Jump to content

The Audiophile's Dilemma.....


jimjimbo

Recommended Posts

I like the quote by Rutherford, but unfortunately, in most complicated situations where blind trials are used (such as experimental drugs) the statistics are required. 

 

Any time someone says that product "X" sounds different and better, I think about "how did they arrive at that conclusion?".  Most of the time, the answer isn't one that you'd like to hear.

 

I myself took a test of repeated A-B listening between a tube-type preamplifier of high esteem and a lowly SS preamp.  To me, I could hear a small but repeatable difference (and the results of the test proved that my assumption of which preamp was which was correct).  I was listening for something that I'd call "slew rate" differences - clean and natural transients on percussion transients, and it was clearly audible to my ears.

 

I was amazed that most other people in the room had trouble hearing the difference, since I really don't consider myself to have "golden ears".  Then I thought about something that is very troubling:

 

     What if most people that consider themselves audiophiles have accommodated to the sound of stereos?

 

The answer to that question is very troubling for this pastime and doing these kind of ABX tests--the only type of tests that you can do and then defend the results.  In the case of digital cables, I'd be laughing as I entered the venue to eat up the hors d'oeuvres.  It's a clear waste of time.  Pay attention to the stuff that really matters.  I always start with the loudspeakers, room and source music.  Then I start looking at the participants, and if it is a bunch of "experts" my expectations on the outcome of the trial are severely reduced.

 

I do have to disclose that my music listening background includes live music performance of the acoustic variety - from classical and modern serious music genres, from a very young age (less than 2 years old) listening for an hour to two hours twice per week when young, then every weekday for several hours/day after age 13 until age 21.  Only in the evenings did I listen to our home stereo, and then it was a far cry from what I'd call "audiophile quality" by today's standards, although it was a lot better quality than a table radio or console stereo, etc.  I always knew that stereos never sounded anything like live music performance and never questioned which was which.  In other words, my sound quality paradigm was based on the real thing - unamplified.

 

But the guy that brought the tube preamp was very disappointed that he couldn't hear more difference, and then later sold that preamp (IIRC).  It was generally decided among the participants that something downstream of the preamp was blocking the fidelity from being heard (implying the active crossover or the amplifier).  Perhaps.  There are audible differences in active digital crossovers and amplifiers--I've heard them myself and have swapped out components to arrive at something that is sometimes breathtaking, IMHO, depending on the source sound files.

 

So it is with audiophiles: all these tests show that there are people that are probably listening for things that aren't in the original performance, and aren't hearing things that really are.They've trained their ears to hear things that musicians feel are artificial, and fail to hear the things that musicians can clearly hear, things that cause those musicians to rate the results as "artificial".  What's interesting to me is the number of people that go with the opinions of non-musicians instead.  I'd never do that.  I recently read an audiophile article implying that the people that consider "lowly Khorns" as the best loudspeakers that they've heard -- are typically (acoustic) musicians...wind players, string players, percussionists (classical), classical singers, etc.

 

I've learned that betting on the jockeys instead of the horses is critical.  The problem is, you've got to qualify the jockeys somehow...  Trained musicians (non-amplified instrumentation, that is) is one way to do it.

 

YMMV.

 

There are ABX tests using all "golden ears": they're not that rare as it turns out. 

 

Oftentimes the ABX tests fail to prove any difference between components or music formats.  This isn't rare, either--it seems that these type of "audiophiles" like to look for differences in strange places (like digital cables), but then again don't look in the obvious places - like the source music, the loudspeakers used, and the room acoustics-areas with the largest differences.  Why worry about how pretty the cups on the tables were while the Titanic's basic design couldn't steer, couldn't slow down very easily, the lookouts couldn't see icebergs at night, and the ship had a fatal hull structural quality issue?  I see a lot of this in audiophilia.

 

It's like these golden ears folks are changing their listening scores based on what they see and how they accommodate based on those audible differences (which they shouldn't). I see questionable decisionmaking by golden ears guys all the time..  This is a problem that won't go away.  ABX testing won't fix that problem, unfortunately, but it should.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, hard to imagine what someone else is hearing. Does everyone hear 20hz to 20K? I'm afraid to test my hearing because I don't want to know my ears only go to 12K. I think I can hear well therefore I do! Lol. My question is does HF diffract and diffuse when they hit the hair growin' in your ear? Would make sense you would want a straight shot there.

 

When I try to ABX the one I turn up is the one I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an individual thing, Everybody has their own sense of what does and doesn't sound good. I would never tell someone else their system sounds like crap because I think so...I'm all about listening and if it sounds better than I figure out why on my own. So for me the true test is going to a buddies house for a drink and a listen, if buddy wants to have a listen to yours have another drink and a listen

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO:

  • There should be no intro speeches by anyone other than instructions to the subjects, given by a "naive" announcer who does not know anything about the experiment other what is in his script.  Not even the purpose of the experiment, or the fact that cables are being compared should be given.   This is better than tying to address threats to validity later.
  • They should use a factorial design, looking at some attribute variables as well, such the subjects' beliefs about cables and their hearing acuity, & whether they consider themselves audiophiles (all of which would be info gathered only after the experiment).  That way, they could look at the main effect of each variable, and any interaction between variables, all of which would be tested for both significance and estimated (so called - a misnomer in most research) "treatment" effect.   These would be automatic with most statistical packages for multivariable analysis, providing they selected an appropriate tool.  They would need a somewhat larger N for this, but not huge (in fact it should not be huge).  This, also, could be calculated in advance.
  • After all of the subjects (pardon me, participants) were run, there would be a debriefing, as is usual in this kind of research.
Edited by garyrc
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a child, I was drug to many, many orchestral concerts. Noticed quite early on, that when it sounded really nice I would get goose bumps and the hair on the back of my neck would stand up! When you reach the point where all your stuff gels and resolves like that, sit back and enjoy because you have arrived!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a child, I was drug to many, many orchestral concerts. Noticed quite early on, that when it sounded really nice I would get goose bumps and the hair on the back of my neck would stand up! When you reach the point where all your stuff gels and resolves like that, sit back and enjoy because you have arrived

YES.....Chills is the "Arm Raising Experience" I still base what I hear on hair raising. A couple years back I frequented a local watering hole that had Live Bands every Friday...Same dimensions to the listening room, This make shift Band " Made up of Local musicians with with the knowledge of all types of music" came on and played...Flipping WOW, these guys brought their own equipment in set it up for a crowd and talk about a nipple raising experience...Everbody here understands this Hair Raising phenomenon...Live Music that Is done right will always rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an individual thing, Everybody has their own sense of what does and doesn't sound good. I would never tell someone else their system sounds like crap because I think so...I'm all about listening and if it sounds better than I figure out why on my own. So for me the true test is going to a buddies house for a drink and a listen, if buddy wants to have a listen to yours have another drink and a listen

You're hitting on all cylinders today my friend, as I too notice my setup sounds better with about a half a bottle of 12 year old scotch in me. Sorry to all for goading Steve into a conversation in this mighty fine thread, so to the OP and thread topic:

 

Cornwalls with a six watt tube amp is overkill. But Maynard already knew this.

 

I got an extra cup of coffee this morning if you couldn't tell...zero to 600 posts in half a day!

-bb

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an individual thing, Everybody has their own sense of what does and doesn't sound good. I would never tell someone else their system sounds like crap because I think so...

 

One of the more interesting reads I've had recently was to go back to Floyd Toole's book, Sound Reproduction, and reread highlights and annotations I made in it years ago.  Toole mentioned something about his early testing of loudspeakers that was a wake up call.  He said that there were many opinions on the various sound signatures of each loudspeaker type tested, but one thing stood out: on the loudspeakers that sounded the best, there was unanimous agreement among the ABX participants.  This has been my experience, too. Looking at your statement, then, I'd say you made a social imperative more important--agreeableness--than what your ears might be telling you. 

 

I've learned to focus less on socially acceptable declarations when talking about the relative merits of loudspeakers and sound systems--it saves a lot of time.  Life is short.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
One of the more interesting reads I've had recently was to go back to Floyd Toole's book, Sound Reproduction, and reread highlights and annotations I made in it years ago. Toole mentioned something about his early testing of loudspeakers that was a wake up call. He said that there were many opinions on the various sound signatures of each loudspeaker type tested, but one thing stood out: on the loudspeakers that sounded the best, there was unanimous agreement among the ABX participants.

 

A very good video with Dr. Floyd Toole on loudspeaker testing and how good the results are at predicting listener ratings of each loudspeaker:

 

 

A very interesting comment at about minute 44-45 about control room loudspeakers used for monitoring in mixing and mastering.

Edited by Chris A
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

What if most people that consider themselves audiophiles have accommodated to the sound of stereos?

....

 

I recently read an audiophile article implying that the people that consider "lowly Khorns" as the best loudspeakers that they've heard -- are typically (acoustic) musicians...wind players, string players, percussionists (classical), classical singers, etc.

 

PWK said almost the same thing that you said in your first statement.

 

J. Gordon Holt once reported that his mail indicated almost the same thing that you said in your second statement.

 

[!]

 

I usually love my "lowly Khorns" for the sound of the orchestra, and practically all individual instruments and voices.  I have a great deal of experience with live acoustic music.  Once in a while there is a problem with the string section, but I hear that massed strings are difficult to record, so, for all I know, the string sound I hear in my room may be an accurate reflection of what is on the recording. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
A very interesting comment at about minute 44-45 about control room loudspeakers used for monitoring in mixing and mastering.

 

Cool video, and your right about the time mark and it only get's better at 50 plus minutes until the end. He sure makes a lot of sense and would make a lot of enemies if he were to name names, which of course is not his purpose.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once in a while there is a problem with the string section, but I hear that massed strings are difficult to record, so, for all I know, the string sound I hear in my room may be an accurate reflection of what is on the recording.

Let me give you an example of why your Khorns may not be the issue.  Below is an averaged frequency response of Van Cliburn's Rachmaninov piano concerto #2 (first movement) recording with the Chicago Symphony (Reiner conducting):

 

post-26262-0-01580000-1441671847_thumb.g

 

Here is what it is supposed to look like (i.e., what you would see if you recorded it and didn't "master" the recording):

 

post-26262-0-07420000-1441671908_thumb.g

 

And here is the correction curve that was applied to correct the track on disc:

 

post-26262-0-85820000-1441672003_thumb.g

 

As you can see, steely violins are a function of the really terrible EQ curve that was applied to the original recording to arrive at a "commercial product". 

 

Imagine what it sounds like: before and after.  The track straight from the disc, when played on the Jubs, sounds like a table radio and the string sections sound like fingernails on a chalk board. :sad:

 

This is typical of the orchestral music that I've corrected thus far, i.e., a few hundred classical tracks. Once you correct the tracks, suddenly it sounds like a symphony again, and you can actually hear the double basses below the cellos, and the violins in balance with themselves, instead of having a broad 12-24 dB peak at 400-500 Hz.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike hit the nail on the head.  When you really examine at the music tracks that are being sold to us as "audiophile quality", you realize that there is no way that the music will sound anything like real life, even on perfect loudspeakers in perfect rooms - not even close. 

 

It was Mike's use of the "Cello Palette" parametric EQ settings on digital active crossovers and digital parametric EQ devices (and the settings used within a piece of hardware originating from Mark Levinson, based on Dick Burwen's design) that directed my attention to the state of the recorded music itself.

 

That's why I call attention to a way that you can use to fix a greater portion of the damage inflicted on the recorded music (i.e., the damage that is almost perfectly reversible)...if compressors have not been used during mastering.  Once a compressor is applied to the final mixed tracks, the recorded music is essentially permanently damaged beyond repair.  Use of expanders to reverse compression has to date not worked for me.

 

The easiest way to see whether or not compressors have been used on your music is to look at the DR Database web site for your exact disc manufacturer/disc number. If the DR number for your disc is at least 12, you will know that compressors either haven't been used or that they have been lightly applied, i.e., correct use of compressors.  Sometimes, if you have a lower DR rated disc, it's due to limiting (clipping), which can be repaired easily using Clip Fix within Audacity or other utility within your preferred digital mastering application.

 

I'm specifically identifying recorded music that stretches back at least 55 years...and all the recorded music in between. 

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if most people that consider themselves audiophiles have accommodated to the sound of stereos?

 

I've argued this for decades.  If you simply write down the description of stereo you can see that it is obviously incapable of delivering anything like "high fidelity" in the full sense of the words.  "Half fidelity" is pushing it.  Basically, the experience is like walking up to an open window where musicians are playing.  It might sound very nice but nobody would confuse it with the best seat in the house.

 

Mike hit the nail on the head. When you really examine at the music tracks that are being sold to us as "audiophile quality", you realize that there is no way that the music will sound anything like real life, even on perfect loudspeakers in perfect rooms - not even close.

 

Disagree, as I have experienced and watched others experience recording that completely fooled them.  Won't go into the details as I've done so before and have learned it has to be experienced. 

 

On a related note, recently an esteemed forum member asked me if I needed my ears checked for having pronounced a cassette recording made with metal tape and Dolby C to be the equal of anything.  This member has what is probably the most advanced and expensive system and listening room on the forum.  I don't doubt the sincerity of the question as it is safe to assume his ears have been trained to detect differences I would never hear or that would attract my attention.  My ears are not too bad.  I can't listen with a door open and I've been known to move a chair or other object in the room as I hear its sonic signature in the field.  However, my focus is entirely on the music.  The media or format is always, for me, transcended by great engineering.  Yesterday my wife had a friend over and I played her a near mint 78 recording of the Benny Goodman orchestra with Gene Krupa in a stunning recording of "Sing, Sing, Sing."  It could not possibly generate any more excitement if it were recorded in DSD surround.  No offense intended, but those who simply cannot tolerate ticks, pops, hiss or whatever are not listening to music.  For them, the medium is the message and it illustrates another issue that I've pointed out many times:  This forum is as bipolar as any group that exists.  The fact that we can get along is perhaps due only to those in each group being incapable of understanding the gulf between us.  One group listens to equipment and the other to music.  There's nothing inherently superior about either situation and it is mainly notable in that we politely and courteously (OK, at least most of the time...) speak to each other in deep discussions where, in fact, no real communication takes place at all. 

 

As mentioned, I believe that sonic holography is possible as I've experienced it and have observed others do so as well.  It doesn't require a 100k system for either creating or reproducing it.  But these discussions will go on for another century just as they did in the last one. 

 

It's what we do!

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I played her a near mint 78 recording...It could not possibly generate any more excitement if it were recorded in DSD surround. No offense intended, but those who simply cannot tolerate ticks, pops, hiss or whatever are not listening to music....This forum is as bipolar as any group that exists.

 

Whenever I read someone trumpeting the virtues of the sound of phonograph records, my mind automatically and quite uncontrollably shifts into thinking about analog audiophile litmus tests and political correctness (PC) of vinyl, and "the experience of being a part of the process" by those that have no other way to relate to the music rather than simply through listening to true high fidelity (hi-fi):

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not

 

I don't try to dwell on this out of politeness...as I believe others here do also...at least until someone makes a real issue of it by pushing it into the conversation.  Personally, I really don't need rituals or nostalgia of "the old way of doing things", including bygone formats of surround sound.  I'd rather just have the music as close as possible to that which was performed--acoustically, without all the the fuss and muss. I listen to my old vinyl only when I can't or don't own it on another format. 

 

I came to Klipsch via Roy in the first place to buy Jubilees, and by his recommendation, the K-forum itself to post my listening and setup experiences with Jubilees.  I also try to share my experiences of setting up other loudspeaker types to increase their acoustic performance value.  I do this in order to save others the time and expense that I had to go through in learning it.

 

More recently, I've spent some time finding ways to reconstruct music recordings from terrible mastering practices, and to share those experiences for those that are interested and that will listen for themselves in A/B fashion after trying it.  Those efforts have paid off handsomely...at least for me.  YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...I played her a near mint 78 recording...It could not possibly generate any more excitement if it were recorded in DSD surround. No offense intended, but those who simply cannot tolerate ticks, pops, hiss or whatever are not listening to music....This forum is as bipolar as any group that exists.

 

Whenever I read someone trumpeting the virtues of the sound of phonograph records, my mind automatically and quite uncontrollably shifts into thinking about analog audiophile litmus tests and political correctness (PC) of vinyl, and "the experience of being a part of the process" by those that have no other way to relate to the music rather than simply through listening to true high fidelity (hi-fi):

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not

 

I don't try to dwell on this out of politeness...as I believe others here do also...at least until someone makes a real issue of it by pushing it into the conversation.  Personally, I really don't need rituals or nostalgia of "the old way of doing things", including bygone formats of surround sound.  I'd rather just have the music as close as possible to that which was performed--acoustically, without all the the fuss and muss. I listen to my old vinyl only when I can't or don't own it on another format. 

 

I came to Klipsch via Roy in the first place to buy Jubilees, and by his recommendation, the K-forum itself to post my listening and setup experiences with Jubilees.  I also try to share my experiences of setting up other loudspeaker types to increase their acoustic performance value.  I do this in order to save others the time and expense that I had to go through in learning it.

 

More recently, I've spent some time finding ways to reconstruct music recordings from terrible mastering practices, and to share those experiences for those that are interested and that will listen for themselves in A/B fashion after trying it.  Those efforts have paid off handsomely...at least for me.  YMMV.

 

Chris

 

Very interesting read….thanks for sharing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...