What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
I posted this on a thread about horn speakers after reading Frank's post about tweaking electronics being the most important area for the "believability of the reproduction illusion"

The resolution to this conflict about room Vs electronics may well be explained by Auditory Scene Analysis as Frank said.

Fundamentally, we construct what we perceive as hearing. This construction is based on processing of & the interrelationships between elements of the soundfield. As I understand it, we can cope with & adjust for certain types of anomalies in the signals if these anomalies are consistent. In other words a room has a certain characteristic sound that is always the same & we subconsciously adjust for this characteristic. It doesn't interfere with the believability of the reproduction - after all, it's what we are used to on a day to day basis - listening to people speak in different acoustic spaces - & we've learned this & built mechanisms to adjust for it.

However, if there are anomalies created in the electronics that vary based on the signal being processed, then we are less able to adjust for these & they interfere with the believability of the sound. Such anomalies are not encountered in the world of non-electronic reproduction & therefore they are much more likely to confuse our auditory perception. So, elements like, jitter & noise modulation, which are all signal-dependent lead to much less believability than certain room nodes or room characteristics do.

I believe that the general principle applies - if a low-level anomaly is regular or predictable then, within reason, we internally adjust for it in our processing & it becomes relatively invisible to our auditory perception. That's not to say that if this anomaly is removed we don't notice it - we do! Its what makes this hobby so interesting & what makes continual improvement possible - the discovery of & removal of smaller & smaller issues.

I believe that fully grasping the concept that "what we hear" is actually more correctly stated as "what we process" will lead to a better resolution of such issues.
Edit: If we treat hearing, not as a human perception, but as a learning machine that processes signals in a particular way (processing that we don't yet fully grasp), then we will make better progress in our understanding & ultimately in what makes for a "better reproduction illusion". We are too constrained by the concept of our abilities to instantly recognise frequency & amplitude differences & not so invested in how we might be processing signals over longer periods of time & how some discrepancies between these longer term relationships of the signals can lead to "less believability". This leads to the usual forum fights.

I'm not saying that room treatments don't matter - it's just a case of how we process these aspects differently & how they are perceived in different ways
 

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
Simply put (to me), the end result as to what hits these ears.

Tom
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Simply put (to me), the end result as to what hits these ears.

Tom

Sure, Tom, but I believe that we perceive a definite perceptual difference between the room acoustics & the signal reproduction even though the signals that impinge on the ears are an amalgam.

This is where the field of ASA is beginning to answer just how we differentiate between the aspects of the signal that are the reproduction & the aspects that are the room.

The same issue applies to the reproduction itself - if it contains a realistic acoustic recording space then "good systems" will portray this more accurately & be more believable.

I don't believe I've seen anyone state that after room treatment this recorded acoustic space was better portrayed (although I may be wrong) but I have seen it stated that a change in the electronics resulted in this better believability (it's also my experience).
 
Last edited:

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
Sure, Tom, but I believe that we perceive a definite perceptual difference between the room acoustics & the signal reproduction even though the signals that impinge on the ears are an amalgam.

This is where the field of ASA is beginning to answer just how we differentiate between the aspects of the signal that are the reproduction & the aspects that are the room.

The same issue applies to the reproduction itself - if it contains a realistic acoustic recording space then "good systems" will portray this more accurately & be more believable.

I don't believe I've seen anyone state that after room treatment this recorded acoustic space was better portrayed (although I may be wrong) but I have seen it stated that a change in the electronics resulted in this better believability (it's also my experience).

You're wrong, I'm saying it now. :)

The room can make or break the ability of the system to portray the recorded acoustic space, especially with wide-dispersion dynamic speakers. But it also depends on expectations, some of us expect a lot because we know what's possible...

The electronics role is to accurately reproduce and preserve the fine detail and spatial cues in the recording. The speakers need to be resolving enough, and the acoustic space must also be such that the sound can make it to your ears intact. It's a system and every aspect is very important, even AC power, wires and cables. ;)
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
John,

In order to debate believability we should remember that believability and preference are two very different thinks. IMHO believability in stereo systems is even more subjective and individual than preference. Your excellent text highlights our participation in the whole process of sound reproduction - and each of us can be extremely sensitive to a few aspects that grab our attention and trigger down our defenses that would otherwise tell us it is just a sound reproduction filled with flaws.

Many recordings do not have any characteristics to be believable to the majority of listeners, however they can trigger a very strong emotional response based on specif aspects that are not easy to identify, but show to be systematic.

I have found that believability has usually an associated surprise factor - if you insist on listening several times in sequence to the same recording, at some time you do not feel it anymore.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) The room can make or break the ability of the system to portray the recorded acoustic space, especially with wide-dispersion dynamic speakers. But it also depends on expectations, some of us expect a lot because we know what's possible...

Yes, the room can break believability of a system. But IMHO it can not make it. IMHO no matter which room treatments you carry they can not carry the same effects of carefully assembling a system able to portray the small effects needed to create the "great illusion".
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
You're wrong, I'm saying it now. :)
OK, thanks for that correction - maybe I hadn't paid enough attention to reports before so glad to be corrected

The room can make or break the ability of the system to portray the recorded acoustic space, especially with wide-dispersion dynamic speakers. But it also depends on expectations, some of us expect a lot because we know what's possible...

The electronics role is to accurately reproduce and preserve the fine detail and spatial cues in the recording. The speakers need to be resolving enough, and the acoustic space must also be such that the sound can make it to your ears intact. It's a system and every aspect is very important, even AC power, wires and cables. ;)
Yes it's a system & as such each element DOES matter. I'm trying to tease out what the perceptual effect of different aspects of the reproduction system.

I haven't yet played with room treatments but have listened to various speakers in the same room & the differences were obvious but the fundamental aspects of how the sound was portrayed remained the same. What I mean is that there wasn't more solidity to the sound stage, more air around instruments/voices, more nuances to the sound - there was a difference in how various frequencies were portrayed & the balance between them - there was a difference in the speed of attack but the fundamental aspect remained the same.

With changes to the electronics I have noted that there can be such fundamental changes to reproduced believability.

Maybe I haven't been exposed to enough systems - it's just my experience & interpretation of what I've heard so far?
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
Yes, the room can break believability of a system. But IMHO it can not make it. IMHO no matter which room treatments you carry they can not carry the same effects of carefully assembling a system able to portray the small effects needed to create the "great illusion".

Well, it'll only make it happen if the rest of the system is up for it, it's pretty obvious you can't put a Bose Wave Radio in a nice room and expect great results. ;)
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
John,

In order to debate believability we should remember that believability and preference are two very different thinks. IMHO believability in stereo systems is even more subjective and individual than preference.
In this I disagree. I think that believability is based on the fundamental internal auditory models that we all have internalised. These models are not based on preference but on our exposure to the acoustics of the natural world from which these models are honed. But, I agree with you in another sense - reproduced music ranges from those recorded in a natural acoustic space to those created solely in a studio with no natural acoustic space. So our listening varies from listening to an attempt at a reproduced illusion of a musical event, to listening to a piece of studio work, i.e a producers & engineers art in portraying a piece of music. All this variation means that we we don't necessarily have the criteria of "believability" to evaluate a reproduction by - we fall back on preference as the metric. Nothing wrong with that - it is what it is
Your excellent text highlights our participation in the whole process of sound reproduction - and each of us can be extremely sensitive to a few aspects that grab our attention and trigger down our defenses that would otherwise tell us it is just a sound reproduction filled with flaws.

Many recordings do not have any characteristics to be believable to the majority of listeners, however they can trigger a very strong emotional response based on specif aspects that are not easy to identify, but show to be systematic.

I have found that believability has usually an associated surprise factor - if you insist on listening several times in sequence to the same recording, at some time you do not feel it anymore.
Again I disagree somewhat - believability to me is long-term & not based on surprise factors - the factors I find give a system better believability remain over the long term - they may be better sensed in some tracks than in others but are there nonetheless
 
Last edited:

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Yes, the room can break believability of a system. But IMHO it can not make it. IMHO no matter which room treatments you carry they can not carry the same effects of carefully assembling a system able to portray the small effects needed to create the "great illusion".

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make in my awkward way!

One thing that occurs to me about room treatments is that it is only able to affect frequencies below the transition point of the room (about 400Hz?) right?
I'm of the opinion that "believability" is to do with much more than just frequency issues & certainly much more than frequencies < 400Hz
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Well, it'll only make it happen if the rest of the system is up for it, it's pretty obvious you can't put a Bose Wave Radio in a nice room and expect great results. ;)

Indeed but IMO there is still a lot to be sorted in the electronics & I'm not just talking "Bose Wave Radio". As you said before "the electronics role is to accurately reproduce and preserve the fine detail and spatial cues in the recording" - based on my experience this isn't achieved nearly as often as it should be or maybe it's just that I have always found further improvement is possible & this improvement brings a step-change in "believability". It appears that in psychoacoustics (ASA) some things just snap into place at certain points when certain aspects are dealt with. My interest is in discovering these aspects, understanding the psychoacoustics behind them & applying any such knowledge gained
 
Last edited:

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make in my awkward way!

I agree with that point as well. Yet too many systems do not reach their full potential because of a suboptimal room. To underestimate the importance of the room is a very serious mistake.

One thing that occurs to me about room treatments is that it is only able to affect frequencies below the transition point of the room (about 400Hz?) right?
I'm of the opinion that "believability" is to do with much more than just frequency issues & certainly much more than frequencies < 400Hz

Wrong. Room treatment affects all frequencies. When I first got ASC tube traps -- which are, for some reason, primarily known as bass traps -- I was amazed at their profound influence on mid- and high frequencies as well. Not so much in terms of frequency response (I used the reflective side), but in allowing spatial and timbral resolution in these frequencies to much better shine through, by diffusing unwanted reflections.

Currently I am experimenting with carpets, which are also room treatment. I need a carpet behind my speakers up to the front wall, which I am looking at from my chair, in order to bring images more forward. But at the same time my problem is that I tend to get substantial attenuation of the *upper* treble.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
I agree with that point as well. Yet too many systems do not reach their full potential because of a suboptimal room. To underestimate the importance of the room is a very serious mistake.
It's my understanding & experience that room treatment does change the portrayal of audio but in a different way to the way i'm suggesting is crucial for believability. I'm willing to be wrong however

Wrong. Room treatment affects all frequencies.
Is this a perception or a measurement you are referring to?
When I first got ASC tube traps -- which are, for some reason, primarily known as bass traps -- I was amazed at their profound influence on mid- and high frequencies as well. Not so much in terms of frequency response (I used the reflective side), but in allowing spatial and timbral resolution in these frequencies to much better shine through, by diffusing unwanted reflections.
Yes, perceptual differences in mid & high frequencies can be the result of more equitable/controlled bass frequencies BUT this is a perceptual difference & NOT a measurable difference, AFAIK

Currently I am experimenting with carpets, which are also room treatment. I need a carpet behind my speakers up to the front wall, which I am looking at from my chair, in order to bring images more forward. But at the same time my problem is that I tend to get substantial attenuation of the *upper* treble.
That's what I'm talking about - playing around with frequency balance is not achieving more believability, IMO. Believability is more to do with attack, sustain timing & the subtle sounds being unaffected by concurrent crescendos in other sounds i.e everything in the soundfield being individually portrayed & unaffected by other signals being simultaneously handled at the same time, no matter what strength the accompanying signal is.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
I posted this on a thread about horn speakers after reading Frank's post about tweaking electronics being the most important area for the "believability of the reproduction illusion"

John,

I read some of Frank's posts, I understand and agree with his position but with a couple of caveats. I like the title, "believability of the reproduction illusion" is very different from actual reality of live or the hi-fi paraphernalia argued in the threads. My own system is built around the electronics as are all the systems I put together for friends and clients so I know exactly what Frank is talking about. Those who have worked with me here are also aware of this. While every component including room and electrical plant are important the heart of the system are the electronics, get that right and everything else will fall into place, you can start anywhere else but I've found out that without the right amp/pre one is going in circles until they get that right, only then comes the aha moment.

The room is important and room anomalies can get in the way of the illusion but it depends on the room, that's why both Frank's and Al's conclusions are true because they're based on their own experiences. There are rooms out there too that don't need much besides correct setup and everything will quickly fall into place, so Frank is right in that sense. This has nothing to do with ultimate bass, imaging, sound stage, etc., etc., but a natural and realistically believable illusion of reality.

david
 
Last edited:

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
John,

I read some of Frank's posts, I understand and agree with his position but with a couple of caveats. I like the title, "believability of the reproduction illusion" is very different from actual reality of live or the hi-fi paraphernalia argued in the threads. My own system is built around the electronics as are all the systems I put together for friends and clients l so I know exactly what Frank is talking about. Those who have worked with me here are also aware of this. While every component including room and electrical plant are important the heart of the system are the electronics, get that right and everything else will fall into place, you can start anywhere else but I've found out that without the right amp/pre one is going in circles until they get that right, only then comes the aha moment.

The room is important and room anomalies can get in the way of the illusion but it depends on the room, that's why both Frank's and Al's conclusions are true because they're based on their own experiences. There are rooms out there too that don't need much besides correct setup and everything will quickly fall into place, so Frank is right in that sense. This has nothing to do with ultimate bass, imaging, sound stage, etc., etc., but a natural and realistically believable illusion of reality.

david

Thanks David
Agree with all you say.
I find that if a room is intelligible for talking in, then it will be fine for audio reproduction.
That's not to say that it can't be improved somewhat but I focus my attention elsewhere - where I feel it will be more beneficial.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston
That's what I'm talking about - playing around with frequency balance is not achieving more believability, IMO.

Sigh. Playing around with frequency balance is in this case exactly what I want to *avoid*, but have a hard time doing. Please re-read my post.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
Thanks David
Agree with all you say.
I find that if a room is intelligible for talking in, then it will be fine for audio reproduction.
That's not to say that it can't be improved somewhat but I focus my attention elsewhere - where I feel it will be more beneficial.

Agreed!

david
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
Thanks to david for his comments, and john for kicking off the thread ... the believability of a recording is something that's essential for me, everything else is of a far lower order of importance. Since the room aspect has never, ever played a part in anything that I do to make it happen I don't worry about it - in fact, some of the listening rooms I have across with very heavy acoustic treatment I find totally bizarre, in an auditory sense. Yes, they concentrate my attention on the playback, but, they are just weird places to be in, quite "uncomfortable" in fact.

My goal is for every recording to be believable - this might seem far fetched to some, but at times I get there ... it certainly exists as a place for playback to progess to ...
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Sigh. Playing around with frequency balance is in this case exactly what I want to *avoid*, but have a hard time doing. Please re-read my post.

Sorry, but I just thought that diffusing reflections at different frequencies was perceptually equivalent to changing the strength of different frequencies at the listening position
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
Yes it's a system & as such each element DOES matter. I'm trying to tease out what the perceptual effect of different aspects of the reproduction system.

I haven't yet played with room treatments but have listened to various speakers in the same room & the differences were obvious but the fundamental aspects of how the sound was portrayed remained the same. What I mean is that there wasn't more solidity to the sound stage, more air around instruments/voices, more nuances to the sound - there was a difference in how various frequencies were portrayed & the balance between them - there was a difference in the speed of attack but the fundamental aspect remained the same.

With changes to the electronics I have noted that there can be such fundamental changes to reproduced believability.

Maybe I haven't been exposed to enough systems - it's just my experience & interpretation of what I've heard so far?

What I listen for up front is two things, assuming the speakers audibly disappear, the system is capable of high enough resolution and the recording contains the information...

-Does the system portray the recording venue or does it bring the performance into your room? Or in other words, are your listening room boundaries audible? IMO, the system should reproduce all the spatial cues from the venue and provide a 3-D, immersive soundstage that sounds like you're at the venue, not that the performance is confined to your listening room.

-Are fine details present? Vocals and acoustic instruments should have all the fine detail associated with them present, these cues improve believably quite a bit.

Of course other things are important as well, such as realistic tone, dynamics, etc. but the above tests whether the system is working well enough to deliver all the information in the recording to the listener without interference from poor room acoustics. This is much easier to accomplish with directional speakers, and I'd argue a conventional speaker will never be quite able to equal them in overall resolution and quality of soundstaging and imaging... but there are other tradeoffs as Ron mentioned in the other thread, waveguides or horns are always somewhat audible...
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing