Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

True, but it exposes the weakness of the current status. Sound reproduction is based mainly based in principles taken from the perceptual sciences that you consider we are often overplaying. However, it is most of time driven by the existing technology, ignoring its roots and the ultimate aim of sound reproduction - creating great listening experiences with the existing media.

We all dream about better measurements. My idea is that if these measurements just reflect the increasing resolution of measuring gear and are just analysis driven, ignoring the holistic approach, we will never be able to correlate sound and measurements in the sense summarized by F. Toole:

Scientists often seek mathematical descriptions for relationships, including relationships between what is measured and what is heard. An equation does
not add information; it attempts to describe information in a different form. In fact, almost always the equation is a simplification of the raw data that emerge
from psychoacoustic examinations of a phenomenon. But such attempts are important in modeling more complex aspects of perception. Several simplified
relationships may be combined into an explanation of something complex. The hope is that it can be done well enough that the input of technical data can
yield an output that is a good prediction of a human perception. The long-term objective in the context of sound reproduction is to fi nd technical metrics that
usefully evaluate the physical world of electronic and transduction devices, operating in rooms. (From Sound Reproduction).

I don't get your point microstrip ... We will never know everything .. That is truism that can't be debated. You are listening through, something that was captured with, stored on and reproduced through a technological construct .. What is "holistic" about that? What would be the "holistic" approach?

 

[microstrip]

I don't get your point microstrip ... We will never know everything .. That is truism that can't be debated. You are listening through, something that was captured with, stored on and reproduced through a technological construct .. What is "holistic" about that? What would be the "holistic" approach?

Holistic - relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts. The holistic approach means incorporating the knowledge of the psychoacosutical aspects that contribute to the illusion (if you accept that the illusion contributes for your listening experience) in the search for the measurements. Some manufacturers do it, although in a non publicized and non systematic way.

And just because we will never know everything does not imply we can not know more ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I would hope that if we could get good measurements of how amplifiers perform under variable loads, a decent methodology for matching those behaviors to speakers, and speakers that disperse broadly and evenly, into a room, we would make great progress. Add in good, practical, cost-effective methods to extend bass and manage room gain and you could get a great-sounding system in an average room. Want better? Start measuring the room. Is it really this simple? Probably not, but it's good to have a dream. And it's probably not nearly as complicated as many would have us believe, either.

Tim

 

[Raffles]

...we will never be able to correlate sound and measurements in the sense summarized by F. Toole...

For an amplifier, is there something better to aspire to than "straight wire with gain" then? For a speaker is there better than a perfectly linear point source? I don't think so. There may be better ways of reproducing the live event in your living room than we currently have, but the solution there lies with microphone technique, more than two channels, DSP etc. It has nothing to do with magical properties of tubes, or vinyl, or cables, or open baffles for added 'ambience' - which are simply red herrings. Perhaps it makes the hobby a little dull, but at least you can start enjoying the music!

 

[FrantzM]

Finite consciousness requires finite analysis.. Capturing and reproducing demands dissections. You need to reduce the amount of variables and parameters , else your search will never end ... Take the example of your beloved LP or Tapes ... It had to do with what was available thus left a good chink of things out .. Ought to.. A simple analysis of every day sounds (sorry! there is no other method I know of, do you? ) will show that the frequencies extend in the hundredth of KHz ... does LP? or Tape? or anything? So what do we do with our meager resources? We optimize them and construct a model based on what we judge to be sufficient data (Judgement calls, educated guesses, pragmatism, limitations of the media, etc) ... All of these finite, limited .. So our kowledge of psychoacoustics ( A Science after) has to be perforce has to be that too, limited, non-holistic too ..
Manufacturers measure ,measure more and measure again.. When they find a good correlation with what they are looking for or rather their market is looking for they .... refine their measurements helped by listening in many cases but the operative termhere is measurements[ /I] so to repeat even more measurement to be able to repeat, thus keeping their segment of the market happy .. There is no magic in and to it .. only Science, sometime luck (when you are dealing with so many parameters, variables and contigencies , luck has o be involved and of course minds that understand that when the science is not yet known or insufficient it is good to add human judgement to it .. call it "Art" call it craftsmanship, it ain't magic.. So far I don't see the holistic in all that.. I am ok with the illusion all right and do accept it entirely because that what it is and will ever be .. save from connecting rods directly to my brain and even there ... Sound Reproduction is an illusion that can get better you would be the first to admit it .. Just an aside one of my laptop has some kind of SRS sound thing to it and yesterday watching the games on it, I could swear that the sound of the crowd was coming from behind ...

I am however very conscious of the fact that Science brought me this illusion and can make it even better ... Just a question

I would have thought that there would have simple recipes to have a good system .. Your posts seems to sugest that it is an incredibly arcane endeavor .. reading such posts a neophyte would scream and just never get to High ENd Audio.. returning to her/his iPod and be done enjoying music through a Beat by Dr Dre pair of (baaaad) sounding, expensive headphones ... Judging by this article that is exactly what they are doing ..
Come on man it isn't that esoteric: There are ways and simple ones to have a decent sounding system following science and good recipes some based on not yet entirely understood but repeatable processes, even a great sounding system...

Technology a mixture of definitive knowledge and human intuition (Is that holistic ) ... Technology is not Science but it grounded in it .

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Micro, tell me what you think this statement means:

Scientists often seek mathematical descriptions for relationships, including relationships between what is measured and what is heard. An equation does
not add information; it attempts to describe information in a different form. In fact, almost always the equation is a simplification of the raw data that emerge
from psychoacoustic examinations of a phenomenon. But such attempts are important in modeling more complex aspects of perception. Several simplified
relationships may be combined into an explanation of something complex. The hope is that it can be done well enough that the input of technical data can
yield an output that is a good prediction of a human perception. The long-term objective in the context of sound reproduction is to fi nd technical metrics that
usefully evaluate the physical world of electronic and transduction devices, operating in rooms. (From Sound Reproduction).

I find myself wondering if I'm imagining meanings in your posts that you do not intend. If I can understand what you really believe this, and a few other statements mean, we may find out that we agree on much more than we thought.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

For an amplifier, is there something better to aspire to than "straight wire with gain" then? For a speaker is there better than a perfectly linear point source? I don't think so. There may be better ways of reproducing the live event in your living room than we currently have, but the solution there lies with microphone technique, more than two channels, DSP etc. It has nothing to do with magical properties of tubes, or vinyl, or cables, or open baffles for added 'ambience' - which are simply red herrings. Perhaps it makes the hobby a little dull, but at least you can start enjoying the music!

OK, others think that there some wires are better than others and a perfect point source is not the best solution. Look for manuals of Pass Electronics in the site, it has an excellent and fair perspective about the other side concerning electronics:

https://passlabs.com/download.php?download_file=https://passlabs.com/images/uploads/manual/Xs_amp_om.pdf

Also remember that I was addressing "listening experiences with the existing media", not the future. And the arguments on the line "once we are free from audiophile objectives we can start enjoying the music" are outdated and nothing new in audiophile forums.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, tell me what you think this statement means:
Tim

Tim,

Sorry, for me it is too evident to need an explanation. And yes, we disagree a lot more than you think. You would be happy with a few graphs of classical measurements of how amplifiers perform under variable loads, I think that this is not the good way to go, or at less designers are going. Surely my feeling has the same value of yours - I am not an expert in audio electronics. But the experience of life has prepared me to accept the limitations of these classical methods.

 

[JackD201]

With all due respect from a propeller head, I don't think the biological/cultural aspect is overplayed at all. Music has existed long before attempts to reproduce it. We don't need the science if all we want is to enjoy it. Knowing how and why things work is terribly cool but we must remember that it can also distract.

 

[FrantzM]

With all due respect from a propeller head, I don't think the biological/cultural aspect is overplayed at all. Music has existed long before attempts to reproduce it. We don't need the science if all we want is to enjoy it. Knowing how and why things work is terribly cool but we must remember that it can also distract.

Jack

Our current method of reproducing music, is technological ... What's the way forward if not to make the technology better and maybe t understand more about the mechanism by which we perceive sound thus music? This seems to me the province of Science.. I am not claiming it is the only way to know. If the endeavor is technological as in the case of reproducing music, the way forward is through Science.

 

[Raffles]

OK, others think that there some wires are better than others and a perfect point source is not the best solution. Look for manuals of Pass Electronics in the site, it has an excellent and fair perspective about the other side concerning electronics:

https://passlabs.com/download.php?download_file=https://passlabs.com/images/uploads/manual/Xs_amp_om.pdf

Also remember that I was addressing "listening experiences with the existing media", not the future. And the arguments on the line "once we are free from audiophile objectives we can start enjoying the music" are outdated and nothing new in audiophile forums.

I don't think that Pass is saying that "a straight wire with gain" isn't the ultimate, just that given that you can't have that in practice, it's a balance of which specifications you aim to get as close to perfection on. My quibble is with the idea that it is possible to do something with an amplifier circuit (or cable, or turntable etc.) that gives you 'supernatural' reproduction i.e. better than the the proverbial straight wire. I could imagine doing something with DSP that gave you a better listening experience, but with just an amplifier? There have been various 'aural exciter' circuits in music production some of which, as I understand it, added distortion to brighten up a dull sound. However, I would suggest that these were not applied in blanket fashion to the final mix, but were added to individual voices and or instruments, so closer to genuinely adding harmonics, rather than just some intermodulation distortion. The general point being that they were designed for a purpose and behave predictably rather than attempting to find something serendipitous in an amplifier's deviation from proverbial straight wire performance.

(A constant 1 kW consumption for an amplifier?! Am I alone in thinking that that is verging on the obscene and/or ridiculous?)

 

[Soundminded]

It is pointless to measuere what you can't hear. For instance it's of no value to know the harmonic distorton at 40 khz. It's also pointless to measure something that always comes out the same, FR of a power amplifier at 1 watt into an 8 ohm resistive load. It's always going to be rule flat over the audio passband. If you were to measure how long it takes for a loud sound to die out in your room it would probably be about 0.2 seconds. If you were to measure it in a large live performace venue like a concert hall it would be about 2.0 seconds, ten times as long. Does it matter? Can you hear the difference? If you can hear the difference between one wire and another, one tube and another, one connector and another, how would you expect me to believe that you can't hear the difference between an RT of 0.2 and 2.0 seconds? Keep adding sound soak to the walls and maybe you can get it down to 0.1 seconds. If it wasn't dead enough already, that will make it even deader. Does it matter if all of the reverberation you hear comes out of the speakers in front of you or from every possible direction around you? I can hear that difference. Can you?

 

[A.wayne]

@Raffles,

Then i guess you would not have liked my at the time krell @ 1400 watts quiescent idle ....

 

[A.wayne]

It is pointless to measuere what you can't hear. For instance it's of no value to know the harmonic distorton at 40 khz. It's also pointless to measure something that always comes out the same, FR of a power amplifier at 1 watt into an 8 ohm resistive load. It's always going to be rule flat over the audio passband. If you were to measure how long it takes for a loud sound to die out in your room it would probably be about 0.2 seconds. If you were to measure it in a large live performace venue like a concert hall it would be about 2.0 seconds, ten times as long. Does it matter? Can you hear the difference? If you can hear the difference between one wire and another, one tube and another, one connector and another, how would you expect me to believe that you can't hear the difference between an RT of 0.2 and 2.0 seconds? Keep adding sound soak to the walls and maybe you can get it down to 0.1 seconds. If it wasn't dead enough already, that will make it even deader. Does it matter if all of the reverberation you hear comes out of the speakers in front of you or from every possible direction around you? I can hear that difference. Can you?

I would have to totally disagree here @40K yes, very much a concern @ 100 K maybe not .....

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

With all due respect from a propeller head, I don't think the biological/cultural aspect is overplayed at all. Music has existed long before attempts to reproduce it. We don't need the science if all we want is to enjoy it. Knowing how and why things work is terribly cool but we must remember that it can also distract.

I don't think the biological/cultural aspect you're referring to is overplayed either. I not sure it can be overplayed. It is fundamental. What I think is being overplayed is its implications on audio design. I'm not sure I understand how we perceive sound should affect how we reproduce sound. I think that's where we're going here, and I think it leads down the path toward special effects. But maybe I don't understand where micro is going with all this.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

The current set of measurements is insufficient, we need to devise a different set of measurements. The current set does not tell much or to be kind enough to make valid choices.

The current set of available measurements tells a lot more than you might realize, but interpreting them takes some effort. For example, we know that higher-order distortion is more noticeable than lower order due to masking, especially when the distortion products fall in the range around 2 to 4 KHz where our ears are most sensitive. So THD at 1 KHz at 1 watt is inadequate, but this doesn't mean current practices can't reveal better info. More detail will not be forthcoming from vendors until consumers demand it.

As I've said many times, a null test (when possible) reveals everything that a device adds or subtracts. Then you analyze the null residual to assess its audibility. All of this can be done using current measurements and current knowledge. IMO, the problem is when people think they hear things that aren't really there, and then go on to invent magical reasons for what they think they hear.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The current set of available measurements tells a lot more than you might realize, but interpreting them takes some effort. For example, we know that higher-order distortion is more noticeable than lower order due to masking, especially when the distortion products fall in the range around 2 to 4 KHz where our ears are most sensitive. So THD at 1 KHz at 1 watt is inadequate, but this doesn't mean current practices can't reveal better info. More detail will not be forthcoming from vendors until consumers demand it.

As I've said many times, a null test (when possible) reveals everything that a device adds or subtracts. Then you analyze the null residual to assess its audibility. All of this can be done using current measurements and current knowledge. IMO, the problem is when people think they hear things that aren't really there, and then go on to invent magical reasons for what they think they hear.

--Ethan

I could be wrong, Ethan, but I don't think a null test would address the issue, because I think some in this discussion are supposing that accurate reproduction of the input (recording) is not necessarily the goal...

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I could be wrong, Ethan, but I don't think a null test would address the issue, because I think some in this discussion are supposing that accurate reproduction of the input (recording) is not necessarily the goal...

Tim

So, Tim, Ethan, are null tests revealing differences between amplifiers that the stock measurements aren't? Can you show some examples of this? Or are we back to the same ol', same ol' refrain - all (reasonably built amplifiers) sound the same & measure the same?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So, Tim, Ethan, are null tests revealing differences between amplifiers that the stock measurements aren't? Can you show some examples of this? Or are we back to the same ol', same ol' refrain - all (reasonably built amplifiers) sound the same & measure the same?

Got me. Never run a null test in my life.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

This thread is more belaboring than watching some throat singing.

Excuse me while I throw out every spec manual and just listen to music as the artist intended.