Jump to content

Audio Myths and Human Perception - Explored


mikebse2a3

Recommended Posts

Guys I really hope everyone will be respectful and treat each other as if we are all in the same room and not behind a keyboard. ..;)

 

Everyone's thoughts, ideas, opinions are welcome and deserve to be heard with an open mind..!!!

 

Chris and Maynard. .. when either an "Amateur or Expert " seem to think they have it all figured out they often develop a closed mind which is very sad and everyone looses IMHO.

 

I'm sure Chris knows electronics matter and I believe you know acoustics matter so let me ask this which is the least understood and most neglected in the typical listeners situation? Which exhibit the most non-linear behavior leading to the largest reproduction errors?

 

miketn 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tube fanatic said:

explain why solid state equipment, in spite of minuscule distortion and near identical specs, can sound so radically different in a particular system.

Is this actually true? Of course there are other things in the processing that influence sound, but if the above is the parameter I would think the sound would be the same on modern solid state gear. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Guys I really hope everyone will be respectful and treat each other as if we are all in the same room and not behind a keyboard. ..;)

 

Everyone's thoughts, ideas, opinions are welcome and deserve to be heard with an open mind..!!!

 

Chris and Maynard. .. when either an "Amateur or Expert " seem to think they have it all figured out they often develop a closed mind which is very sad and everyone looses IMHO.

 

I'm sure Chris knows electronics matter and I believe you know acoustics matter so let me ask this which is the least understood and most neglected in the typical listeners situation? Which exhibit the most non-linear behavior leading to the largest reproduction errors?

 

miketn 

 

Maybe this is exactly what the Forum needs - the ability of the OP to "moderate" his own post?

Not often there are actual thought provoking topics that cut right to the heart of what this entire Forum was initially 

based upon. But alas, the blind keyboards generally win. Nice Mike --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, richieb said:

 

Maybe this is exactly what the Forum needs - the ability of the OP to "moderate" his own post?

Not often there are actual thought provoking topics that cut right to the heart of what this entire Forum was initially 

based upon. But alas, the blind keyboards generally win. Nice Mike --

That was pretty much what was happening awhile back. Used to follow this example to keep it on topic and sometimes civil in the process. Was just a natural thing to do. Happened long before I was a member here. Some may be relying on mods to do.

I have been guilty in the past. Good idea, imo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the oddest audiophile mythology that I've come across actually comes not from home hi-fi circles but rather mastering people (I don't call them "engineers" because there is little science involved).  They apparently attempt to take on an air of expertise in order to not have to defend their base arguments--which is the source of their mythology.  I believe that there are a lot of culture-oriented practices that seem to surround the production of recorded music for mostly the large highly paid A&R organizations to keep the money machine well stoked. 

 

Mike: even that longish YouTube tutorial on EQ posted above has advice to use EQ at levels that are in reality 2-6 times too much and much more low frequency attenuation EQ below about 100 Hz...as was shown in the video.  I find this sort of advice to be endemic to the domain.  Many aspiring participants apparently don't have quality mixing or mastering studios with high quality treated rooms and real high performance monitors to hear what they are really doing. Instead they're using "translation monitors" like the old Yamaha NS-10Ms sitting on top of the mixing console. These are typical practices used in the popular music realm (including rock, etc.), but are still frowned upon in classical and other serious music circles.

 

Most of what I see is guys sitting at home using home-based DAWs with plugins while apparently trying to get their break into the popular music mastering profession by continuously trying to make their products louder and louder.  I've had guys follow me from threads that I didn't even post in--but rather just visited to read only (I suppose they looked at the "who's online" logs to track down my address), asking me how I like their tracks which they placed online to catch anyone that wanders by: what they really want to know is whether or not they hid their recorded music "customization" in making the tracks as loud as possible.  This appears to be exactly the antithesis of hi-fi based on Ethan Winer's definition: reproduction accuracy.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one should definitely do room acoustics first.  Not only can it result in faster decay times and a flatter response, if one uses a lot of absorption, it can even lower the noise floor of the room.

 

If you can lower the noise floor of the room 10-20dB, it will give 10-20dB more dynamic range (for the same SPL).  I listed my house for sale and had to take them down, but before I could hear myself breath very easily in my theater with all the absorption I had.  It made a huge night and day difference.

 

While my old amps had the specs below, I still saw great benefit with using absorption:

(From Emotiva XPR-2 manual)

Signal to Noise Ratio (8 Ohm load): 
> 118 dB at rated power (A-weighted).
> 93 dB at 1 watt (A-weighted)

 

Since the new amps have the specs below, I have increased my dynamic range by ~15dB.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-media-systems-ahb2-power-amplifier-measurements

~128dB at rated power (A-weighted)

108.5dB at 1 watt (A-weighted)

 

But with all the other benefits from treating a room's acoustics, I would put that first.  Then speakers/improving distortion via active bi or tri amping, and lastly electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people are lucky to have a listening room that sounds good as is, and can focus on the nuances of their different music playback equipment, crossovers and amplifiers, etc. Many of us have room reflections and room modes that can or should be corrected. So all of the opinions on this thread are important aspects to consider for accurate musical playback response. As for my experiences, I am fascinated with the engineering, technology and quality of high end equipment, but, listening to the same audio system(s) in different rooms and outdoors make it very obvious that room acoustics play a very significant role in our perception of an audio system's sound signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris - Have you had a chance to look at any of the Bob Katz articles? I have found them rather enlightening. One of his articles gives a great history of the VU meter, and how a lot of music production suffers from a non standard use, unlike the movie industry.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, etc6849 said:

If you can lower the noise floor of the room 10-20dB, it will give 10-20dB more dynamic range (for the same SPL)...

 

This brings up an interesting point on audio mythology: the actual dynamic range found on our recordings. 

 

Here is a sorted list of albums in my digital library with the highest dynamic range (excluding SACDs and BDs).  Some of these albums have been demastered (*), which generally increases the as-sold dynamic range by 1-3 dB. Specifically, these albums have the highest crest factor--which is the average-to-peak ratio measured in decibels. The albums at the top of the list have a crest factor of around 20 dB and the bottom of the list: 16.

 

EDIT: A few of these albums were acquired simply because they had extremely high DR ratings, perhaps 50% or perhaps more.  Subtracting the albums that are basically just noise or spoken word (which always has extremely high DR ratings) from the entire online DR Database, the albums shown here generally have some of the highest DR ratings that have been identified for music. 

 

The total dynamic range of these recordings is something like double or perhaps triple the crest factor--which leaves us with a total usable dynamic range of perhaps 40-60 dB, but most recordings are ~20-25 dB in terms of total dynamic range--corresponding to typical rating of about 5 to 7 on the DR Database scale for popular music recordings...before demastering. 

 

For this list, note the predominant genre of these music recordings: I didn't sort my music library based on genre but rather on DR ratings.  There are ~1400 discs in this particular digital library, and only the top 64 albums in terms of highest DR are shown below.  Most of these recordings were originally made via digital recorders 25-35 years ago before the age of systemic crushing of the dynamic range in mastering, a practice that was widespread by 1991.

 

Charly Antolini - [Crash]* 20
Flim & The BB's - [Big Notes]* 19
Ravel (Schwarz, Seattle Symphony Orchestra) - [Daphnis et Chloé - Elegy In Memory Of Maurice Ravel] 19
Kroumata Percussion Ensemble and Keiko Abe - [Kroumata and Keiko Abe: works for marimba and percussion]* 19
Michael Hedges - [Aerial Boundaries] 18
Keith Jarrett & Gary Peacock & Jack Dejohnette - [Changeless] 18
Giya Kancheli - [Diplipito]* 18
Bob Mintzer Big Band - [Incredible Journey] 18
Ravi Shankar - [India's Master Musician] 18
James Newton Howard & Friends - [James Newton Howard & Friends]* 18
Bobby McFerrin - [Simple Pleasures] 18
Wendy Carlos - [Sonic Seasonings CD1]* 18
Flim & The BB's - [Tricycle CD1]* 18
Anoushka Shankar - [Anoushka]* 17
Anouar Brahem - [Barzakh] 17
New York Philharmonic, Zubin Mehta, Price, Horne, Vickers, Salminen - [Beethoven "Choral" Symphony (No. 9)] 17
Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique - Gardiner - [Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (DVD-A)] 17
Giya Kancheli - [Caris Mere] 17
Harry James & His Big Band - [Comin' From A Good Place (disc 2)] 17
Tower Of Power - [Direct]* 17
Billy Cobham - [Incoming]* 17
Esperanza Spalding - [Junjo]* 17
Saint Louis Symphony, Slatkin - [Mahler - Symphony No.2 in C, Resurrection (disc 1)]* 17
Rahul Sharma - [Music of the Himalayas]* 17
David White Quintet - [Object Relations] 17
London Symphony, Gergiev [Rachmaninov Symphonic Dances, Stravinsky Symphony in Three Movements]* 17
Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Litton - [Shostakovich Symphony No.8] 17
Harry James & His Big Band - [Still Harry After All These Years (disk 3)] 17
Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band - [Swingin' For The Fences (DVD-A)] 17
Flim & The BB's - [The Further Adventures of Flim & The BB's]* 17
Thom Rotella - [Thom Rotella Band] 17
Flim & The BB's - [Tunnel]* 17
Rush - [2112]* 16
The Phil Collins Big Band - [A Hot Night In Paris]* 16
Pink Floyd - [Animals]* 16
Estonian Philharmonic, Kaljuste - [Arvo Pärt: Kanon Pokajanen (disc 1)]* 16
Anne Bisson - [Blue Mind]* 16
The Oregon Symphony - [Bravura, Respighi, Strauss, Lutoslawski] 16
The Cars - [Cars]* 16
Babatunde Olatunji - [Circle of Drums] 16
Tom Scott - [Desire]* 16
Seattle Symphony, New York Chamber Symphony, Schwarz - [Diamond Symphonies 2 & 4, Concerto]* 16
Harold Land - [Harold In The Land Of Jazz] 16
Andre Previn - [I Feel Pretty CD5] 16
Lyle Lovett - [I Love Everybody]* 16
Thelma Houston & Pressure Cooker - [I've Got The Music In Me]* 16
Jimmy Cobb / Roy Hargrove - [Jimmy Cobb / Roy Hargrove] 16
Lincoln Mayorga - [Lincoln Mayorga & Distinguished Colleagues - Volume III]* 16
Yellowjackets - [Live Wires] 16
Flim & The BB's - [Neon]* 16
Flim & The BB's - [New Pants]* 16
Iannis Xenakis - Kroumata Percussion Ensemble, Gert Mortensen - [Pléiades · Psappha] 16
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Joshua Bell - [Prokofiev: Complete Concertos (disc 3)] 16
The Crusaders - [Rhapsody And Blues]* 16
Berlioz - Weiner Philharmonic - Sir Colin Davis - [Symphonie Fantastique (DVD-A)] 16
St. Louis Symphony, Slatkin - [Symphony No.2/Violin Concerto #04] Samuel Barber / Violin Concerto, Op. 14] 16
Cincinnati Pops Orchestra, Erich Kunzel - [Tchaikovsky -1812 Overture]* 16
Kirov Orchestra, Valery Gergiev (Dir) - [Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6, Scriabin Prometheus (DVD-A)] 16
Oscar Peterson Trio - [The Legendary Oscar Peterson Trio Live at the Blue Note (disc 4)] 16
The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra With Mike Oldfield - [The Orchestral Tubular Bells] 16
Billy Joel - [The Stranger]* 16
Various Artists - [Chesky: The Ultimate Demonstration Disc] 16
Mark Nauseef - [With Space in Mind] 16

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marvel said:

Have you had a chance to look at any of the Bob Katz articles?

I've read a few--including the ones on mastering.  That's where I got some of the comments. Even in Katz's presentations, there is strong tendency of preference toward the "sound of old technology" (extremely old analog stuff...>40 years old) versus what you can go buy new today. 

 

This is simply decision bias.  I would guess a significant portion of that is probably now based on mythology rather than the performance of currently available gear.  I've seen this in engineering practice, too, and it isn't a very attractive trait to have there either.  It's also not something that a lot of people like to talk about since it hits ageism dead center.

 

I've seen this "mastering culture" also in other dimensions in all of the mastering articles that I've read to date, and I haven't said much on this subject.  But if we're talking about audio mythology, I think that a lot of people running in audiophile circles (i.e., "old guard" audiophiles) are simply holding on to that which they feel comfortable or familiar with, but not generally "hi-fi" by Ethan Winer's definition.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how you mention Flim&BB's. I guess I wasn't far off when I had always considered them some of best recorded discs I had heard or owned and we are talking the mid-80's. DIgital Music Products. I think I have all but one you mentioned. Some other more recent that nearly equal DMP is the German ECM label. Look for drummer Manu Katche which will bring you out of your chair.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best documentaries that I've seen (and have owned now on BD since its release in that format--and also available at one point in time on Netflix streaming) is Keanu Reeves hosting the film Side by Side (2012).  This film shows you...up close...the personalities involved with the conversion of the commercial movie making business from film/analog processes to...you guessed it...digital.  Big-name directors, directors of photography (DPs)/cinematographers, and big-name editors/color processors, as well as the representatives from each of the major companies providing the gear. 

 

Side_by_side_2012.jpg

 

I bet that I've watched that film 15 times and each time I see something new that I completely missed in someone's interview: what they say, how they say it, body language, everything.  It was filmed digitally, by the way--so you get to see everything like it's two feet from you.  I even used that film in one of my graduate classes on engineering system design to highlight the human issues of new technologies displacing older ones.  I can't recommend that film highly enough.

 

The parallel to audio here is obvious except that audio basically crossed the bridge where we're at with video/film-making about 30 years ago.  I assume that the same thing holds for movies as it does for audio: there will be die-hards that refuse to let go of the old (which is also correlatable to age I might add...until they pass from the scene entirely), some that will transition and continue their careers professionally, and some that are leaning forward to catch the newest thing coming out.  You see all that in Side by Side in spades and I have to tell you that I learned more about the human condition accepting/rejecting new technology from that film than the sum total of all other experiences and readings on the general subject.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Guys I really hope everyone will be respectful and treat each other as if we are all in the same room and not behind a keyboard. ..;)

 

Everyone's thoughts, ideas, opinions are welcome and deserve to be heard with an open mind..!!!

 

Chris and Maynard. .. when either an "Amateur or Expert " seem to think they have it all figured out they often develop a closed mind which is very sad and everyone looses IMHO.

 

I'm sure Chris knows electronics matter and I believe you know acoustics matter so let me ask this which is the least understood and most neglected in the typical listeners situation? Which exhibit the most non-linear behavior leading to the largest reproduction errors?

 

miketn 

Mike, you and I have had enough discussions on here for you to know that I don't consider my words or opinions to be the gospel and that my mind is far from closed to the ideas of others.  What I find offensive is someone who is considered knowledgeable making a statement which is too ludicrous to be allowed to stand.  Such a generalized statement is a disservice to every person who is involved in the design of audio electronics.  I'm sure that someone like Nelson Pass, among dozens of others, could write a long dissertation refuting the claim that they are "amateurs" simply because they know that electronic components can affect the sound of an audio system.  

 

Obviously,  room/speaker interaction has a profound effect on the resultant sound.  And, you have no doubt read many of my recommendations to folks on here in which I have asked them to try a small adjustment in speaker or listening position (among other things) as a means of changing an undesirable characteristic.  However, I am also a realist in knowing that few have the luxury of a dedicated listening room in which they can hang panels, or use other physical devices to create the desired result.  Most often listening rooms are shared with family members with the result being that certain compromises must be accepted.  And it is in those instances that changing the electronics can often create a result which is far closer to what is desired.  

 

One last thought to leave you with is that if an active crossover is used to correct room and driver anomalies, isn't that using "electronics" to create a desired result?  Along with that, many use different types of amps for each driver (such as SS for the woofer, and SET for the mid/tweeter).  Again, one is using "electronics" to create a particular sound.  If that is so, then Chris is as much of an "amateur" as I am.  

 

7 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I would think the sound would be the same on modern solid state gear. 

No, it is not.  I invite you to visit a dealer and ask for some level matched comparisons of various SS amps.  You will quickly be able to draw your own conclusion.  

 

Maynard  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a fairly good start on the "requirements" (or perhaps better..."thresholds") for hi-fi reproduction systems from William Cowan--the guy that built his own DIY Unity horns (with apparent Tom Danley driver selection, port size, and crossover design assistance) in Australia almost 10 years ago (link is here).  The text is repeated below for convenience:

 

Quote

10 Steps to Excellent Sound

 

I've spent over 20 years passionately involved in audio both professionally and as a keen DIYer / hobbyist.  I've learnt much about the art of audio during this time and I think my personal system can attest to that.  Here I've presented my list of the ten most important things needed to achieve a truly transparent audio system.  Hi-fi or high fidelity has become a much used but rarely achieved goal in audio.  To me, high fidelity means true to the original in every sense.  This sounds easy in practice, but in reality, everything must be done right and this is actually very rare.  Have a read of my 10 Steps below and have a think about the ramifications of these statements.  I believe my current system is pretty much there, except for #1 and #5.  I miss my target at the very lowest frequencies, despite having 1600W RMS powering eight high excursion 12" drivers.

  • THD and IMD< 1% at all normal levels and frequencies

This should keep distortion down to inaudible levels.  I've seen 3% as the level where THD starts to become audible, but this does change significantly with the order of the distortion, higher orders being audible before the lower orders.  This spec most likely refers to the latter.

  • Thermal compression less than 1dB at all normal levels

Lots of voice coil area and well-designed voice coil cooling is required here at low frequencies [assuming direct radiating woofers].  Higher up, high efficiency can be a great benefit.  When attempting to reach high output levels, a little dome tweeter or small voice coil on a 10" woofer is just not going to be able to provide low enough thermal compression to be inaudible.  Thermal compression will rob the system of macro-dynamics.

  • SNR greater than 90dB

This specification appears easy to achieve, but in practice is quite a challenge.  Attention must be paid to the gain structure in the audio chain to ensure the SNR available from the electronics is achieved in practice.  All stages in the signal path should approach clipping at about the same time.  Any deviation from this ideal is simply robbing the system of precious dBs of SNR.  A 90dB SNR gives a noise floor of 20dB SPL in a system that is capable of 110dB output.  This should be at or below the ambient noise level in most domestic environments.  As the output capability of a sound system increases, high SNR becomes even more important.

  • Response flatness ±2dB from target above 300Hz, ±5dB below 300Hz at all listening positions

Pretty self-explanatory, correctly designed equalization is your friend.  Correctly executed EQ also has the advantage of undoing any phase errors within a driver’s passband.  A large well designed room and controlled directivity can also help.

 

  • Output above 110dB at listening position

This should assure sufficient output for movies or dynamic music.  Remember that a 4 meter listening distance will reduce the output from most speakers by up to 12dB compared to 1-meter output.  This requires more than 122dB output at 1 meter, which is a tough challenge for most speaker systems.  A true line source will only reduce in output by 3dB for each doubling of distance, making this spec easier to achieve in large rooms.  Very few loudspeaker systems can claim true line source behavior at all frequencies, they are simply too short.

  • Controlled directivity and/or a very well treated room

It's important to keep reflections in front of the listening position to a minimum.  If reflection points exist, they can be removed with intelligently placed absorbent panels.

  • Smooth power response or anechoic room

The off axis response must be very close to being the same as the on axis response, or any reflections off the walls making their way back to the listening position will have a different spectral balance and will ruin the sound.  Very absorbent side walls can reduce the effects of a loudspeaker with poor off axis response.  The ceiling and floor reflection points must also be dealt with.  It can be helpful to use a mirror to help determine exactly where the reflections are occurring.

  • No reflections closer than 10mS from direct signal

The ear has trouble differentiating reflections that are very close in time to the direct signal.  10mS to the first [bounce room] reflection will ensure these reflections don't adversely impact the sound.  As the time to the first reflection becomes longer, the brain…[separates the reflections from the direct arrival sound effectively, and is otherwise called the “Haas interval”.]

  • Change in frequency response of less than 1dB with change in output level

This is closely tied to the thermal compression issue.  It's a sad fact of life that many systems change their response significantly with changes in output level.  It's always very telling to do a response measurement at 110dB(1m) and compare it to the response plot at 90dB.  Differences of 5dB or more are common.  As voice coils heat up, their DC resistance can almost double.  This change in Re causes a huge shift in driver parameters and de-tunes your carefully aligned boxes.  The higher-order boxes (bass reflex, bandpass, etc.) suffer more than the low-order alignments, such as the sealed box. 

  • Bandwidth from 20Hz to 15KHz

This should cover all audible input signal for most of us. [Only movie sound effects and pipe organ fundamentals can be lower.]
 

Now the controversial part. 

Having a look at this list you might notice that most of the problems highlighted are room and loudspeaker related.  It's a sad fact of life that this is where most of the nonlinearities in a system exist.  Apart from SNR, there is really nothing that's electronics related, and even that has more to do with the application of the electronics than its actual design.  Even the cheapest CD/DVD source will be "blameless" in even a high-end sound system.  VERY FEW [electronic] components can't achieve 20Hz-20KHz, 0.1% distortion and 100dB SNR.  If they can't, they don't have a place in ANY high end sound system - PERIOD.  If any component will color the sound AT ALL, it is not worthy for use in a high end sound system.

 

Some of you might think “where do all the fancy electronics, valves and high-end cables fit in?” Well, IMHO, the fancy electronics and cables are there to make you feel good about your system, and they do.  You are simply kidding yourself if you think a $500 cable pair will sound different to an interconnect using Neutrik connectors and good quality Belden microphone cable, or similar.  As long as the connectors are clean and sound, the cable capacitance is low enough not to impact the top end, and the shielding is sufficient not to impact the SNR, there is no benefit spending more money on interconnects.  This money will have a far greater effect if spent where it counts: on the speakers and room.  I maintain that most of the budget should be spent on the speakers and the room they are in.  The end result will always be better than dumping a pile of money on the electronics and signal path.  Valves are another can of worms.  Sure they can give you a "warm glow" but to base a high fidelity system around a valve amp is a real challenge.  I have not yet heard a valve based system that was not colored.  Lacking in dynamics usually describes them too.

My perspective on audio is from a purely engineering-based perspective; however I can see where tweaky stuff has its place.  It helps the local audio shops that we buy CD players and electronics to keep their doors open.  There is not a lot of profit in main stream electronics these days and the retailers need their little golden egg.

The funny thing is it's actually pretty easy these days putting together a reference class audio system for not too much money.  To tick all the boxes in my 10 steps (above) all you would need to do is stick a pair of, say, Danley SH50's in the corner of your room, power them with a simple 100W RMS per channel amp, team the lot with a sub that can match the output of the SH50's (horn, IB, multiple sealed or vented boxes) and you're done.  The Danley boxes come to mind because they are one of the few well engineered full range loudspeakers on the market that can meet my output, distortion and directivity specifications laid out above…If the amplification and crossover are from one of the many pro sound manufacturers (many honest well-priced products), the entire system could be put together for probably $10K and rival the monitors in most recording studios.  The biggest hurdle would be to make it all look pretty in a domestic environment, but as I've proved with my Unity build, even that's possible…

 

Instead of focusing at the outset exclusively on audiophile mythology/memes to the exclusion of our own personal experience (i.e., focusing on what not to do), it seems to me better to first focus on what needs to be achieved.  I've learned that writing down requirements is something of value that helps us to get things right the first time around and to communicate clearly with others that may wish to follow.

 

The above thresholds are generally a good start--perhaps with a small modification of the early reflection time delays to ~2 to ~4 ms from nearby walls and in-room objects--both at the loudspeakers and at the listening position...and major room dimensions at least 8 ms (ceiling-floor) and 12-14 ms (absolute minimum clear side-side wall and front-rear wall spacing)--in my experience.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that we have some very knowledgeable and experienced contributors - however I’m still not clear as to the OP’s intent for this thread. 

 

OP:  Are you asking people to comment on the videos that you posted?  (Suffice it to say for now that these two videos are very controversial, and have been hotly debated.)    Videos that others have posted?  The videos cover a broad range of topics – IMO too broad for a single thread. 

 

FWIW, I think you’d probably get more people participating if you stated your position on a more specific topic, and asked for others’ opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I personally don't have an issue with the scope of the topic: audiophile myths and our personal experiences in terms of achieving superior sound reproduction--as defined by Ethan Winer in both of the supplied videos.

 

The real issue that I see is perhaps the tendency to "dig holes" on well-worn subjects.  I personally like the fact that we can move on from those typical "hole excavations" to cover a subject for the benefit of the general forum readership, instead of people merely flaming those old, tired subjects and taking sides, like in any typical zero-sum game.  :emotion-55:

 

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris:

 

 

First, let me say that I wish that I could hear your Jubilee.   (Even though I can’t fit them in any of my listening rooms.)

 

Second, I’ll define a point of departure (for some, but not all).  I like classical music and opera.  Not pop music.

 

I think it’s important for each individual to define “audio fidelity” or “high fidelity reproduction” based on their goals for their hi-fi system.   Perhaps for a recording engineer that’s fidelity to how the master tape sounded on studio monitors.   (I’m not a recording engineer – so I can’t say.  Candidly, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about want a recording engineer wants – I care more about what the composer and conductor wanted.)   Perhaps some are concerned with how disco music sounds in a discotheque.   (I don’t know, and don’t care.)   I’m not interested in pop music, which is largely created by producers and engineers using electronic technology.   Rather, I’m interested in classical music, which involves instruments that have a natural sound.  (We know what a violin sounds like.)  Moreover, classical music recordings are based on natural instruments performing together – i.e., a performance in the “real” world.    Pop music OTOH often involves engineers combining audio from different musicians in different locations at different times, and in many cases mixing in electronically produced sounds.  How can someone discuss fidelity to the sound of the “original” performance, if there never was a performance of the music?  What meaning does “high fidelity” reproduction (or “audio fidelity”) have for most of pop music?   (I want to be clear about my perspective:  I respect the fact that different people like different music.  To each their own.   If you like electronically produced pop music and your goal is for your home hi-fi system to sound “good” – I think that’s OK.)

 

Which leads me to my first assertion.  I regard as a “myth” the idea presented in the 4th video (posted by twk123) that the audio quality in all live performances has decreased in recent years.  This has not occurred at my local symphony hall, where no electronic sound reinforcement systems are employed.  There is no DJ (or sound board operator) involved with the live performance of classical music in its intended venue (at least in my local symphony hall and opera house).

 

My goal for my home hi-fi systems is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera house – or perhaps I should say an accurate facsimile.  Because a full-scale orchestra cannot be reproduced with 100% accuracy via recorded music played on a hi-fi, this introduces subjectivity regarding sound quality (i.e., which compromises a listener prefers to accept).

 

Moreover, different people have different sensitivities to various aspects of sound.  (For example, some people are sensitive to spatial imaging, some not.)   I believe that all technology associated with sound reproduction is imperfect.   Some of these imperfections are immaterial to most people, whereas some imperfections make a difference to some people (but not others) based on their hearing and what’s important to them.  (For example, some people want to be able to recreate the sound as loud as the original performance, some people don’t.  Some people want to feel the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ, some people are willing to sacrifice this facet of the overall reproduction. )  Each individual must choose the trade-offs that suits him or her.  

 

Because it is impracticable for me to instantly switch back and forth between a live orchestra and my hi-fi system, my memory must come into play.  I attend live performances on a regular basis.  I listen to my hi-fi on a regular basis.  My assessment of whether or not what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system sounds like a live performance – or like a pleasant facsimile of a live performance – is more important to me than what some electronic test equipment indicates.  My ears are “adjusted” - or “calibrated” – by virtue of my full season subscription to the symphony and opera.  What I’m used to is the natural sound of classical music.  That’s what I strive for with my home hi-fi systems.  (Clearly this approach is imperfect – but that’s life.)

 

In my listening notes from testing my hi-fi systems my highest rating is “excellent – magical”.  In other words, to me the sound was astonishingly natural – and I was “drawn into” the music – and dare I say – it sounded good.  No hi-fi system is perfect.  I want the imperfections in my hi-fi systems to sound pleasant when playing classical music – not unpleasant.    I want that “magical” moment when I’m listening (for example) to my SACD of Brahms German Requiem and I completely forget about the hi-fi equipment - because I’m moved by the music.  If in my listening notes I consistently rank – based on many listening sessions over a long period of time – system configuration “A” (including a specific complement of tubes) as “excellent – magical”, and I consistently rate other configurations as something less – that tells me that configuration “A” is the best configuration in that room – for me.   

 

The sound of a symphony orchestra is complex, and a few published hi-fi specs like frequency response, signal/noise ratio, and THD do not capture all qualitative facets of reproducing this complex sound.   And a calibrated mic and PC-based “room correction” software do not completely define a hi-fi system’s subjective sound quality.   In other words, the sound quality of a hi-fi system is not completely defined by commonly published technical specifications.   The differences in sound quality between hi-fi components is sometimes subtle – but it’s these subtleties that can make the difference between a hi-fi system “sounding pretty good”, and what I call “being drawn into the music” – i.e., forgetting about everything except the music.  I use my ears to decide when I think that my hi-fi systems sound closest to natural music – vs. letting electronic hardware and software decide for me.   (I imagine that some people’s ears adjust to sound that has been altered by some form of electronic processing.   If you’re used to listening to an AV receiver (or pre-processor) that employs digital signal processing, then that AV receiver may sound “normal” or “good” to you – particularly if you are listening to pop music.) 

 

While science certainly has a role in the technology associated with hi-fi equipment, my belief is that people’s perception of reproduced sound can’t be completely explained by science.   Hi-fi equipment is designed based on electrical engineering, and test equipment is essential in its development and testing.  However, IME satisfactory electronic test results represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality.  The ultimate goal IMO is not to satisfy an oscilloscope or distortion analyzer or some software tool, it’s to satisfy a music lover.    And that involves a music lover listening to the reproduced sound and either having a smile on their face – or not.  This involves synergy between all hi-fi components, and the listening room, and the listener’s ears and brain.  

 

If “audio nirvana” is that subjective moment when a person “gets lost in” the music they love – and the rest of the world vanishes – then I submit that there are many paths to the top of the mountain.  Room EQ.  Tube rolling.   Component matching.  Cartridge pairing with music genre.   Etc.  It’s part science and part black magic.  Moreover, different people enjoy the hobby of hi-fi by focusing on different facets (e.g., high tech digital cataloging and networking, spinning vinyl, rolling tubes, room EQ, DIY speaker building, etc.)  Moreover, different people have different constraints, such as budget, room layout, available floor space, home decorating priorities, etc.  (For example, I prefer traditional décor.  I put original artwork on my walls.  There is no way that I’m mounting foam panels in my living room.  To each their own.  I can fit tower speakers in my listening rooms, but not La Scala, Klipschorn, or Jubilee.)

 

Bottom line, there is no “one size fits all” solution, or even approach to home hi-fi.  IMO there is a significant subjective facet to the enjoyment of reproduced music in the home.  If you achieve audio nirvana via room EQ – cool.   If you achieve audio nirvana via tube rolling – that’s cool too.

 

That’s my 2.5 cents for now.  OP:  Is this relevant to what you want to discuss?

 

 

P.S.  OP:  You posted 2 videos.   Suffice it to say that these two videos are very controversial, and have been hotly debated.    (I’ve watched both videos a few years ago, and don’t care to view them again.)   My recollection is that the methodologies of some of their listening tests have been questioned.   For example:  What is the provenance of the music samples?   (Garbage in / garbage out.)   How were the digital recordings manipulated?  (I have concerns because the music samples apparently were manipulated by PC software, and this causes me to assume that part of what I’d hear might be artifacts of the PC software.)     IMO, the fact that one video is titled “Audio Myths Workshop” and the other is titled “AES Damned Lies Workshop” raises a red flag regarding the impartiality of these investigations.  One of the panelists, JJ, begins by telling a story about how he tricked some college friends with a fake listening test.  Based on the panelists’ smirks, this further causes me to question their objectivity.   One thing that JJ said that I agree with:  “Everything can be steered.”   “If you’re convinced that everything sounds the same, you’ll steer things that way.”  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a guy that was just saying that the scope was too wide, that was a really good response.

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

First, let me say that I wish that I could hear your Jubilee.   (Even though I can’t fit them in any of my listening rooms.)

You're welcome anytime if you're passing through D/FW.  Perhaps there might be a smaller loudspeaker (1/3 the volume/size) that sounds a whole lot like a Jubilee in the foreseeable future (hot weather really slows outside tasks).

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

I like classical music and opera.  Not pop music.

This is good.  I listen to smaller amounts of opera, but lots of classical (a third of my music collection is classical, and by far the largest genre in my collection).  Do you also watch opera videos?

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

I think it’s important for each individual to define “audio fidelity” or “high fidelity reproduction” based on their goals for their hi-fi system.

If you're talking about hi-fi classical and opera reproduction, I understand and agree with your statement.  Popular music--not as much, since I find classical to be the most difficult to do well. 

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

Candidly, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about want a recording engineer wants – I care more about what the composer and conductor wanted.)

Bravo.  Me too.

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

What meaning does “high fidelity” reproduction (or “audio fidelity”) have for most of pop music?.   (I want to be clear about my perspective:  I respect the fact that different people like different music.  To each their own.   If you like electronically produced pop music and your goal is for your home hi-fi system to sound “good” – I think that’s OK.)

This is one of the best statements that I've seen in a while, and is something that seems to be hard for some folks to acknowledge that drives loudspeaker/room sound reproduction system design/implementation.  Pop music, well, it gets a lot more difficult to talk about relevant "hi-fi" attributes, but it's really straightforward by comparison for classical music--a point that PWK I think used for designing all of his loudspeakers.  Why this subject has to be hard to talk about is, to me, odd.

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

I regard as a “myth” the idea presented in the 4th video (posted by twk123) that the audio quality in all live performances has decreased in recent years.  This has not occurred at my local symphony hall, where no electronic sound reinforcement systems are employed.  There is no DJ (or sound board operator) involved with the live performance of classical music in its intended venue (at least in my local symphony hall and opera house).

I like this subject.  I haven't yet gotten around to twk123's posted videos, so my apologies for not yet commenting on them.  I think that they (the presenter) was saying things in opposition to Winer's assertions. I felt that a little groundwork was needed before tackling those next two videos. 

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

My goal for my home hi-fi systems is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera house – or perhaps I should say an accurate facsimile. 

Me, too.  Sometimes it gets pretty convincing, but that usually happens when in the best 5.1 presentations (Beethoven's nine BDs with the Bavarian Radio Symphony are really convincing, but there are others, for instance). 

 

43 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

Moreover, different people have different sensitivities to various aspects of sound.  (For example, some people are sensitive to spatial imaging, some not.)  

Fortunately, for orchestral performance, the "pin-point imaging effect" is much decreased in real life.  For opera, perhaps this is different, but not a lot (in my experience). 

 

I'll take a break here...yours is a long post to respond to.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

My assessment of whether or not what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system sounds like a live performance – or like a pleasant facsimile of a live performance – is more important to me than what some electronic test equipment indicates.  My ears are “adjusted” - or “calibrated” – by virtue of my full season subscription to the symphony and opera.  What I’m used to is the natural sound of classical music.  That’s what I strive for with my home hi-fi systems.  (Clearly this approach is imperfect – but that’s life.)

I agree that measurements can't measure what you're talking about.  PWK said to calibrate your ears, and I strongly agree.  If your setup isn't doing what you want it to, then you're probably dissatisfied.  That's a legit gripe.  I had the same thing happen over the space of years before I was finally able to close the loop--and it involved the center channel in my Jub-based 5.1 setup.  I created a new loudspeaker to fill between the Jubs, and that did it for me.  I was fortunate, but it was a long haul.

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

I want the imperfections in my hi-fi systems to sound pleasant when playing classical music – not unpleasant.    I want that “magical” moment when I’m listening (for example) to my SACD of Brahms German Requiem and I completely forget about the hi-fi equipment - because I’m moved by the music.

Me, too.

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

The sound of a symphony orchestra is complex, and a few published hi-fi specs like frequency response, signal/noise ratio, and THD do not capture all qualitative facets of reproducing this complex sound.

Yes, yes, yes.

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

The differences in sound quality between hi-fi components is sometimes subtle – but it’s these subtleties that can make the difference between a hi-fi system “sounding pretty good”, and what I call “being drawn into the music” – i.e., forgetting about everything except the music. 

I experience this after dialing in the EQ on the Jubs and K-402-MEH.  There is a subtle dialing in threshold that, once achieved, magically does what you describe.  But I can't put a bound on it.  I know when it happens, and I also can hear when it improves further.  Then I forget about what I was thinking, and just listen...and that's the goal.

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

While science certainly has a role in the technology associated with hi-fi equipment, my belief is that people’s perception of reproduced sound can’t be completely explained by science.

Yes, of course...

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

Hi-fi equipment is designed based on electrical engineering, and test equipment is essential in its development and testing.  However, IME satisfactory electronic test results represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality.  The ultimate goal IMO is not to satisfy an oscilloscope or distortion analyzer or some software tool, it’s to satisfy a music lover.    And that involves a music lover listening to the reproduced sound and either having a smile on their face – or not.  This involves synergy between all hi-fi components, and the listening room, and the listener’s ears and brain. 

I believe if you knew how guys like Roy and PWK actually designed loudspeakers, you'd see that the engineering is a necessary but not sufficient condition.  There is the art that involves listening and tweaking, but the engineering enables the engineer to get to that point.  If the engineer has tin ears, then you don't usually get a good loudspeaker, etc.

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

If “audio nirvana” is that subjective moment when a person “gets lost in” the music they love – and the rest of the world vanishes – then I submit that there are many paths to the top of the mountain.  Room EQ.  Tube rolling.   Component matching.  Cartridge pairing with music genre.   Etc.  It’s part science and part black magic. 

Well, I think that we've gotten to a point where I'll agree to disagree partially, but I understand perhaps why you say this, because this is the path that you see that you have available to you.  With a little more technical knowledge and experience, you can largely drop off the concepts of "component matching", except perhaps matching driver/horn/crossover performance in a loudspeaker design.  But I see where you're going and I basically agree that there is some level of component integration that is needed to get that "last 20%", as Roy puts it.

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

Moreover, different people enjoy the hobby of hi-fi by focusing on different facets (e.g., high tech digital cataloging and networking, spinning vinyl, rolling tubes, room EQ, DIY speaker building, etc.) 

If you want to do this as a hobby, I can't get in your way, but I will say that it isn't necessary, and personally I believe this scares away a lot of would-be audio enthusiasts when they believe this sort of thing is necessary or even commonly required.  I don't believe that it is.

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

Bottom line, there is no “one size fits all” solution, or even approach to home hi-fi.  IMO there is a significant subjective facet to the enjoyment of reproduced music in the home.

Only to the degree that you believe that it's necessary, in my experience.  When you listen to a pair of well set up Jubs with a bunch of guys in a room in Hope, I believe that everyone responds more or less equally--in my experience.  I believe that PWK also believed that.  I believe that the "good listening experience" is more common than you might otherwise believe.  I've experienced this effect myself.

 

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

For example:  What is the provenance of the music samples?   (Garbage in / garbage out.)   How were the digital recordings manipulated?  (I have concerns because the music samples apparently were manipulated by PC software, and this causes me to assume that part of what I’d hear might be artifacts of the PC software.)     IMO, the fact that one video is titled “Audio Myths Workshop” and the other is titled “AES Damned Lies Workshop” raises a red flag regarding the impartiality of these investigations.  One of the panelists, JJ, begins by telling a story about how he tricked some college friends with a fake listening test.  Based on the panelists’ smirks, this further causes me to question their objectivity.   One thing that JJ said that I agree with:  “Everything can be steered.”   “If you’re convinced that everything sounds the same, you’ll steer things that way.”

I've lodged my objections on this subject, too, above.  The biggest single impediment to communicating and sharing common ideas is to believe that you've got all the answers, and I think Winer comes pretty close to crossing that line in multiple places by his self-assured way of stating his various points.  I think he's actually got a whole lot to learn, in fact (...as do I).  But I'm pretty sure that my opinions aren't going to affect him at all--so I don't try to. 

 

I do believe that this thread is all about getting the good things out of Winer's videos, and perhaps leaving behind the stuff that isn't...for the benefit of the readers and participants here, as well as adding the good stuff that we've each found ourselves.

 

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chris A said:

Some of the oddest audiophile mythology that I've come across actually comes not from home hi-fi circles but rather mastering people (I don't call them "engineers" because there is little science involved).  They apparently attempt to take on an air of expertise in order to not have to defend their base arguments--which is the source of their mythology.  I believe that there are a lot of culture-oriented practices that seem to surround the production of recorded music for mostly the large highly paid A&R organizations to keep the money machine well stoked

 

This begs the questions......

"What's So Sacred About Our Recordings?"

I say the "Devil" is at play in many of our recordings and "Fidelity" is not even on the list of goals in way to many of them..!!!

 

"Do you believe it is a Sin to Re-master them..?"

 

"If we have a weapon to battle this Devil and attempt to undo/minimize the "Devil's" works are we in reality "Not Sinners" but instead are we not trying to rescue the "Good" from the "Evil" done upon it..?"

 

:Dmiketn

 

 

  • Like 2
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...