Two unresolved issues

[Robh3606]

Sound takes place in three dimensions. I know of no measuring device that can tell me if I captured the scale of the instruments correctly. My ears will though and that’s my point.

Well whats your vantage point?? Are you 10th row of way in the back?? That's all going to change your sense of scale no? I always was under the impresion that for the most part the sense of scale was manufactured during the whole production and mastering process. Are you talking a pair of microphones going direct to disk/tape?? In that case you really wouldn't know until after the fact but you could certainly tape a rehersal and go from there.

Rob

 

[mep]

Rob-The vantage point doesn't matter. Let's say you were in the 10th row, can measurements tell you the things that I asked? You are blurring my point. Whether you have front row seats or 10 row seats, can you measure the things I talked about?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Here is what I said:

You and Tom missed my point. We have live recordings that attempted to capture the sound of musicians playing instruments in a real space. They for the most part are proportioned size-wise believably. For instance, a trumpet being played is not at the same level as the piano keyboard, the drums and cymbals sound as if they were at the correct height that you would hear if you were sitting in a club and looking at the stage, etc. In other words, instruments are scaled from one to another correctly for the most part. Sound takes place in three dimensions. I know of no measuring device that can tell me if I captured the scale of the instruments correctly. My ears will though and that’s my point.

There are so many things that are recorded that measurements can never tell you and that you will only know by listening and I listed some of them yesterday. Will measurements tell you whether the guitar player is playing a Fender Strat or a Tele? Will measurements tell you that someone is playing a Strad and not a $100.00 student violin? My point is that measurements can tell you certain things about the quality of the recording via frequency response and distortion measurements, but they can’t tell you anything about the size of the venue, the number of players and how they are arranged on the stage, and the type of instruments being played . You have to hear that for yourself and your ears will tell you if the recording is good or not.

And to Tim’s point about vertical height being recorded, check out Best Of Chesky Classics & Jazz & Audiophile Test Disc, Vol.2. Chesky recorded a shaker starting at ground level and steadily raised it up vertically. You can hear the shaker climb straight up. How do you measure that? It’s there to be heard. Ditto for the sound of drums being recorded further and further back from the microphone. Easily heard, but how do you measure that distance via test gear? My point is, we can’t measure everything we hear no matter how many times some people tell you that we can.

I did answer that post, Mark. I didn't answer the part about the Tele and the Strat and the violin, but here you go: No. I can't look at measurements and tell you what is a Tele and what is a Strat, but the audible differences between the two are made up of small variations in frequency response, and it is measurable. And if a component is incapable of reproducing those minor variations in frequency response, that will be measurable as well.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Do you consider that this forum should accept that all well designed digital sources and electronics sound the same and just discuss speakers , listening distances , room acoustics and recordings?

Nope. I think all of that is up for debate. I don't even personally think that all digital sources and electronics sound the same, so that's not a rule I'd make in Tim's World. And this isn't Tim's World.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-You answered the first post I had where I raised the initial questions. What I posted above was in answer to your first post. I never saw your second post if there was one. I hope you see that you validated what I said. You can't look at measurements and have them tell you what type instruments are being played. The measurements won't tell you how many musicians are on the stage and whether they are in an isolation booth or playing live in some venue. Measurements can't tell you how big the space was and how far apart each musician was from each other. Again, my whole point is that there are indeed things going on in a recording that you can easily hear and that can't be measured with the current gear we have to make measurements.

 

[Robh3606]

Whether you have front row seats or 10 row seats, can you measure the things I talked about?

Aside from the obvious time differences and differences in spectral content in the last octave from the HF loss due to absorption in the air??

Will measurements tell you whether the guitar player is playing a Fender Strat or a Tele? Will measurements tell you that someone is playing a Strad and not a $100.00 student violin? My point is that measurements can tell you certain things about the quality of the recording via frequency response and distortion measurements, but they can’t tell you anything about the size of the venue, the number of players and how they are arranged on the stage, and the type of instruments being played . You have to hear that for yourself and your ears will tell you if the recording is good or not.

On the Fender vs Tele if you can hear a difference you can certainly measure it. On the violin same as the guitars.

Why on earth would you expect measurements to tell you the number of players?? In most cases you are going to count the players using your eyes. I doubt if the full orchestra is short a violin player you are going to here it. What does the size of the venue have to do with measurements. You can't listen to recording and say AH 10,000 sg ft??

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-You answered the first post I had where I raised the initial questions. What I posted above was in answer to your first post. I never saw your second post if there was one. I hope you see that you validated what I said. You can't look at measurements and have them tell you what type instruments are being played. The measurements won't tell you how many musicians are on the stage and whether they are in an isolation booth or playing live in some venue. Measurements can't tell you how big the space was and how far apart each musician was from each other. Again, my whole point is that there are indeed things going on in a recording that you can easily hear and that can't be measured with the current gear we have to make measurements.

Of course. But those things that you hear are created by functions of your system that can be measured, like the minor variations in frequency response that create the audible difference between the Strat and the Tele. I hope you see the validity of that. FWIW, I don't take it quite as far as Ethan does. I haven't concluded that everything comes down to noise, distortion and FR. I haven't even concluded that everything can be measured. Everything is a really, really big word, and as mature as audio reproduction, even digital is, it's just a little too big for me. And I absolutely believe that vinyl lovers are hearing something more than I'm hearing in digital. I just don't believe what they're hearing is more natural or more real. MHO. YMMV.

Tim

 

[mep]

Look-I just wanted to make a simple statement that refutes the notion that measurements tell you everything about what you hear. I hope my point is abundently clear by now. You can measure the sound of a tele and a strat and you can look at the measurements and see differences between the two. Just looking at the measurements, you couldn't pick which one was the strat and which one was the Tele. And, measurements of a recording (and it doesn't matter if it was digital or analog) will never tell you that or the many other things I listed and the many more I could list.

And Rob, you asked me why on earth would I expect that measurements would tell me the number of players. My whole point was that I don't expect that measurements will tell me that because they can't. Am I not getting through with my point Rob? You just made it for me again. WE HEAR THINGS WE CAN'T MEASURE.

 

[DaveyF]

Aside from the obvious time differences and differences in spectral content in the last octave from the HF loss due to absorption in the air??



On the Fender vs Tele if you can hear a difference you can certainly measure it. On the violin same as the guitars.

Why on earth would you expect measurements to tell you the number of players?? In most cases you are going to count the players using your eyes. I doubt if the full orchestra is short a violin player you are going to here it. What does the size of the venue have to do with measurements. You can't listen to recording and say AH 10,000 sg ft??

Rob

Rob, I think in listening to electrical instruments and guitars in particular, one can be VERY easily fooled into thinking one is hearing a certain type of instrument when in fact that is not the truth.
I use a digital modeler in my guitar set-up and I can make my guitar sound like any number of variations of guitars or amps

In regards to Ethan's post, I kind of wonder why when we listen to music in the home or for that matter anywhere, why it has to matter if what we hear is scientifically provable; so long as is it is enjoyable and maybe repeatable. IMO, when I listen to audio gear, I am looking for gear that can reproduce as close as possible to what I hear at a live un-amplified venue. As close as possible to"live" as I can get...which hopefully fools me into thinking I am listening to the real thing. If that piece of gear is able to 'fool' me into this belief, then frankly I don't care how it does it from a scientific stand point Scientifically verifiable...great, NOT scientifically verifiable with today's knowledge,well so be it

 

[Ron Party]

Bruce, thanks for responding. I'm going to spend some time reading the links you posted.

If I might ask, can you address the first two questions raised in the OP?

Thread: Debunking Meyer and Moran


Thread: Meyer Moran result debunked - again

TITLE: Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz
AUTHORS: Pras and Guastavino, McGill University

Ethan... for every Meyer Moran and Lavry paper you can raise like a flag, I can show you others that are against. This has been going on for years. The main reason it was not a good study is that some of the material used in the study was just upsamped redbook SACD's and I have the FFT to prove it when I ripeed the DSD layer for HDtracks.

As far as I'm concerned, this case is closed and we need to move on to something more productive.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The main reason it was not a good study is that some of the material used in the study was just upsamped redbook SACD's and I have the FFT to prove it when I ripeed the DSD layer for HDtracks.

That would certainly invalidate some of the material in the study. Whether or not it would invalidate the study is not clear. That depends, of course, on how many of the files/cds were upsampled redbook and what portion of the study they represented. I remember when it became known that a bunch of HDTracks product was upsampled redbook. On another board, where there were many hi-res fans, they were justifiably outraged that they had been sold 16/44.1, at a premium price, as hi-res recordings. Of course the 800 pound elephant in the room was that these same outraged guys had been swearing by the superiority of their hi-res files the weeks before the news broke and didn't know they were listening to redbook until they were told they were listening to redbook. It seems that HDTracks didn't even know. The whole thing was sort of compact Meyer and Moran of its own.

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

In regards to Ethan's post, I kind of wonder why when we listen to music in the home or for that matter anywhere, why it has to matter if what we hear is scientifically provable; so long as is it is enjoyable and maybe repeatable.

When I am listening to music I certainly don't worry all to much about it. I have seen some very heated discussions along these lines and I always had a problem understanding why it was so heated. It doesn't matter what side of the fence your are on as we all have more in common with our love of music that we realize.

As far as something being scientifically provable?? Well there is hidden value lurking there. A common language is a great tool to help move things forward. For any real progress to be made to better what we have now we need to have a better understanding and a way to correlate what we hear with a meaningful measurement set. That's not going to happen by us saying "It sounds good to me". Some poor guy/gal has to do the grunt work and right now that leads us back to starting with the existing measurement set and moving forward.

Rob

 

[Steve Williams]

Nicely stated Rob

 

[Robh3606]

And Rob, you asked me why on earth would I expect that measurements would tell me the number of players. My whole point was that I don't expect that measurements will tell me that because they can't. Am I not getting through with my point Rob? You just made it for me again. WE HEAR THINGS WE CAN'T MEASURE.

Hello mep

With all due respect you seem to be creating situations where of course measurements couldn't tell you. They are not designed to tell you how many players are on stage as an example. That's not the same thing as the example of the two guitars where you could clearly see the differences in measurements. As to which is which does it matter. I thought the premise was you couldn't see the differences between the two because the measurements were not precise enough? That is obviously not the case and what the measurements were designed to look for in the first place.

Measurements are designed to look at specific things. I wouldn't use yard stick to look at metal deposition thickness on a silicon wafer as an example. If I were you I would use examples to make your point that make sense. I am an amateur speaker builder and I will be damed if I can see measured differences between my titanium vs my beryllium compression driver diaphragms. Can't see it in the FR graphs. Hear it plain as day. I can't see it because I am using the wrong measurements. Need to be looking in the temporal domain like the ETC graph as an example.

Rob

 

[DaveyF]

When I am listening to music I certainly don't worry all to much about it. I have seen some very heated discussions along these lines and I always had a problem understanding why it was so heated. It doesn't matter what side of the fence your are on as we all have more in common with our love of music that we realize.

As far as something being scientifically provable?? Well there is hidden value lurking there. A common language is a great tool to help move things forward. For any real progress to be made to better what we have now we need to have a better understanding and a way to correlate what we hear with a meaningful measurement set. That's not going to happen by us saying "It sounds good to me". Some poor guy/gal has to do the grunt work and right now that leads us back to starting with the existing measurement set and moving forward.

Rob

I agree with you Rob, if I were in the industry like Ethan, then that is absolutely correct. OTOH, as an end-user, I personally have very little interest in the scientific provability of the various musings of listeners. IOW, Ethan is right and Mike Lavigne is right...I fall more on Mike's side as an end-user..Don't you?

 

[Bruce B]

. It seems that HDTracks didn't even know. The whole thing was sort of compact Meyer and Moran of its own.

Tim

Yes, HDtracks asked us if we could rip SACD's about 3 years ago. When we started, we did a lot of testing and such to see the best way to do it and what sounded the best. Then they started shipping boxes and boxes of SACD's, sometimes hundreds at a time. All of us assumed that that SACD meant hi-rez. Until we got to the BIS titles that someone had said these were not hi-rez. By that time we had ripped probably 6-8 hundred discs! Then you see all of these people back tracking on their comments that the discs didn't sound good... like a bunch of lemmings. Then they started blaming us because we didn't catch it. We didn't think to check because we had trusted the labels. Now reports pop up now and then bashing HDtracks when it's the users that don't know how to use FFT/Spectragram software and everything gets blown out of proportion. To rip a 1hr. disc in real time, render, seperate tracks and check to see it they are hi-rez takes about 2hr. You can guarantee we are checking everything now!

 

[Ron Party]

Hey Bruce, is there a simple way for us end users to learn which SACDs are worthy? Perhaps I could invite you to start a new thread.

Yes, HDtracks asked us if we could rip SACD's about 3 years ago. When we started, we did a lot of testing and such to see the best way to do it and what sounded the best. Then they started shipping boxes and boxes of SACD's, sometimes hundreds at a time. All of us assumed that that SACD meant hi-rez. Until we got to the BIS titles that someone had said these were not hi-rez. By that time we had ripped probably 6-8 hundred discs! Then you see all of these people back tracking on their comments that the discs didn't sound good... like a bunch of lemmings. Then they started blaming us because we didn't catch it. We didn't think to check because we had trusted the labels. Now reports pop up now and then bashing HDtracks when it's the users that don't know how to use FFT/Spectragram software and everything gets blown out of proportion. To rip a 1hr. disc in real time, render, seperate tracks and check to see it they are hi-rez takes about 2hr. You can guarantee we are checking everything now!

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Daveyf

Ethan is right and Mike Lavigne is right...I fall more on Mike's side as an end-user..Don't you?

I am more on Ethans side. I work as an engineering manager so between my job and the the company I work at it's very tech heavy. I use the music to help get me outa there but I always stray back down to the darkside I also build speakers and have a measurement set-up, crossover simulators, box programs and various other measurement tools. I very much enjoy the technical side of things and the hands on DIY gives you.

Rob

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

On the topic of sampling and DAC quality, I will state that when Ethan published his audio challenge last summer (where he posted 3 recordings made from one recording session piped to 3 recording DACs), I was able to correctly identify which DAC had made which WAV file. However, I was only able to do so when listening through my sound system. On headphones, I could not tell the difference. But on the sound system, I suspect I sensed the slight differences in dynamics with my body, rather than my ears. The acoustic 'space' field generated by the speakers, coupled with the acoustic coupling to not just my ears but my body, may have made the difference. There may have been other factors, like flatter frequency response and more resolution, etc., but I think the acoustic coupling played a big role.
With regard to bit depth, when I made my Ultimate Fireworks recording last July, which has over 85dB of dynamic range, the differences between 16-bit and 24-bit master recordings were twofold: the 16-bit added grunge, grain and hiss to the ambient sounds. Also, the sample rate reduction from 96KHz to 48KHz for DVD affected the transient snappiness of the explosions, some of which measured 40µS rise times.
Under extraordinary conditions, sample rate and bit depth differences can easily be heard. For general music, mostly not, as the orchestra is not that much louder than the ambient sound level of the hall (about 43dB at the Klein in Bridgeport).

 

[JHM]

Hey Bruce, is there a simple way for us end users to learn which SACDs are worthy? Perhaps I could invite you to start a new thread.

As a new member, so that I can better understand other members' personal points of view on this subject, I'm wondering if "Super Moderator" Ron Party, could tell us what equipment/room set-up he's currently listening to?

Thanks...