Euphoric index of Audio Performance

[amirm]

One of the big debates in audio comes from someone making a small change and then saying it was night and day improvement. This often results in demands of double blind and the rest of the story is predictable.

As a technical matter, we tend to think everything is linear in scale. But I think that is a mistake when it comes to an emotional context. Take a car that does that 0 to 6 in 9 seconds or 7 seconds. I have had both and the one that does it at 7 has far better throttle response and much more enjoyable ride.

I recently used another analogy of diet coke to regular coke. Given the advances in sugar-free ingredients, the diet drink is not that far off from the regular. Yet if you are not used to diet drinks, the regular formula tastes "1000 times better."

Understanding this factor when it comes to audio may be the key to solving some of the debate.

Speaking personally I know that a single moment can translate to a "wow" experience even if the rest of the experience is not any different. Such was the case when I visited Mike Lavigne and we were playing tape. As we were talking all of a sudden a transient came that was startling in fidelity and quality. It made you say "wow, that was nice."

I have had similar experiences in digital. A well recorded music that has incredible dynamics. Or smooth decay. The latter is probably very low in amplitude difference vs a lesser reproduction. Yet hearing that smoothness is worth a lot more than its -80db or whatever levels represented.

If I took a system and eliminated 40 Hz to DC from it, numerically I have done little relative to 20 to 20 KHz response. But I am sure we all agree that loss of bass will be solidly noticed and a big negative. So clearly at some level, we can agree that the enjoyment scale here is not linear.

I am terming this the Euphoric Audio Multiplier (EAM). Question is, do we agree such a multiplier exists? And if so, what determines its amplitude?

If this theory is valid, it could explain some experiences such as differences heard between cables. We know numerically there can never be a big difference. The circuit theory says that can't be the case. But maybe there is an EAM that is > 1 and hence the reason people feel more of a difference.

Thoughts? Comments? Experiences? Doubts?

 

[fas42]

A nice exposition, Amir. Could be the beginning of some interesting thoughts ...

As you implied, a more everyday phrase that could be used is the "wow factor". My immediate thoughts are that people listening to "good" audio are always at some level comparing it to their memory archived collection of real, live sound fragments, and if there is a good match between the appropriate memory, and what they are hearing at that moment, then the EAM goes up very significantly. To contrast, the system may be making very dramatic sounds, be very spectacular in some area of its reproduction, but still not be a good match for remembered live auditory experiences, so the EAM stays at 1.

So, the gap between the reproduction and, shall we say, the instinctive memory of what the sound should be like will set the EAM pretty precisely ...

Frank

 

[RogerD]

I think most can relate to your analogies. I might say that Coke tastes much better if you haven't drank any for say a month and then you say to yourself,"darn that tastes great".

I think the same thing happens when you improve the sound. The first time you know it sounds like a improvement,but after time that wow factor subsides. It's still part of the sound and continues,but your mind becomes accustomed to it. The real big improvements are unmistakable and change the whole character of the system. It's all relative anyway because I think audio has so many levels of different kinds of performance criteria that unless you are able to compare,it can be hard to know where your system is. One thing for sure the best systems have a mesmerizing quality that mimics live music. It's not live but it invokes a emotional response, most beautiful things do.

 

[terryj]

one of the 'best' explanations of this I have come across was from Floyd toole. Paraphrased from memory, it went something like this..

There are only so many words we can use to describe difference/responses. those same words get used in all the different contexts, from the changing of a pair of speakers (ie big change) to an IC (ie small change)

So we say OMFG to the speaker change as we would expect, but we also say OMFG to the IC.

I think he described it a little better than I just did haha.

So same descriptors, vastly different 'differences'.

Of course, this opens the door to the world of individual preferences. Which goes a long way in solving these problems! For example, I am not an 'imaging freak', it is sufficient for me that the guitar is over there and the tambourine is in that other place. So a change that brings about a 'big change' in imaging is either likely to go unnoticed by me or of little importance.

BUT, a change that increases the listener envelopment, well that's the one for me (and maybe not the other guy).

 

[microstrip]

Euphoric Audio Multiplier (EAM)is a nice idea, but I would also suggest Euphoric Audio Resonance (EAR).

Usually these situations are dependent on many factors, such as recording, system, room acoustics, sound level and sometimes a small variation of any of them completely kills the big wow.

This maximum synergy effect is real and sometimes reproducible in different conditions. It is usually very dependent on the recording - a system can show a peak performance with a recording and sound lousy with another. I have a small list of recordings with which I have experienced such sound euphoria and I know what I have heard in those experiences - if my current system could reproduce all of them I would be a happy man. Unhappily, if I excessively tune the system to get this effect with one particular recording, the other recordings suffer.

May be soon I will compile a list of recordings and specific aspects that I considered "euphoric" - Amir, can you tell us with more detail what was the transient that triggered this thread?

BTW, one aspect I have found is that the Q factor of this resonance is much higher for digital than for analog.

 

[JackD201]

As a dear friend in another forum likes to say, "It's relative". Anybody that's suffered even the slightest of injuries while on vacation know that that injury can take a lot of fun out of the trip. Take swimming into some jellyfish eggs while at the beach or spraining an ankle while skiing. One little thing can cause enough discomfort to maybe not totally ruin the experience but make it, by and large, an experience that is less than memorable.

So yes, small differences can and often do make a difference because of how these small differences affect the whole. A pinch of salt can spell the difference between a good dish and a great one.

God is in the details

 

[mep]

Such was the case when I visited Mike Lavigne and we were playing tape. As we were talking all of a sudden a transient came that was startling in fidelity and quality. It made you say "wow, that was nice."

Hey, hey, hey! Never mind EAM, you went to MikeL's house and this is the first we are hearing about it? Unless I missed it, do tell what you heard. Very interested on your thoughts about where digital stacks up against analog done right.

 

[amirm]

Hey, hey, hey! Never mind EAM, you went to MikeL's house and this is the first we are hearing about it? Unless I missed it, do tell what you heard. Very interested on your thoughts about where digital stacks up against analog done right.

Sorry, my bad . I even took pictures but never got a chance to upload them. Turns out the visit was truncated substantially. I was called to fly to LA on that day and I underestimated how long it would take to go to Mike's gorgeous listening room. We just listened to a few tapes and then I ran. Didn't get a chance to the rest of his system. The track I mentioned was from Boz Scaggs but I don't recall the song name itself. Rich was also there so there was a lot to listen to if I had the time .

 

[Steve Williams]

was the Boz Scaggs track "Low Down"?

There was a CD demo disk circulating wherein Boz sang Low Down "on air" and it was spooky real as if he was right in front of you singing

 

[amirm]

I don't recall Steve. We played one song and then the tape kept playing while we were talking when the "wow" transient happened.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Personally, I think Coke tastes 1,000 times better when it forms a part of a Cuba Libre, and that really only works when one of the other parts is Havana Club Añejo 3 Años. The real one, not the Bacardi version you get in the USA.

One man's 'meh!' is another man's 'OMFG!'. Some kind of Euphoric Calculus is doomed to failure because there is no robust way of determining someone else's qualia and applying that externally. The paramedic's "on a scale of one to ten, 'one' being almost unnoticeable and 'ten' being the worst pain you ever felt, how painful is it?" method of determining pain levels only works up to a point. That one person can shrug off pain that may cause someone else to writhe in agony and yet another to faint means that any external scale of nociception is at best hopelessly unreliable.

IMO, this is at the heart of the dichotomy between those who think everything counts and those who think there are limits on what matter in audio. I don't think it has anything at all to do with being better informed, as I know some objectively very well informed audio enthusiasts who have to carry about some serious doublethink to reconcile what they know with what they believe. And some with some equally serious cognitive dissonance who don't get to the 'reconcile' part. I imagine with enough soul-searching, one of those two states would probably define a lot of audiophiles.

 

[tony ky ma]

I think most can relate to your analogies. I might say that Coke tastes much better if you haven't drank any for say a month and then you say to yourself,"darn that tastes great".

I think the same thing happens when you improve the sound. The first time you know it sounds like a improvement,but after time that wow factor subsides. It's still part of the sound and continues,but your mind becomes accustomed to it. The real big improvements are unmistakable and change the whole character of the system. It's all relative anyway because I think audio has so many levels of different kinds of performance criteria that unless you are able to compare,it can be hard to know where your system is. One thing for sure the best systems have a mesmerizing quality that mimics live music. It's not live but it invokes a emotional response, most beautiful things do.

Although the wow factor subsided but the scale in your memory had been up graded, next round of improvement must start from this point otherwise no more wow factor happen again, higher you go less chance of wow too
tony ma

 

[DonH50]

Everybody exaggerates.

 

[fas42]

Everybody exaggerates.

Just because I'm in the mood for another round of stirring up Tim, I'll for the 9,999th time mention an easy on/off marker for good EAM: the speakers completely disappear on the worst recordings with my head next to the tweeter ...

OK, folks, on your mark, get set, go ...!

Frank

 

[terryj]

Just because I'm in the mood for another round of stirring up Tim, I'll for the 9,999th time mention an easy on/off marker for good EAM: the speakers completely disappear on the worst recordings with my head next to the tweeter ...

OK, folks, on your mark, get set, go ...!

Frank

nah, it's only the 1,140 th time you have told us.

no doubt not the last either I'd hazard.

 

[garylkoh]

Just because I'm in the mood for another round of stirring up Tim, I'll for the 9,999th time mention an easy on/off marker for good EAM: the speakers completely disappear on the worst recordings with my head next to the tweeter ...

OK, folks, on your mark, get set, go ...!

Frank

I've been avoiding commenting on disappearing speakers when with your head next to the tweeter..... but this one is too hard to resist.

My measure of good EAM is when a body standing in front of a loudspeaker doesn't cast an "acoustic shadow". In a live concert, when someone walks in front of you, with your eyes closed, you don't notice because his/her body doesn't cast an acoustic shadow.

When a system does not have good EAM, when someone stands between you and one speaker, the soundstage on that side collapses. When it does have good EAM, you might not even notice unless he is very close to the loudspeaker, or very close to you.

 

[fas42]

My measure of good EAM is when a body standing in front of a loudspeaker doesn't cast an "acoustic shadow". In a live concert, when someone walks in front of you, with your eyes closed, you don't notice because his/her body doesn't cast an acoustic shadow.

When a system does not have good EAM, when someone stands between you and one speaker, the soundstage on that side collapses. When it does have good EAM, you might not even notice unless he is very close to the loudspeaker, or very close to you.

+1

You've mentioned this before, and I just tried a quick experiment. I've got Ashkenazy on, playing Chopin Etudes at virtually full volume, and tried moving a chair back a couple of feet away from the right speaker so it completely blocked out the speaker from view. As you say, it had essentially zero impact, the soundstage remains completely in place. Interesting ...

Frank

 

[DonH50]

I totally disagree with the whole "shadow" bit, but that's for another thread... Please pity an old fart and tell me what EAM means? (Did not see it defined in this thread, and it does not correspond to my known audio TLAs...)

 

[amirm]

I totally disagree with the whole "shadow" bit, but that's for another thread... Please pity an old fart and tell me what EAM means? (Did not see it defined in this thread, and it does not correspond to my known audio TLAs...)

It is a term I made up Don in the post that started this thread . It is supposed to be a multiplier that applies to the technical difference that equates the perceptual difference:

Perceptual Difference = EAM * Technical Difference

As Alan says, trying to apply algebra to an emotional thing might be fool's gold . But I think if we can acknowledge that some multiplier may exist, that is great progress forward.

 

[DonH50]

Ah, found it, thanks Amir. Missed it when I looked back... I suspect it is a fairly nonlinear complex multiplier...