Article: Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles | Part 2: The Real Sounds Of Live Music

[ARQuint]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

 

One other question before deciding whether I'd be up for listening: To the extent possible, are the selections volume matched?

 

Interesting question. The 30 instruments were recorded one after another over 2 days, using the same recording set-up. When I measure the average level from the listening position for each one minute Sibelius excerpt, mostly they are pretty close—but some are a few dB different. This is to be expected.  Oliveira is playing 30 different instruments and some are "louder" than others: the "size" of the sound is an important characteristic of each individual violin—and why one player might decide to pay 5 million for one Stradivarius but not for another. I think it would be a big mistake to adjust the volume of each violin to the same level - that would be distorting an inherent quality of each instrument.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

6 hours ago, bluesman said:

He made the wah wah sound with a guitarist’s wah wah pedal. Contrary to popular belief (and Wikipedia), he still played his standard trumpet -  but he mic’ed and amplified it, using guitar effects like the wah pedal.  And, apropos of the article that started this thread, you can and should be able to tell the difference between a Harmon mute and a wah wah pedal on this tune (and all of Miles’ electric albums).  They sound quite different.

 

Touché. They do sound different, and I assumed he was using some kind of effect on top. How can you tell the difference between an electric bass going through various effects, and a synthesizer, and does it really matter from the standpoint of music appreciation ?

 

From a listener's perspective, without comprehensive knowledge of the techniques/instruments used in a recording, can we still evaluate a system ? I think we can:

 

- "distortion" (opposite of "accuracy") can be evaluated using test tracks of music we are more familiar with. If I only listened to Japanese music and had never heard what a Shamisen sounds like "live", then you could be right, I may be hard pressed to evaluate the accuracy of my system. Or if I listened to those Charlie Parker tunes you mentioned where he was using a plastic saxophone without having this information and tried to "tune" my system to the sound of what I think saxophones sound like, then you are right, I would be misled. 

 

- "completeness" (detail retrieval) can be evaluated even if you have no idea what the "real" instruments sound like, and this is done by comparing the effect of various changes to the system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Technical knowledge of music informs our understanding and appreciation of music (as do other aspects - such as the historical/cultural context), regardless of what system we use - and that's where the value lies (and your posts are very interesting from that perspective). The evaluation of a system is completely different, and we should not confuse the two.

[Jud]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Interesting question. The 30 instruments were recorded one after another over 2 days, using the same recording set-up. When I measure the average level from the listening position for each one minute Sibelius excerpt, mostly they are pretty close—but some are a few dB different. This is to be expected.  Oliveira is playing 30 different instruments and some are "louder" than others: the "size" of the sound is an important characteristic of each individual violin—and why one player might decide to pay 5 million for one Stradivarius but not for another. I think it would be a big mistake to adjust the volume of each violin to the same level - that would be distorting an inherent quality of each instrument.

 

Yes, it would (or it might simply be how he played the instrument on the day - he's not a robot).

 

But loudness variation (even an average of 1dB) creates a big problem. There was a listening test here years ago where a file that had its average level increased 1dB was the runaway winner. And if you look at the stories about blind competitions where carbon fiber violins beat Stradivarii, guess what you find? Loudest wins.

 

So that's a problem in a blind test.  I don't know what a Strad or a Guarnerius sounds like, so if asked to distinguish, the first thing my ear-brain will fasten on is loudness differences.

 

I suppose we could try with equalized and non-equalized volume and see what the results are?

[ARQuint]

21 hours ago, CG said:

So, while an appreciation and understanding of why different instruments sound different based on who is playing may be very helpful for some - maybe all - people, I'm not certain that this understanding will help everybody get more out of the home audio systems.  I'm not saying it's not worth trying or that it's not interesting, but I suspect that a lot of people look for different cues in sound in their quest for accuracy and realism that are beyond the details behind the musical performance.  That part's a whole 'nuther story.

 

I disagree. I know I've said this before, here and elsewhere, but I'll say it again: The audiophile pursuit is "about" that point of intersection between art and technology. I think that's a key take-away of bluesman's series of articles, no matter what your taste in music is.

 

To elaborate on an example that bluesman mentioned, Berlioz specified that a cornet play the obbligato in the "Valse" movement of Symphonie fantastique, as did Stravinsky for one of the two brass in the ensemble for L'histoire du soldat. Assuming that the conductor has followed the composer's instructions and the player is using the correct instrument (and the recording has been competently engineered and produced) if it sounds like a trumpet, something's wrong with your system. It really is as important to be able to read a score as it is an electronics schematicto fully assess (and enjoy) good audio gear and recordings.

 

So I'd like to proceed with continuing the experiment I described above. With Chris's help, with a new thread, I'll post three folders of files for interested AS members to listen to—all containing examples of the one-minute Sibelius excerpt played by the violinist Elmar Oliveira. One folder will contain 12 examples, unidentified, played on 12 different Strads or Guarneris in 16/44 resolution; the second will contain the same 12 examples (in a different order) converted to 145 kbps MP3. The third folder will offer six examples of identified Stradivarius and Guarneri instruments—different ones than the ones presented as "unknowns."

 

Participants can do their own research, but I'll include some expert description of the characteristic sound of the two "brands" of old Italian violins. I'll ask participants to identify each track as "S" or "G" and send me their results as a PM. We'll keep it open for 2 weeks and I'll then present the data. My brother's an academic mathematician and said he'll help me with the basic statistical analysis, though I'm certain that plenty of AS members could assist here, as well.

 

Hope this get this going by tomorrow morning.

 

Andy

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, it would (or it might simply be how he played the instrument on the day - he's not a robot).

 

But loudness variation (even an average of 1dB) creates a big problem. There was a listening test here years ago where a file that had its average level increased 1dB was the runaway winner. And if you look at the stories about blind competitions where carbon fiber violins beat Stradivarii, guess what you find? Loudest wins.

 

So that's a problem in a blind test.  I don't know what a Strad or a Guarnerius sounds like, so if asked to distinguish, the first thing my ear-brain will fasten on is loudness differences.

 

I suppose we could try with equalized and non-equalized volume and see what the results are?

 

I think it would be entirely up to the individual participant whether or not to volume match. Since we're not looking for a "winner" here but differences, leaving those few files that are a little louder or softer as is might actually help with identification.

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

But loudness variation (even an average of 1dB) creates a big problem.

I don’t think level matching is necessary or desirable here, Jud.  I suspect you’re basing your concern on a legendary study showing that listeners (whose knowledge, skill, and experience at listening to music were neither described nor standardized in cohorts) consistently preferred the “SQ” of the louder of paired exposures to the same program through the same equipment (to which they were blinded) at levels averaging 1 dB difference between them.  
 

Even if there is such a study, and I’ve never been able to find it if it exists, it’s not relevant to the task of identifying which of two alternatives is being heard.  The characteristics described by the listener who identified 12 of 12 clips correctly are all heard (by those who can both hear and recognize them, which is not many) in live performance, and the dynamics of live performance are quite variable even for the same music played on the same instrument(s) by the same musician(s) in the same location.  Conductors have their own interpretations of the “correct” loudness, tempo, dynamics, balance among instruments, etc, which adds even more variability to an already broad mix of factors.

 

Even a solo violin piece played twice by the same person on the same instrument in the same location will vary by a few dB - perfect level matching could happen but would be a rare and random event, given the variance and distributions of physical exertion, temperature, humidity, propagating occult stress risers and nonlinearities in the various components of the instrument, etc.  And then there are the emotions of the performer in the moment.  Some nights, you’re “on” and some nights you’re not.......but the show must go on and we hear it as it is.

 

I’m looking forward to Andy’s trial with great interest, and I’m lovin’ this discussion!  Keep the faith, everybody.

 

David

[Jud]

56 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I suspect you’re basing your concern on a legendary study showing that listeners (whose knowledge, skill, and experience at listening to music were neither described nor standardized in cohorts) consistently preferred the “SQ” of the louder of paired exposures to the same program through the same equipment (to which they were blinded) at levels averaging 1 dB difference between them.

 

No, I was referring very specifically to a listening test conducted right here at AS (CA in those days), where the owner of the BIS label provided a file of a very nicely recorded choral work in a variety of resolutions from mp3 to Redbook to 24/96 (don't recall if 24/192 was included), and people were asked to indicate a preference.  Resolutions were not indicated on the files, which were simply letter-designated ("A" through "H," maybe? It was a while ago), and people with DACs that had resolution indicators were asked to close their eyes or whatever else they needed to do.  The kicker is that a 16/44.1 file had its loudness raised by exactly 1dB, unknown to the testers, of which I was one.

 

The interesting thing is that 1dB wasn't enough to make it obvious that a change in loudness had taken place, and when I listened, that version of the file impressed me subjectively as more "open" and "clear," not "louder."  I chose it as the best sounding, along with the overwhelming majority of other listeners here on CA/AS.

[bluesman]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

The interesting thing is that 1dB wasn't enough to make it obvious that a change in loudness had taken place, and when I listened, that version of the file impressed me subjectively as more "open" and "clear," not "louder."  I chose it as the best sounding, along with the overwhelming majority of other listeners here on CA/AS.

Different “study”, same problem - a quality assessment was based on a level difference.  In trying to distinguish a Strad from a Guarneri (or a plastic sax vs a metal one, a cornet vs a trumpet etc), perceived quality is irrelevant and to be ignored.  And all that matters in the determination is being able to tell that there are two alternatives and to correctly identify which is being heard in each trial.  Knowing which is which and preferring one to the other are both irrelevant and are not being questioned.

 

It’s certainly true that physical transducers of other forms of energy into sound are nonlinear, and that many speakers and musical instruments sound better somewhere between the ends of their volume spectra than they do when turning the knob to 11.  But we’re talking about variance of one or two dB smack dab in the middle of their sweet spots. And unlike the preferred speakers of many audiophiles, the sweet spots of great Cremonese violins have a very low Q.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Knowing which is which and preferring one to the other are both irrelevant and are not being questioned.

 

It will be interesting to see how well listeners will be able to separate those conscious or subconscious impressions from the given task of distinguishing the alternatives.

[bluesman]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

It will be interesting to see how well listeners will be able to separate those conscious or subconscious impressions from the given task of distinguishing the alternatives.

It would be interesting to see how well listeners can separate impressions of that kind from any single parameter.  I humbly suggest that being able to identify instrument A from instrument B in a forced choice trial is easier than it is to identify power cable A from power cable B.  Any audiophile who hears a galactic and life altering transformation in SQ after slipping 4 rubber washers under an amplifier should be able to beat random chance in Andy’s test.

 

To be statistically sound, the listening trial should be repeated multiple times with the order of presentation randomly altered.  And as a control, at least one trial should be conducted for each listener using 12 presentations of the same instrument.

[Jud]

30 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I humbly suggest that being able to identify instrument A from instrument B in a forced choice trial is easier than it is to identify power cable A from power cable B.

 

In another blind test here, I once got 5 of 5 correct picking the directionality (according or opposite to the little arrow on the cable jacket) of a pair of analog RCA cables!

 

Of course it was a random guess that happened to work (and no, unfortunately it's never happened with the lottery). But it was fun imagining the test-maker's momentary reaction before he realized it must have been random chance. 🙂

[DrJohnRead]

On 4/9/2021 at 5:24 PM, bluesman said:

I hope it's helpful to our little community!

 

There are two links that are a bit wonky on an iPad but work fine on my computers, and I can't fingure out why.  So if the music files in the last few paragraphs don't open properly, here are the URLs:

 

• Cannonball Adderly on Autumn Leaves (classic big, full alto tone)
  • https://youtu.be/rsz6TE6t7-A
• Paul Desmond on Autumn Leaves (the sweetest alto sax tone in history)
  • https://youtu.be/Gsz3mrnIBd0
• Art Pepper on Autumn Leaves (edgier and less round than Cannonball's)
  • https://youtu.be/Kwlcgkhuxv4

 

 

• fretted Fender Precision Bass (the timeless classic Fender bass model heard on countless 1000s of hits in all genres)
  • https://youtu.be/YBqmnkVh-nY
• fretted Fender Jazz Bass (the "other" Fender bass, introduced in 1960 and also heard on countlesss 1000s of recordings)
  • https://youtu.be/YBqmnkVh-nY?t=134
• fretless electric bass (a similar bass but with a smooth fingerboard like that on  a cello or double bass)
  • https://youtu.be/HPAHQXms6_A?t=58

 

 

@Bluesman will you tackle ambiophonics somewhere in your story telling here? Perhaps and obviously in the playback section? 

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, DrJohnRead said:

@Bluesman will you tackle ambiophonics somewhere in your story telling here? Perhaps and obviously in the playback section? 

It’s not on the list of topics I’m currently preparing, but it’s interesting enough to be added to a piece on psychoacoustics if I can find a VST plugin that works in 5.1 or fewer channels and I think it adds something to listening pleasure and/or the educational experience.  The 12 and 16 channel setups described on the website are far too much for me to set up, now that we’ve downsized to an apartment.  But I’ll check out the DSP approach if I find a way to do it without having to siphon funds from my planned acquisitions.
 

There used to be a Steinberg version called something like AmbioDSP, but it doesn’t seem to be available any longer.  When it first came out some 10+ years ago, it brought a broad spectrum of reviews and a lot of criticism.  I wasn’t interested enough to try it at the time.  I’m still not interested enough to spend $ checking it out, but I’ll start with the demo files on the website.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

In another blind test here, I once got 5 of 5 correct picking the directionality (according or opposite to the little arrow on the cable jacket) of a pair of analog RCA cables!

 

Of course it was a random guess that happened to work (and no, unfortunately it's never happened with the lottery). But it was fun imagining the test-maker's momentary reaction before he realized it must have been random chance. 🙂

 

What I find amusing is that you inserted "Of course it was a random guess ..." - that you are so absolutely certain that your brain couldn't possibly triggered on some subtle variation in the samples, that consciously you were unaware was there ... 🙂.

[DrJohnRead]

On 4/12/2021 at 11:14 PM, bluesman said:

It’s not on the list of topics I’m currently preparing, but it’s interesting enough to be added to a piece on psychoacoustics if I can find a VST plugin that works in 5.1 or fewer channels and I think it adds something to listening pleasure and/or the educational experience.  The 12 and 16 channel setups described on the website are far too much for me to set up, now that we’ve downsized to an apartment.  But I’ll check out the DSP approach if I find a way to do it without having to siphon funds from my planned acquisitions.
 

There used to be a Steinberg version called something like AmbioDSP, but it doesn’t seem to be available any longer.  When it first came out some 10+ years ago, it brought a broad spectrum of reviews and a lot of criticism.  I wasn’t interested enough to try it at the time.  I’m still not interested enough to spend $ checking it out, but I’ll start with the demo files on the website.

If you are looking for expertise and trials Ralph Glasgal is an expert and ST Chelvam is a keen amateur who’s set is an attempt to reproduce the experience.

Ralph’s place

Www.ambiophonics.org

ST

https://www.facebook.com/chelvam.st.98

 

 

[Mike48]

Thanks for this. I really like the sound of instruments, and I want my system to clearly present the difference between a viola and a violin, for example. On any given recording, that difference will not be the same as another (different instruments, mics, playing and recording techniques), but one hopes to hear the more reticent sound of the viola distinctly. I want to know if it's an oboe or English horn, and to hear sonic differences among harpsichords or fortepianos. To me, this clarity of timbre (which I hope is accuracy) is a vital component of my sound system.

 

BTW, in the 1970s I did see Rahsaan playing three instruments at once, though I didn't know which they were. Then after his stroke I saw him play two at once -- he came out in a wheelchair and blew us all away. He is a  tremendous musical figure, whose immense abilities and knowledge of music often are not sufficiently respected.

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, Mike48 said:

I did see Rahsaan playing three instruments at once, though I didn't know which they were. Then after his stroke I saw him play two at once -- he came out in a wheelchair and blew us all away. He is a  tremendous musical figure, whose immense abilities and knowledge of music often are not sufficiently respected.

Absolutely!  And I'm nominating you for the 2021 "No Pun Intended" award for "he came out in a wheelchair and blew us all away".