me too when I don't have something right there, right now, to show! So far I've found the typical audiophile hardest to get on board, because they're usually looking for the wrong things - the spouses are the ones who clap, because they appreciate the lack of distortion in what they're hearing. At the moment the aim is to get an easily transportable rig, which is so simple that it's relatively easy to thoroughly 'debug', and to make robust against the electrical environment it may encounter - i.e., the results as posted in the Simple Media Server thread I started.

 

Your remark about which part I soldered again shows you misunderstand my approach - nothing I do has the smell of a ritual behaviour; they are all the results of finding where something is weakly implemented, to the point where it has an audible impact ... I have repeated over and over again that I always hardwire all the links in the playback chain - that's a perfect example of a soldering that I find critical; but you choose to disregard this, because it doesn't suit you to have to deal with this requirement.

I think that mainly the reason people ignore your advice to solder everything is that it would totally destroy the resale value and integrity of their electronics and cables.  This technique of soldering cables or doing without cables altogether is implemented throughout my system by the manufacturers.....(Innuos, Devialet, Magico, Sean Jacobs).  But I’d never dream of opening up their  boxes and destroying several expensive cables in order to solder everything together.  I guess that’s why kit needs to be old and cheap....that way you squeeze out its maximum value for money; no question. 

[STC]

40 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Now there’s a good question!

In nature a sound is emitted as circular sound waves which travel away from their source. When they reach you, depending on your position, the sound wave will enter both ears. Again depending on your position the sound-wave will have to travel further to enter one ear vs the other and when it does enter the ears it will have a different amplitude and a different phase...one will also be very slightly delayed. This difference between the 2 signals is computed by the brain, which combines the 2 signals into a single signal with direction.  You may then turn your head in the direction of the signal.....guided by the fact that as you turn your head the signals reaching each ear become equal. At that point your eyes are pointing direct at the sound source, allowing you to identify what it is and where it may be. Survival capability....purely instinctual. Its happens fast and automatically, so part of the autonomous nervous system. This is not a learned skill and the best you can do is refine your capabilities, like a tightrope walker trains his balance. 

 

When you are in your listening room listening to one loudspeaker, let’s call it Ch1, the exact same thing happens. The signal from Ch1 reaches both ears Ch1.1 and Ch1.2 and your brain hears a single source with direction. 

 

Correct.

 

40 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

Now switch on your second loudspeaker.Ch2....essentially what you’ve just done is to replace Ch1.2 with Ch2. So now the 2 signals reaching your ears are Ch1 and Ch2

 

This is known as crosstalk.

 

40 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

The brain can’t localise a speaker because its not getting a single speaker signal to both ears. Your  second ear’s signal is swamped by the 2nd speaker Ch2 and visa versa. So the brain still has 2 signals reaching each ear, so what does it do? Well assuming that the relationship between the 2 signals is correct in terms of timing, phase, amplitude and frequency content,  it processes everything normally, as if it were sound-waves from point sources so now you hear the musicians with their spacial location.....business as usual for the brain.  But for this trick to work, as i’ve said dozens of times, the 2 signals in each ear must relate properly. If the brain can’t find that relationship it assumes that the signals have different sources and will then process them as such, presenting you with 2 loudspeakers and their locality. 

 

Any reference?

 

40 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

This detection of location is not just a matter of amplitude and nothing else. If it were, crosstalk between the 2 ears would become problematic. Fortunately your brain has algorithms that will identify certain signals and ignore others....meaning you can still pick out directionality in the presence of a lot of interfering noises, either autonomously or simply by focusing your conscious attention on what you want to hear and ignoring the rest. Again survival. 

 

Crosstalk is problematic since the invention of stereo. It was not so evident till the 70s because of other errors were far greater than crosstalk. At the same time, we too managed to adapt to the different sounding loudspeakers stereo production to be similar to real sound. It is not. Otherwise, the sound of loudspeakers replay captured by microphones close to your ears would sound almost the same ( take into account of HF loss due to distance).  However, if you were to capture a single speakers sound they would sound alike (almost) with headphones. HRTF will always at work and do not discriminate natural and reproduction sound. For ears they are all still sound. Unless you have reference to support then there is nothing to add this OT posts. 

[Summit]

The ability to reproduce a realistic sound stage and all other SQ aspect associated with the sound of a live concert depends of the fulfillment of tree general conditions. All need to be really good for us to get the sensation that we are hearing music that sounds like it’s been played on a stage in front of us. The reproduction is never 100% like IRL though, but if all tree conditions are accomplished we can get pretty close.   

 

1. The record. If the sound stage is small, the ambient over damped or any other limitations the recorded will sound like that. That includes the height. A good and accurate recording of the event is therefore paramount.
2. The listening room. A big room with high ceiling and good acoustic there you can set up the speakers further apart (everything else held equal) will present a better sound with bigger sound stage and with more air between the musicians.  
3. The audio system. Well matched gear of good SQ will reproduce a more realistic sound stage, deep bas and all other aspect related with the sound of a live concert better and more lifelike than a stereo setup with not as good and matching gear. The audio gear should of course also match the size and the acoustics of the room.

 

So yes the height of the sound-stage and the ability to reproduce that and many other sound aspects realistic depends on record, listening room and your audio system. If OTOH one of the above is not fulfilled the sound will not sound even close to a realistic sound-stage.

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Crosstalk is problematic since the invention of stereo. It was not so evident till the 70s because of other errors were far greater than crosstalk. At the same time, we too managed to adapt to the different sounding loudspeakers stereo production to be similar to real sound. It is not. Otherwise, the sound of loudspeakers replay captured by microphones close to your ears would sound almost the same ( take into account of HF loss due to distance).  However, if you were to capture a single speakers sound they would sound alike (almost) with headphones. HRTF will always at work and do not discriminate natural and reproduction sound. For ears they are all still sound. Unless you have reference to support then there is nothing to add this OT posts. 

 

A microphone is a simple transducer that converts sound pressure waves into an electrical signal . 

Ears are a whole different thing entirely. They have sound shaping, direction finding pinna and more importantly they have a human brain that processes the entire signal before making it ‘conscious’ .

 

When I listen to my stereo system, I hear focused images of instruments and voices that sound as though they came from a single point of origin, have exactly the timbre I expect from the instrument, have a certain ‘humanness’ (breath sounds, wet-mouth sounds,  fingers scraping along metal strings etc.), a dynamic note shape that starts with a pinpoint source and expands into its own acoustic space, an interplay with other instruments that can be utterly magical and an alluring beauty that soothes, excites, generates joy, all contained in a beautiful acoustic that’s as large or small as the recording engineer elected to make it. More than that I don’t really need.

 

And given that this is a hi-fi forum where ideas are exchanged, I don’t feel very motivated to dig out references....of which there are plenty; all rigorously scientific and therefore requiring a lot of energy and concentration to fully absorb. I did that for a living....I do this for enjoyment