Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[rbbert]

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You make a great argument. Now that you recognized the trees please take a few steps back and try to observe the forest. "(You can't see the forest for the trees.") It was not the merits of the indivdual arguments. but the futillity of Ross's attempt to convince Phoebe of his inescapable logic I found amusing. So goes this thread.
greg

And with that I agree 100%

 

[microstrip]

Tim,

Let us put some order on the arguments - you were the one to introduce the argument of the audiophile variations in the tree debate. You could not resist to introduce your usual anti-audiophile words such as incredible in the answer.

And you fail to understand that stereo is most of the time a non predictable system, and very small changes in the chain, including electronics, can lead to significant changes in sound, once sound is considered inside a perceptual system. The way stereo must get some of its "spacious" (spacial) information is mainly perceptual.

I repeat your original post in full:

Ok, here goes. Dr. L said:

Personally, I disagree.

It goes to the definition of "sound." Is sound the physical disturbance of the air particles, the mechanical energy (moving at the speed of sound), or is sound the way that mechanical energy is shaped by the physical structure of our heads, ears, the tree to our left, the length of the grass, the woman standing in front of us, the lifts in our shoes changing our height perspective, and the cues our brains take from all of that to process into what we percieve? I think there is sound that precedes manipulation by the physical environment. Your system makes sound. It sounds different in your room than it would in mine, than it would in Jack's, and even if it is playing in an anechoic chamber, where the environment has been neutralized and has no effect, it still makes sound. Even if it plays into a pair of in-ear headphones, which is very close to a direct connection to your eardrum, and the environment and the physical manipulations of your hair, head, outer ear and even most of your ear canal are neutralized, it still makes sound.

Or at least that's the way I see it. YMMV.

Perception? Real perception as opposed auditory memory filling in the blanks, imagination fullfilling expectations, etc? Grossly overblown in the audiophile community, IMO. The kind of processing Linkwitz is talking about above, in which the brain hears the soundwave filtered through hair, outer ear etc. and knows to process the changes those physical properties make to the loudness and FR and hear that as "behind me, over my left shoulder, slightly above my head." My God that perceptual processing is remarkable! But it's also remarkably consistent, in spite of the fact that you may have ears that lay flat against your head below a mass of thick curly hair and I may have ears that stick out from a head with nearly no hair at all. None of that explains the incredible variations audiophiles report hearing. That's something else altogether.

Tim

 

[Atmasphere]

There isn't a speaker made that can realistically project itself into a room like a human voice, a grand piano, a trumpet and a drum kit all at once, regardless of what kind of amplification you're driving them with. All of those instruments disperse (and do many other things) very differently. To reproduce them in-room with accuracy would require separate recording and amplification channels for each instrument driving separate and very different driver types designed to emulate instrument types -- horns for horns, planars for speakers, etc.
Tim

All I can say to this is its obvious you've not heard all the speakers out there ideally set up. You certainly don't need separate channels Are you familiar with Blumlein theory?

I run a recording studio, have for years, and we face issues outlined in your post all the time. Getting the mic feed to emulate the drum set is no worries; getting the drum set to sound real in playback is another matter.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Let us put some order on the arguments - you were the one to introduce the argument of the audiophile variations in the tree debate. You could not resist to introduce your usual anti-audiophile words such as incredible in the answer.

And you fail to understand that stereo is most of the time a non predictable system, and very small changes in the chain, including electronics, can lead to significant changes in sound, once sound is considered inside a perceptual system. The way stereo must get some of its "spacious" (spacial) information is mainly perceptual.

I repeat your original post in full:

Ok micro. You're way past responding to what i'm saying now and arguing with what you would have me say. Not much I can do with that.

Tim

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

All I can say to this is its obvious you've not heard all the speakers out there ideally set up. You certainly don't need separate channels Are you familiar with Blumlein theory?

I am. I'm unfamiliar, however, with how it relates to the unique ways that individual instruments disperse into a space and the ability of loudspeakers to emulate that dispersion.

Tim

 

[opus111]

BTW, tinnitus is sometimes audible to other people and recordable with sound recording equipment, so that is another poor example?

I was previously unaware that that was the case so yes, though it doesn't surprise me to learn it. I guess I could say the example only applies to those cases where the vibrations aren't being generated within the ear. Or I could go more complex and say that that's a case of 'internal generation of vibrations' rather than the more normal case where the vibrations originally are produced externally to the ear.

I was trying to think of an alternative example to tinnitus and masking came to mind but that's a negative example - where vibrations are present but we don't perceive them. So that could be seen as a case of perceiving silence when actually vibrations were present. It gets more philosophical then when we wonder whether silence is actually a percept too, or just the absence of all other audible percepts. I prefer for myself that silence does have a sound of its own but then I would, being a monist

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes indeed Tim. The key point, but seems to be missed by the masses. Two channels and two speakers are just a marginal interpretation of the live event, and yet the arguement persists...I can only assume folks have never really thought about it deeply.

It really doesn't take much depth of thought. Close your eyes and imagine a stage in a small hall. On stage is a trumpet, a harp and an electric bass plugged into a closed-back amp/speaker combo. Think about how the sound radiates from those three instruments. Now, tell me what single kind of driver is going to accurately emulate all three? When you find yourself without an answer, imagine that you could build three different drivers that did emulate the directional characteristics of those instruments. How would that change recording, media and system design?

We're not even close.

It has nothing to do with stereo vs binaural vs multi-channel. It is much more fundamental than that. Microphones don't hear sound the way humans do, speakers don't produce sound the way instruments do. As a very pleasant facsimile, stereo is fine by me. But does it, at any price, bring the sound of the real instruments, of the original event into a listening room? Please.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I(...) It has nothing to do with stereo vs binaural vs multi-channel. It is much more fundamental than that. Microphones don't hear sound the way humans do, speakers don't produce sound the way instruments do. As a very pleasant facsimile, stereo is fine by me. But does it, at any price, bring the sound of the real instruments, of the original event into a listening room? Please.

Tim

Tim,

I hope that now readers understand why the people who thought a lot about these matters consider that your previous restrictive definition of sound is of little use, even misleading, when debating sound reproduction, and they need to refer to the tree and the forest in their papers, not to debate philosophical issues (something forums love), but to make their perspective about what is sound more clear.

The mixed definition of sound - vibration and perception - is what drives us in real progress and is the definition often used by audiophiles. Your arguments just survive on this dichotomy. Your sentence about the nature of microphones and loudspeakers, coupled with the use of the words "pleasant facsimile" will only have success in audiences that do not understand the aims and powerful mechanisms of sound reproduction. We could go on arguing using the word sound just as a 3D vibration - and then you win all the time, as it can never be recreated again. But it will not lead nowhere, and the negative lead of your considerations will not bring us to any thing new.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I hope that now readers understand why the people who thought a lot about these matters consider that your previous restrictive definition of sound is of little use, even misleading, when debating sound reproduction, and they need to refer to the tree and the forest in their papers, not to debate philosophical issues (something forums love), but to make their perspective about what is sound more clear.

The mixed definition of sound - vibration and perception - is what drives us in real progress and is the definition often used by audiophiles. Your arguments just survive on this dichotomy. Your sentence about the nature of microphones and loudspeakers, coupled with the use of the words "pleasant facsimile" will only have success in audiences that do not understand the aims and powerful mechanisms of sound reproduction. We could go on arguing using the word sound just as a 3D vibration - and then you win all the time, as it can never be recreated again. But it will not lead nowhere, and the negative lead of your considerations will not bring us to any thing new.

Recognizing that there is a difference between sound and the perception of sound doesn't restrict the definition or discussion of either.

Recognizing that existing transducer technology is very limited in its ability to emulate the dispersion characteristics of instruments is neither negative nor limiting. It is realistic, and if anything, it should inspire the open, inquisitive mind to think beyond traditional stereo and traditional tranducers. Believing we're much further down the road than is realistic is, IMO, where the risk of stifling development lies.

And if you'll notice, I managed to write that entire position without once talking about, or even referring to you personally.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Tim,

I hope that now readers understand why the people who thought a lot about these matters consider that your previous restrictive definition of sound is of little use, even misleading, when debating sound reproduction, and they need to refer to the tree and the forest in their papers, not to debate philosophical issues (something forums love), but to make their perspective about what is sound more clear.

The mixed definition of sound - vibration and perception - is what drives us in real progress and is the definition often used by audiophiles. Your arguments just survive on this dichotomy. Your sentence about the nature of microphones and loudspeakers, coupled with the use of the words "pleasant facsimile" will only have success in audiences that do not understand the aims and powerful mechanisms of sound reproduction. We could go on arguing using the word sound just as a 3D vibration - and then you win all the time, as it can never be recreated again. But it will not lead nowhere, and the negative lead of your considerations will not bring us to any thing new.

You know, I've read a lot of papers on sound reproduction and participated in a lot of audiophile forums (as well as read this whole by now really weird topic) and I really have no idea what you are talking about here.

Sound is a physical property and its presence is reflected in the world around us whether or not there is anyone to hear it. Perception of sound is a neurophysiologic process with totally different properties.

 

[Atmasphere]

I am. I'm unfamiliar, however, with how it relates to the unique ways that individual instruments disperse into a space and the ability of loudspeakers to emulate that dispersion.

Tim

If that is the case Tim, then the correct answer would have been 'No, I don't know anything about it.'

 

[microstrip]

You know, I've read a lot of papers on sound reproduction and participated in a lot of audiophile forums (as well as read this whole by now really weird topic) and I really have no idea what you are talking about here.

Sound is a physical property and its presence is reflected in the world around us whether or not there is anyone to hear it. Perception of sound is a neurophysiologic process with totally different properties.

From Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by F. Toole. As it is a book with copyright I can not post more than a few lines - but you have to read the book to fully understand where this approach leads. Take this as an appetizer.

 

[microstrip]

(...) And if you'll notice, I managed to write that entire position without once talking about, or even referring to you personally.

Tim

Yes, you usually manage to do it all the time easily, you just refer generically to audiophiles with very colorful epithets. I accept I am an audiophile - I told it several times. Do you think I should friendly refer to you just as the anti-audiodiophiles or the audiophile-chasers?

BTW, just to keep on the thread main subject, I was just finishing my last 56Hz tuned membrane limp bass trap - the 36.5Hz ones were a success, both objectively and subjectively! But that will go in another thread.

 

[Gregadd]

When I asked who had a real sounding system there was essentially silence.

Tom
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
It's not that we don't have any examples. It's just clear you are not open to persuasion.
As for new formats. I've said it before there are millions of headphones out there. Unless the producers gouge the listeners it might even lead to a reduction of cost. If digital had not eliminated vinyl I would have no issue with it at all.
greg

 

[NorthStar]

---Lost another tooth!

 

[terryj]

Ok, if someone can do it they will be the recipient of a newly created award, the 'terry j award for excellence in clear writing'

worthwhile huh!

I admit it, I am lost. Is anyone able to clearly articulate the relevance of the trees in the forest bit. Extra marks for a summary that explains both sides of the argument, pro and non pro.

Re the 'can a system reproduce live' or a good enough facsimile. Ok, I accept that if your goal is 'it has to be TRUE to it maaan!' then it is a losing proposition. (does that have to be the goal btw?)

What about electronica say. That will never be a 'true' event, it is created in the studio expressly to be listened on a stereo, often with the contributors never meeting each other and done by file transfer. Sure, you can then go to a concert 'weird sounds in audio done LIVE!' ('weird sounds in audio' being the album title 'k?) and THEN we can have the reverse argument, 'man, that was crap. Nothing like the record, hmmph'.

Bit like the movies..'was not as good as the book'.

 

[JackD201]

My 2 cents

Stereo is what it is. Content is what matters and the content is in Stereo. We can bitch about it or make the best of it. I'll take the latter route and enjoy it as a separate and distinct experience in its own right.

 

[Soundminded]

Ok, if someone can do it they will be the recipient of a newly created award, the 'terry j award for excellence in clear writing'

worthwhile huh!

I admit it, I am lost. Is anyone able to clearly articulate the relevance of the trees in the forest bit. Extra marks for a summary that explains both sides of the argument, pro and non pro.

Re the 'can a system reproduce live' or a good enough facsimile. Ok, I accept that if your goal is 'it has to be TRUE to it maaan!' then it is a losing proposition. (does that have to be the goal btw?)

What about electronica say. That will never be a 'true' event, it is created in the studio expressly to be listened on a stereo, often with the contributors never meeting each other and done by file transfer. Sure, you can then go to a concert 'weird sounds in audio done LIVE!' ('weird sounds in audio' being the album title 'k?) and THEN we can have the reverse argument, 'man, that was crap. Nothing like the record, hmmph'.

Bit like the movies..'was not as good as the book'.

"Is anyone able to clearly articulate the relevance of the trees in the forest bit."

Yes, it is the substitution of one inane discussion with another. In both cases the blind are leading the blind.

Fact: Sound is a physical phenomenon in which there is a disturbance caused by collisions of molecules creating the propagation of alternating compressions and rarifactions. In air or in water (as in sonar) this is a branch of mechanical engineering known as fluid dynamics. Sound can exist in solids as well and is transmitted in some solids very efficiently. They say if you put your ear to a railroad rail you can hear a train 100 miles away. Sound is not the biological reaction to these waves, it is the waves themselves. If it weren't so, the term ultra sound would have no meaning because it is literally sound at a frequency too high to be heard. Hearing is one physiological consequence of sound within certain frequency and amplitude ranges. It is characteristic of higher animals. Both higher and lower animals and possibly plants have other reactions besides hearing to such vibrations if they are sensitive to them.

"Re the 'can a system reproduce live' or a good enough facsimile. Ok, I accept that if your goal is 'it has to be TRUE to it maaan!' then it is a losing proposition."

Wrong. It can be done but not by technologies in use today. They are far too primitive because they are based on a grossly inadequate understanding of sound and hearing. Far more advanced systems are required whose design and construction shows much greater insight into both phenomena. Repeating the same mistakes ad infinitum ad nauseum will not solve the problem. It merely reveals the intellectual incompetence and inadequacy of those who produce them and claim either overtly or by implication that they do.

"(does that have to be the goal btw?)"

If you love the sound of real music as opposed to a pale facsimile of it and that is what you want to hear then yes. If you are pleased by the mediocre product of an industry that went off the rails decades ago and defined its goals in terms of where an expensive trainwreck takes it, then it can be whatever you want it to be. This makes it possible to sell anything to those gullible enough and with more money than sense to not merely buy it but to keep swapping around looking for ???? Funny how their money and impulsiveness never seems to become exhausted.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My 2 cents

Stereo is what it is. Content is what matters and the content is in Stereo. We can bitch about it or make the best of it. I'll take the latter route and enjoy it as a separate and distinct experience in its own right.

The inarguable position, awaiting an argument.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Cultural Dictionary

can't see the forest for the trees definition

An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn't see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”