Jump to content
IGNORED

red or blue pill - Part II?


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

...

The equipment was dreadful. I offered to bring my own audio interface and run it in pass-through mode between the DAC and amp. I was told this wouldn't work for vague reasons. Instead, we were limited to recording some samples afterwards using an ADC that turned out to have some issues.

 

Then there's the general environment of it all. The playback computer and DAC were sitting in a cluttered basement with god knows what electrical interference. The DAC itself was a naked PCB nailed to a wooden plank. This was connected to the monoblock amps (on the ground floor) with 10 metres or so of coax (RG-59 or similar).

 

For any future tests I'd insist on containing all the equipment in a somewhat controlled setting (not necessarily a shielded room). Then I'd record the output of the DAC and/or the amps during the listening test rather than separately.


...

 

Wowzers. Pictures are definitely mandatory for the reader to understand what the heck is going on over there!

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
On 1/11/2020 at 6:07 PM, fas42 said:

 

The failure as I see it is to appreciate that human hearing is far more acute in its ability to detect conflicting or disturbing anomalies in what it hears, than is generally accepted by the audio researchers - in simple terms, it's what always "gives the game away" when you can hear sounds somewhere, and you have to decide "Is it real, or only a hifi?" That it's only reproduction is clearly picked up by the listening mind, because either there is extra content that shouldn't be there, or something is missing - or both.

 

Thanks for the response @fas42. Let's perhaps get a bit more specific and work up to your perspective.

 

While no doubt human hearing (ears+mind) is good, we always need to remember thinking back to first principles that:

 

1. Hearing / perceptual resolution is not infinite - we can easily see the frequency-domain limits for hearing on the Fletcher-Munson curve and in the time-domain, humans are not that sensitive to phase anomalies.

 

2. Psychological effects are strong which shapes so much of perception - especially auditory perception which is the weaker compared to vision. Whether it's something like the McGurk Effect, or thinking something sounds "better" because it's slightly louder... Or of course seeing a fat fancy cable vs. flimsy cable and forming a bias.

 

Given the above, which is the basis for where science typically would like to find the thresholds of hearing (1) and use controls to rule out external variables (2), I'm not sure I see any specific instance where we can see a failure of science as you suggest. In your statement "Is it real, or only a hifi?", is there an example you have come across where scientists actually say "This will sound real!" but we know to be untrue or incomplete?

 

From what I have seen, I'm not sure any scientist has thus far claimed that sound systems today, especially 2-channel rigs sound exactly like the "real" thing (even though certain golden-ear subjective audiophiles believe this is possible with $$$ products probably, and advertising departments have been claiming such things for years).

 

Quote

In these situations it is a gut reaction by the individual that causes him to decide one way or the other, and that's the sense that I'm using that term. I have learned to use this approach every time I experience some new audio reproduction situation - and it's served me well. It won't tell me whether the sound is as good as it could be, or what exactly is incorrect with what I'm hearing, unless I listen further - it's a Yes/No trigger as to whether the sound is in the "right zone" of accuracy.

 

Sure. We all have our ways of doing things and we can all tweak our room, equipment, etc. to hit some kind of threshold of "this is good", or "this sounds more real", or "this sounds natural", to the satisfaction of the gut. 😉

 

Quote

What I've found is that if I manage to evolve the SQ to the level that I find acceptable, that other people find it engrossing. In particular, people who are not interested in the technical aspects of audio, typically women, enjoy the experience.

 

Okay. So what sounds good to you has utility to others as well and probably gets within the "normal curve" of what is "good sound" for most people with adequate hearing, including the women you come across. Great! But we can get there as well with instruments and room measurements.

 

Quote

I have made many posts over the years, describing my approach from various angles ... a basic principle is that one has to become aware of deficiencies in the sound in a way that allows one to modify or improve the system, while being acutely aware of whether deficiencies are being reduced, hopefully to the point of inaudibility ... if one can't hear whether what one is doing has true value or not, then you're working blind.

 

Hmmm. Okay. So that sounds like you've had enough experience with probably some typical musical tracks that you would use for system evaluation, coupled with the technique above developed over time. I assume the "basic principles" you speak of would correlate to the science of acoustics? Reasonable frequency response, low noise, watch for room issues like reflections and resonance if we break down the elements of what you're listening for.

 

So going back to what seems like your core belief as per your first sentence:

 

"The failure as I see it is to appreciate that human hearing is far more acute in its ability to detect conflicting or disturbing anomalies in what it hears, than is generally accepted by the audio researchers..."

 

You basically believe that "accepted audio research" at this point in history has not fully figured out all that the ears/mind is capable of perceiving. That at least in part it's because researchers have been underestimating the ear/mind's ability to figure out "conflicting or disturbing anomalies". And that your technique and "gut" have the ability to relatively consistently perceive and neutralize these anomalies.

 

While I don't know what your specific technique might be (as I said earlier perhaps a succinct link would help), isn't that what I and probably everyone else in these forums are doing? We're all trying our best to understand the limits and "anomalies" in our systems? All developing the technique to make the system sound "real"? While I wouldn't put any special recognition of my "gut" being important, I'm guessing this is the same thing as emotionally feeling (perhaps to use a less somatic description) like the system is "dialed" in to my taste for what the "real" performance could sound/feel like.

 

From my perspective, it's a bit presumptuous and dramatic to claim that science has "failed" unless you have some specific examples to mull on...

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, fas42 said:

And thank you, for your detailed response, Archimago ... 🙂

 

I don't think audio scientists ever say "This will sound real!" - they're aiming for a best fit, as far as I can see. What happened is that I experienced reproduction which sounded "real", which was completely unsuspected by me as a possibility - but I didn't see anyone else say similar things - so, I started to explore what was going on ...

 

Hey Fred,

Well there are certainly times when I listen to my system and am surprised by how "real" the sound can be. At times with non-musical sounds, wondering if what I heard came from the system or maybe my wife and kids in the house. I suspect many of us would have similar occasions and stories where the illusion seems very real.

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Instruments as in measuring what it is specific about the sound in that instance, that is "guaranteeing" that it is going to be "good sound"?

 

Of course not. There's no guarantee with instrumentation but like trial and error which we all do when optimizing the gear, the instruments can point us in the right direction especially when something is grossly off or give us further precision or clarity when we're close.

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

To the science of acoustics as currently used, only partially. It turns out that frequency response is of low importance, because the listening brain unconsciously compensates, if the SQ in other areas is sufficient. Low noise, in the sense that anomalies in the sound that correlate with the music playing should be reduced to an absolute minimum is critical. Room issues are not important, the brain automatically compensates, I find.

 

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Frequency response is absolutely important - some headphones sound terrible with bad treble roll-off, likewise, it's hard to believe that one is listening to an organ without the lower registers! How can one possibly feel that a system is reproducing a "real"-sounding facsimile of music and musicians if it's missing chunks of frequencies!?

 

No other SQ quality is going to be compensating for those losses and my brain ain't going to make up for the experience of those bass drops in some dubstep that went missing!

 

Room issues not important!? Again, since we're talking "real" sounding audio, even if I could squeeze my system in the bathroom, how am I supposed to consider that as sounding "real" with all the echoes, perhaps vibrating shower door, and poor representation of low frequencies!?

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

The techniques are a variety of methods which all overlap what at least a decent number of people have used over the years ... the short and sweet version of the story is that with the first rig that attained the right SQ I merely was doing the same sort of things that thousands of enthusiasts have done since the dawn of audiophilia - except I struck it lucky. "Realistic" sound emerged one day, and almost literally floored me - one of the most obvious aspects of it is that it becomes impossible to "force your mind" to grasp that the sound is coming from drivers which could be literally inches away; the illusion of what you are hearing always maintains its integrity.

 

It's not the actual what's done that matters; rather, it's the consistent and continuing attention to very fine detail in locating areas in the system where the SQ is being degraded too much - because the engineering just happens not to be sufficient, to eliminate the problem.

 

Hmmm.. Okay, still would love to see that summary blog post Fred! And maybe some pictures of what was done, maybe a before and after of what the components and room looked like. If what you've accomplished in creating "real"-sounding hi-fi is something that can be taught, I'm sure many audiophiles across the Interwebs would be very thankful for your helpful blog post. If however, it can't be summarized or taught, then I guess there's no point saying too much.

 

For example, even if I'm able to convert lead to gold, what's the point in me speaking about it if it can't be taught to those I wish to share the knowledge with? Might as well stay quiet and just enjoy the result for myself...

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

"Fail" is just a strong word to describe the situation 😉 ... to this day, science has "failed" to explain how the universe works, to everyone's satisfaction.

 

Fair enough Fred... Let's still focus on that idea of whether the system sounds "real" though. Because I have some concerns about your perspective on what is needed and what isn't! 😲

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

There is no such thing as real sound. There is only sound the confirms to all the cues for localization or not. 
 

Put a person playing bagpipes on one side and a speaker playing piano on the other side behind the curtain. If you ask a person who has never heard these instruments before both will be real to him. 
 

A sound is real when it confirms with the psychoacoustics principles. Practically all demos about how real the high end system can sound usually confined to solo or two instruments. 

 

Yup, there's no "real" here. Just at best how well it evokes a psychoacoustic illusion...

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Fred, where's "Fred" come from ... ?

 

 

Woops, sorry Frank. Conjuring up the wrong name last night :-). Will get back to you later today...

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment

@fas42

Since we're chatting about your technique, for the sake of keeping this open for the OP's topic, I'll post a reply and take it to your "step-by-step surgery" thread...

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...