Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

[microstrip]

Yes, and this is my entire point. I understand that people believe they hear all sorts of things. But that's a far cry from actually hearing something, in this case a change in distortion. Hence the need for measuring and blind tests. Maybe it's my 40+ years as a professional audio engineer, but I've understood the frailty and variability of hearing for a very long time. I don't understand why others who listen seriously don't understand this too.

--Ethan

May be just because they also really hear this sort of things ...

Do you really believe that audiophiles are crazy people with large imagination, and high-end manufacturers charlatans that exploit our craziness? That people who speak about 24bit/192kHz are just useless dreamers?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Do you really believe that audiophiles are crazy people with large imagination

I believe in expectation bias and do not believe in magic, and I have observed that many audiophiles have so much emotional investment in the hobby that they are able to believe that they are immune to expectation bias and that their systems are capable of the metaphysical. Crazy people? A few. Probably no greater a percentage than the general populous. Don't forget -- I don't have to believe they're crazy; I believe in expectation bias.

and high-end manufacturers charlatans that exploit our craziness?

A complex question. I think this group is a pretty nuanced continuum. At one end are scientists who deliberately over-engineer beyond what is necessary and audible because they can, because there is a market for it, because there is security and assurance in it, and, if asked directly, will directly admit that's what they're doing. At the far end are unblushing hustlers. In between there are many shades of science, engineering, excellence, alchemy, self-delusion and just plain BS. It's an awful lot like the rest of the world.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

^^^ What Tim said.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

I believe in expectation bias and do not believe in magic, and I have observed that many audiophiles have so much emotional investment in the hobby that they are able to believe that they are immune to expectation bias and that their systems are capable of the metaphysical. Crazy people? A few. Probably no greater a percentage than the general populous. Don't forget -- I don't have to believe they're crazy; I believe in expectation bias.



A complex question. I think this group is a pretty nuanced continuum. At one end are scientists who deliberately over-engineer beyond what is necessary and audible because they can, because there is a market for it, because there is security and assurance in it, and, if asked directly, will directly admit that's what they're doing. At the far end are unblushing hustlers. In between there are many shades of science, engineering, excellence, alchemy, self-delusion and just plain BS. It's an awful lot like the rest of the world.

Tim

Any one acknowledges the existence of expectation bias. But your systematic elimination of everything that can be subjective, that incorporates near field listening system or headphones, results in a wrong threshold of audibility, not accurate enough in audiophile terms.

I quote :
Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with natural human ability to “fill the blanks”, providing the right clues to trigger the perception of more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical capture, store and reproduce process.

I used the word magic in this sense - some one helping create a complete illusion. Do you disagree?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Any one acknowledges the existence of expectation bias.

If only.

Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with natural human ability to “fill the blanks”, providing the right clues to trigger the perception of more complete illusion ... I used the word magic in this sense - some one helping create a complete illusion.

This is true, but it combines two totally unrelated aspects of high fidelity. All I address in threads like this is raw fidelity - the ability for a piece of audio gear to accurately output whatever is presented at its input. In this case, whether a potentiometer passes audio transparently, regardless of whether human hearing foibles give the false impression of degradation.

Any "magic" that's involved was already captured by the microphones as performed by the musicians and singers, as written by the composer and arranger, and possibly enhanced by the mix engineers. "Magic" can also include how we hear, and how we are moved emotionally by music, and even the mechanics by which two speakers can create the illusion of a center speaker that doesn't exist.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

I(...)

Any "magic" that's involved was already captured by the microphones as performed by the musicians and singers, as written by the composer and arranger, and possibly enhanced by the mix engineers. "Magic" can also include how we hear, and how we are moved emotionally by music, and even the mechanics by which two speakers can create the illusion of a center speaker that doesn't exist.

--Ethan

Yes, but the" magic" that was captured must show later to create the illusion. Audiophiles want systems that do not block this magic. Unhappily we find that some electronics in some systems destroy it and it can not be shown with numbers.
BTW , this "magic " also shows in global space and spaciosness perceptions, not only in the illusion of the center channel.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Yes, but the" magic" that was captured must show later to create the illusion. Audiophiles want systems that do not block this magic.

Ah, okay, understood. So if a recording medium has a frequency response like a telephone, with no lows and no highs, it's tough to become immersed in the magic of the music. That makes sense.

Unhappily we find that some electronics in some systems destroy it and it can not be shown with numbers.

That makes no sense, because everything that affects fidelity audibly can indeed be measured. I'll be glad to change my mind if shown credible specific proof. But after many years of asking for specific proof, I have never seen any!

--Ethan

 

[fas42]

That makes no sense, because everything that affects fidelity audibly can indeed be measured. I'll be glad to change my mind if shown credible specific proof. But after many years of asking for specific proof, I have never seen any!

I agree entirely with that. But the measurements that are typically made IMO don't actually address the area that I believe is the problem. Stated simply, where are the tests that demonstrate that there are no changes in levels of treble distortion, particularly of the IMD variety, where the treble signals are low to very low in level, while there are high levels of lower frequencies also in the mix?

In particular, I would like this test to be done. A high quality stereo power amp, left channel fed low level treble signals and higher level lower frequency content as above, test for IMD of the treble signals. In the first instance of the test the right channel is idling, shorted input. In the second instance, the right channel is connected to a "difficult" speaker load, either real or simulated, and driven hard, very hard by a highly complex music signal, to just below the point of clipping.

Would you be willing to swear that first, there would be no difference in the two test instances of that IMD result, and second, the IMD result in the second would be invariant, irrespective of the music type and from moment to moment?

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

That makes no sense, because everything that affects fidelity audibly can indeed be measured. I'll be glad to change my mind if shown credible specific proof. But after many years of asking for specific proof, I have never seen any!

--Ethan

Just how do we prove the negative? If the measurement is not there you would say it does not exist. The only way to do that is to listen. We know what your opinion is ont that. Catch 22.

 

[microstrip]

Ah, okay, understood. So if a recording medium has a frequency response like a telephone, with no lows and no highs, it's tough to become immersed in the magic of the music. That makes sense.

??????

That makes no sense, because everything that affects fidelity audibly can indeed be measured. I'll be glad to change my mind if shown credible specific proof. But after many years of asking for specific proof, I have never seen any!

--Ethan

Yes, it can be measured - I should have been more explicit in writing. But the numbers you get can not be correlated with the perception of sound qualities. And unless you establish a causal relation between the two identities it is useless.

 

[JackD201]

??????



Yes, it can be measured - I should have been more explicit in writing. But the numbers you get can not be correlated with the perception of sound qualities. And unless you establish a causal relation between the two identities it is useless.

That gets an Amen from me not just a +1

Acquisition of data and appreciation of data are two very different things and both need to be scrutinized under peer review.

 

[mep]

Ok. Please tell me how the following can be measured: A six foot tall singer/guitar player is recorded standing in front of a microphone playing his guitar and singing. What measurement will tell me that I'm hearing a six foot tall person playing his guitar and singing?
What if he sounds like he is four foot tall and sitting down when I play it back? What measurement would show that? What measurement will tell me the stage the recording was made on is 20' wide and 10" deep? To my knowledge, we have no electrical measuring devices available that will measure the size of the recording venue, the number of players on the stage, how far apart they are from each other, and whether they are sitting down or standing up. And yet all of those things are taking place in the recording. But we want verifiable proof of measurements because everything in audio can be measured according to some. So, to those who like to throw the term "proof" around, prove to me that you can measure the criteria that I listed above which exists in all recordings.

And my point to all of this is that there are things going on in recordings that we can't measure, but we surely know the criteria we would like to measure is there. Distortion, noise, time based errors and frequency response measurements will leave us clueless.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And yet all of those things are taking place in the recording.

No, Mark, they're not. A microphone was placed in front of the singer's mouth. Another was placed in front of the guitar. Heck, they were probably recorded at different times on different tracks, but regardless, there is no way to pan vertically in a stereo mix to represent the distance between mouth and instrument on a 4-foot singing guitar player seated on a 3-foot stool vs. a six-foot singing guitar player standing on a 4-foot stage. That would be interesting; quadraphonic in a left/right, high/low configuration. But that interesting configuration doesn't exist, so everything you hear in stereo to reproduce the singing and playing of the six foot standing singer/guitar player and the 4 foot seated singer/guitar player is created by conventional microphone placement, stereo mixing and mastering, and the effect the dispersion characteristics of your speakers and the acoustics of your room have on all of the above. If you hear a difference in physical stature between a standing Ray Benson and a seated Dolly Parton who were both recorded with microphones in front of mouths and guitars and mixed and mastered in stereo, you're absolutely right: It is not measurable. Neither is anything else that resides only in your imagination.

Tim

 

[fas42]

And my point to all of this is that there are things going on in recordings that we can't measure, but we surely know the criteria we would like to measure is there. Distortion, noise, time based errors and frequency response measurements will leave us clueless.

The things that are "going on" are the low level information that has been captured by the microphones, from reflections in the environment, and intrinisically in the direct signal. The ear/brain is very, very clever and can sort this out, so that the mind then conjures up a very accurate impression of what's going on, in the imagination, if you will. It can decipher the clues in the soundscape, and tell you the where's and what's.

However, if this low level information is buried in some level of disortion which is highly irritating to boot, then the mind gives up, and that extra knowledge about the musical event is discarded as being too difficult, too tiring to deal with inside your head.

So, IMO, to measure the things Mark talks of, you will need to measure the level and type of low level distortion that's occurring. Yes, the normal distortion measurements leave us clueless, but the right ones will tell us a hell of a lot ...

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Except there's no such thing as "standard mic placement". The variations of recording a singer are almost limitless given placement vis a vis the singer and the singer vis-a-vis a microphone polar pattern. If we're talking extremes we can get all mouth and yes even a 6ft singer at the approximate height. You can even get crowds at a bleacher height viewing angle. Belafonte at Carnegie Hall singing Mathilda is an example I think many are familiar with.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I once auditioned a very famous pair of audiophile speakers. The salesman went to great lengths to tell me how carefully the speakers had been set up -- moved an inch this way, an inch that...toed in just so, then, at the end, playing a cut from a Shawn Colvin album, they had adjusted the tilt back of the speakers until the singing emerged from the image onto the sweet spot at about 5' 4".

I've met Shawn Colvin. She's not that tall. He needs to bring the front of those speakers down just a bit. And up a few inches when he plays Madeleine Peyroux. Perhaps we need motorized front feet to raise and lower the angle of the speakers to suit the height of the singer?

They don't call us audiophools for nothing...

Tim

 

[JackD201]

You sure she wasn't wearing heels when she recorded? Hahahahahaha.

 

[JackD201]

I don't think anything really does in totality in a technical sense Tom. We still have to dance with the dates we bring to the dance. In this scenario "satisfaction" can be had with state of mind more easily IMO especially if she's got pretty eyes.

 

[fas42]

I know you go on about low level distortions, but they have to be pretty high for us to have them register in our ears.

Yes, I do a bit ... (gosh, did I say that!)

Trouble is, they are still what the trouble is. My friend with the modest analogue setup is hearing what happens as you go each step of the way, doing the little things that add up, and so can I when listening to his rig ...

Remember, it is not that you "hear" the distortions, but they get in the way of you hearing what you NEED to hear, the low level info. A visual analogy: an old photo looks a bit murky and lacking in detail, then you notice there is a very fine layer of dust on it, so you carefully clean this off, and lo and behold, the visual impact of what you are seeing has so much more depth and clarity ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I still believe that accurate stereo does not satisfy, hence folks like some tube amps that swing the output power/freqeuncy response or speakers that give that california sound or whatever you want (ie some early JBL) or SET amps that provide a chorus effect or for some, the pure detail of ultra low distortion solid state (and perhaps a bit of higher odd distortions in some cases) or the amplitude modulations effects of LP etc.

Tom

I think you're right and I fall into the ultra low distortion solid state camp. I don't think it's more natural. I think it's just my choice of illusions.

Tim