Measurements & the stereo illusion

[microstrip]

Sorry. What is a mystery? What have happy audiophiles and researches managed to solve? What common sense techniques have been developed to analyze sighted tests, and, I assume, eliminate sighted bias from the results? Got data? Got anecdotal information? Got the ability to even describe what you're talking about? Got anything at all?

Tim

Tim,
Apologies to upset you the point you become offensive. I am out.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Apologies to upset you the point you become offensive. I am out.

I'm not upset and no apology is necessary. You're offended by being asked for substance? You implied much but said almost nothing, micro. I was simply asking you to elaborate on your vague references to solutions and analysis for which you offered absolutely no detail.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Hello Jkeny

Yes of course it would however they seem to be doing just fine with what we already know but there is always room for improvement.

Ah, This is your opinion "just fine" - have I stumbled into the forum of whatsjustgoodenough? You agree with my point that we could improve matters but yet then proceed to reject everything that I say. There are some that want to improve this area - you may not be interested - that's fine.

How on earth did you get from various systems being able to image the same way with the same recording to "they all would sound exactly the same"??

When you said what's needed to "create the illusion" I presumed you meant accurately create the illusion but sorry, maybe you meant that some create the illusion better than others? Perhaps you can clarify?

Well heres one for openers. When you listen to a friend singing where does the sound come from?? Your friend or a pair of speakers?? Stereo is a complete hoax there is absolutely nothing natural about it. Using 2 speakers to recreate a single singer and you wonder why we can tell it's fake even blind????

I enjoy listening to it but I have no illusions about how "real" it is. That's a huge problem people seem to think that the stereo recording is the real event. It's not and never will be. It's just a recording and nothing more. Same thing when using a live event as the holly grail for what a recording should sound like. It's recording if you want to hear live music go to a show. Apples and oranges the two will never meet.

Rob

Yes, I agree - it's a two channel version of a fully immersive audio experience that we have in real life - an audio scene that we can move around in & experience from different perspectives. It's not trying to emulate this experience. It captures a part of the performance that is recorded by the mics used, often in order to recreate a rough facsimile of what we would hear from a particular vantage point at that concert or performance. It's fixed position, not something that we can walk around or experience from different perspectives - it's not hologrpahic like the real event.
What we want from that illusion is to be moved emotionally, to connect to the performance, to understand the interplay of the performers. Inmy opinion, to achieve this requires an engagement/immersion in the illusion. Anything which disturbs this illusion results in less engagement/immersion & less satisfaction from our listening

 

[j_j]

I'm not here to play semantics. I've tried to convey to jkeny what the standard usage of words is, but rather than accept that, s/he continues to build straw men and light them afire.

Say good night, Gracie.

 

[jkeny]

I'm not here to play semantics.

Well that's exactly what you have been doing all along, sorry to say.

I've tried to convey to jkeny what the standard usage of words is, but rather than accept that, s/he continues to build straw men and light them afire.

Say good night, Gracie.

I'm more interested in real discussion rather than game-playing, - good night Gracie!

 

[Robh3606]

Hello jkeny

Ah, This is your opinion "just fine" - have I stumbled into the forum of whatsjustgoodenough? You agree with my point that we could improve matters but yet then proceed to reject everything that I say. There are some that want to improve this area - you may not be interested - that's fine.

Come on, give me a break will you?? "Just fine" means they are doing a good job in their craft. Don't read into it, take it at face value. They have only been doing phantom images in the medium since what the early 50's so what 60 years now! They even manufacture chips designed to enhance the effect Q Sound as an example.

I am not rejecting everything you say just the bits I have taken exception too. Still think you should take up JJ on what he has pointed out as a reference. Even if I did it doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

whatsjustgoodenough Now that is funny. Seems to me to some audiophiles nothing is good enough. Fortunately for me I don't fit that category so I can actually enjoy what I am listening too without obsessing about what's wrong. I would rather look at it from the perspective of my glass is half full and enjoy what sounds right. I build speakers as part of the hobby. Once you get into "critical" mode it can make your life miserable trying to listen to music. I try to avoid it unless I am making comparisons against another pair of speakers I use as my "house" standard. My house "standard" has changed over the years.

When you said what's needed to "create the illusion" I presumed you meant accurately create the illusion but sorry, maybe you meant that some create the illusion better than others? Perhaps you can clarify?

A little of both actually. If for some reason your system messes up the basics, timing , phase or amplitude it will degrade the illusion. That's a no brainer but fortunately with electronics that normally is not an issue. Imaging is more a speaker, room and placement issue. These can all make or break the best electronics available. As always speakers and speaker placement swamps out electronics on the ultimate fidelity of the system. Just do a lousy job setting up your speakers and the rest of the chain will be all for naught no mater how good it is.

I have 3 systems around the house and several pairs of speakers I rotate in and out of my "reference" stereo system. Each time I change out a pair of speakers I have to fine tune the imaging using placement of me and the speakers. I use a single reference CD for this. I also use this CD for the other 2 systems. In all cases once everything is dialed in the imaging is consistent from system to system. I am not saying they all image exactly the same. They are all a little different even in the same room obviously using different speakers that do not interact with the room in quite the same way.

Which again rolls us back to the question of which one is correct?? You get an enjoyable experience from any one of these systems even though the spacial presentations are a bit different.

Rob

 

[j_j]

I have 3 systems around the house and several pairs of speakers I rotate in and out of my "reference" stereo system. Each time I change out a pair of speakers I have to fine tune the imaging using placement of me and the speakers. I use a single reference CD for this. I also use this CD for the other 2 systems. In all cases once everything is dialed in the imaging is consistent from system to system. I am not saying they all image exactly the same. They are all a little different even in the same room obviously using different speakers that do not interact with the room in quite the same way.

Indeed. Each kind of speaker has a different radiation pattern, and is going to interact with any given room in a way more or less unique to the radiation pattern of that specific room.

This affects the direct sound (first arrival from the speaker), this affects the early reflections from the playback room, and it affects the late and diffuse returns even more strongly, because most speakers do not manage to be power-flat as well as direct-signal flat.

This is one of the reasons there are so many speakers, everyone picks one that gives the direct/late ratios and timbre that they personally prefer. And preference is still inviolate as long as it remains personal preference.

One thing that people need to realize is that words like "hear" need to be carefully defined. When the meaning moves from early in the peripheral part of the auditory system with one sentence, and on to the output of the central nervous system in another, it's simply going to be difficult, if not impossible, to even communicate.

If those (perhaps you don't need to yourself) who want to know more wish to hear an hour's lecture, they can go to www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm and find the Heyser lecture and the slides that go along with it, and listen to the entire lecture in an hour. That might clear some of the dust that's floating around quite nicely.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Indeed. Each kind of speaker has a different radiation pattern, and is going to interact with any given room in a way more or less unique to the radiation pattern of that specific room.

This affects the direct sound (first arrival from the speaker), this affects the early reflections from the playback room, and it affects the late and diffuse returns even more strongly, because most speakers do not manage to be power-flat as well as direct-signal flat.

This is one of the reasons there are so many speakers, everyone picks one that gives the direct/late ratios and timbre that they personally prefer. And preference is still inviolate as long as it remains personal preference.

One thing that people need to realize is that words like "hear" need to be carefully defined. When the meaning moves from early in the peripheral part of the auditory system with one sentence, and on to the output of the central nervous system in another, it's simply going to be difficult, if not impossible, to even communicate.

If those (perhaps you don't need to yourself) who want to know more wish to hear an hour's lecture, they can go to www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm and find the Heyser lecture and the slides that go along with it, and listen to the entire lecture in an hour. That might clear some of the dust that's floating around quite nicely.

Some people love the dust. They find it deepens the sound stage, makes the music more musical. Dust is their preference.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) One thing that people need to realize is that words like "hear" need to be carefully defined. When the meaning moves from early in the peripheral part of the auditory system with one sentence, and on to the output of the central nervous system in another, it's simply going to be difficult, if not impossible, to even communicate.

If those (perhaps you don't need to yourself) who want to know more wish to hear an hour's lecture, they can go to www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm and find the Heyser lecture and the slides that go along with it, and listen to the entire lecture in an hour. That might clear some of the dust that's floating around quite nicely.

I referred to it several times - the ambiguity in the use of words it is the main reason of the eternity of most debates, including a famous one about falling trees in the forest.

Curious that you first used hear and then listen in your last sentence - should we debate why?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think we could get past a lot of disagreement if we could just agree on some definitions.

What we hear, physically, is what is in the air in the room. What we perceive, personally, is impacted by psychology and by our brain's ability to "re-master" what is in the air in the room to meet our expectations. It can simply allow us to "hear" as we are accustomed to hearing, to perceive stereo as much more natural-sounding than it really is, or at can cause us to hear what is not there at all.

Similar effects occur with the other senses as well. And they are so well-studied and documented that denial borders on self-delusion. Even more foolish though, and I hope I've misunderstood, is attempting to say that because audio measurement instruments cannot measure perceptions, that they are incapable of measuring, and revealing, the differences, or lack thereof, between signals, components and the sound that is presented to our ears in the room.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I think we could get past a lot of disagreement if we could just agree on some definitions.

What we hear, physically, is what is in the air in the room.

So tell me where does hearing stop & perception begin? At the eardrum, at the cochlea, at the auditory cortex, at the CNS? If you want to say the study of the air-borne audio signal is different to hearing yes that's fine & there's no disagreement.

It is obvious from my very first post that I am talking about my & others experience of a change in perception of the sound & the possible changes in the signal waveform that might be the cause of this? No discussion of any worth has ensued. The usual semantics games being played.

What we perceive, personally, is impacted by psychology and by our brain's ability to "re-master" what is in the air in the room to meet our expectations. It can simply allow us to "hear" as we are accustomed to hearing, to perceive stereo as much more natural-sounding than it really is, or at can cause us to hear what is not there at all.

This is rubbish. Our perception of hearing is what we use in the every day world - it gives us, by & large an accurate view into the world in the limited frequency band that the ear is tuned to. Expectation, also comes into play in the real world - I went to a Neil Young concert recently expecting a great concert & it was crap. In the people I spoke to during & after the concert who had a high expectation & had paid over €100 for a ticket (high expectations & a lot of money invested), only a small percentage (1%) still clung to the idea that it was a great concert & you could see they were clinging to this belief. So come on, get real & adopt some common sense, please. These posts are becoming so divorced from the real world that it beggars belief

Similar effects occur with the other senses as well. And they are so well-studied and documented that denial borders on self-delusion. Even more foolish though, and I hope I've misunderstood, is attempting to say that because audio measurement instruments cannot measure perceptions, that they are incapable of measuring, and revealing, the differences, or lack thereof, between signals, components and the sound that is presented to our ears in the room.

Tim

Nobody said that - I said that the existing measurements well may be used in more sophisticated ways to get a better, deeper picture of what might be in the audio signal that is of interest - it's just that currently we don't have the model for how this type of measurement should be done!

 

[JackD201]

I think we could get past a lot of disagreement if we could just agree on some definitions.

What we hear, physically, is what is in the air in the room. What we perceive, personally, is impacted by psychology and by our brain's ability to "re-master" what is in the air in the room to meet our expectations. It can simply allow us to "hear" as we are accustomed to hearing, to perceive stereo as much more natural-sounding than it really is, or at can cause us to hear what is not there at all.

Similar effects occur with the other senses as well. And they are so well-studied and documented that denial borders on self-delusion. Even more foolish though, and I hope I've misunderstood, is attempting to say that because audio measurement instruments cannot measure perceptions, that they are incapable of measuring, and revealing, the differences, or lack thereof, between signals, components and the sound that is presented to our ears in the room.

Tim

Oh boy. I'm speechless.

 

[amirm]

There was an interesting program on TV called Brain Games I think. They conducted a simple test: they asked people to give a range as the answer to some questions for which the person being asked wouldn't know the precise answer. Despite having the ability to give very wide ranges, say 1 to 1,000,000, people routinely gave short ranges that were wrong. The explanation they gave was that we live in a world with so many uncertainties. In order to not go crazy, we are overly optimistic about the world. We attempt to give answers where we don't really know them. And exude overconfidence as this example part of the show demonstrated. It is for these reasons that we must triangulate what we think we know about audio. Without it, we are wired it seems to arrive at incorrect answers, especially if it is a positive outcome. We would hate living in a world where we don't know the answer. And of course, if we are wrong.

 

[microstrip]

Oh boy. I'm speechless.

Now I will become keyboardless. Perhaps I will make some occasional clicks on the mouse.

 

[j_j]

Curious that you first used hear and then listen in your last sentence - should we debate why?

Hear -> Rises above threshold, i.e. is detected and can be demonstrated via DBT.

Listen -> Is heard and processed beyond pure perception.

But I didn't think we were debating

 

[j_j]

This is rubbish.

No, it's reality, and pretty much spot on.

Out of the couple of megabits/second our ears send to our brain (and yes, you can measure non-digital signals in bits/second, ala Shannon), we actually distill it down to about 2-3 bytes/second, AND THAT DISTILLATION IS ENTIRELY PLASTIC, meaning that it can be consciously steered, unconsciously steered, and furthermore, all other senses AND expectations get distilled into the same couple of bytes/second.

So, perhaps you should actually go listen to that talk I pointed you to, and LISTEN, not just hear, what I'm saying. If you want to argue my authority to say what I say, you could consult the IEEE or AES, both of which have awarded me this or that for my understanding of human auditory perception.

Until you completely, and I mean COMPLETELY let go of your stated opinion in the article I've taken the quote from, you are never going to be able to understand how human perception actually works.

 

[j_j]

I say, well, I wish I said with such eloquence what Tim said. Totally agree, like totally man. I thought I have said the same thing myself but it never seems to get across.

While it's good, it's a bit oversimplified.

But not nearly as oversimplified as jkeny's viewpoint, to say the very least.

 

[jkeny]

While it's good, it's a bit oversimplified.

But not nearly as oversimplified as jkeny's viewpoint, to say the very least.

Please correct ne, I'm a willing student

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Please correct ne, I'm a willing student

No, really, you're not. You're about the furthest thing from a willing student any of us is likely to encounter.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

No, it's reality, and pretty much spot on.

Out of the couple of megabits/second our ears send to our brain (and yes, you can measure non-digital signals in bits/second, ala Shannon), we actually distill it down to about 2-3 bytes/second, AND THAT DISTILLATION IS ENTIRELY PLASTIC, meaning that it can be consciously steered, unconsciously steered, and furthermore, all other senses AND expectations get distilled into the same couple of bytes/second.

Yes I looked at your video when you posted the link back on page 2 or so. I understand the distillation of the signal through the perception system. This plasticity also allows us to be very efficient in how we use the perception. The steering has just as much chance of being steered towards a negative result as it does towards a positive result. My explanation of the psychology of auditioners of Jplay who have just bought an audio product is just as valid & just as likely to steer listeners towards not hearing any improvement when using it. The view being put forth here was that because I recommended it that therefore listeners were pre-disposed towards hearing it as an improvement.

So, perhaps you should actually go listen to that talk I pointed you to, and LISTEN, not just hear, what I'm saying. If you want to argue my authority to say what I say, you could consult the IEEE or AES, both of which have awarded me this or that for my understanding of human auditory perception.

I know who you are & your background - I haven't argued about your expertise in this area. Again, I will repeat the view that I & others can hear changed sound stage - more solid, deeper (& better engagement with the music) when some digital sources are used. My question arising from this was what, if any measurements have been used to investigate this. At this stage it is clear that the whole topic is not worth pursuing here

Until you completely, and I mean COMPLETELY let go of your stated opinion in the article I've taken the quote from, you are never going to be able to understand how human perception actually works.

Thanks!