A thread to discuss things related to what and how we hear. System Building too!

[bonzo75]

I think we try 1) but since we can't possibly know what that sounded like, we are actually trying for 2). The three dimensional view of a classical orchestra presented to us on a recording is typically not from the audience perspective but rather from overhead mics.

I think what we end up with wanting (1), by listening to (2) HIGHLY influenced by (3).

But the "pleasing" in 3 can only be shaped by experience. Similarly to do 1, one needs live concert experience

 

[marslo]

Interesting thread.
Since we learnt Heisneberg's uncertainty principle we know that blind test are irrelevant in audio just because the measurement instrument isn't stable during the observation.
Taking that into consideration the only thing which is reliable is emotion of an individual person. Because of the fact that we are not the same and we learn during our audio journey our reception also evolves.
Moreover none of systems can reproduce the scale and palpability of live concert.
What we can do is to select the elements and build the system which conveys as much as possible emotions - the only common element of live music and reproduced music.
And those elements are choosen according to the skill and experience accumulated during our audio journey.
IMHO

 

[microstrip]

(...) Humans seems to need a certain level of accurate reproduction in a broad part of the spectrum to deem something as real. While it has become a sport to reject en masse the sytudies of Harman, they are peer- challenged and have pointed at the fact that some universal aspects in what we human prefer and ask of our sound reproducing systems. (...)

Frantz,

I am astonished that you are endorsing this victimization discourse when starting such an interesting thread. As far as I know the published Harman studies only apply to loudspeakers and acoustics. Their studies are beyond reproach, scientifically correct in their framework - determine which speakers are preferred by the majority of listeners in well defined conditions, and create models and measurements to develop and test them. Considering the people I know at this forum, IMHO the majority of them are audiophiles with different needs and preferences from the mean typically defined by their statistical analysis. Do you also think that everyone that scored higher the B&W or the Martin Logan speaker in the Harman listening tests are guilty of rejecting their studies and should be banned?

And I have found that even Harman electronics is changing a lot - as we can read they have hired an ex-Krell man with a brilliant CV- Todd Eichenbaum - to take the leadership of the electronic development of their top brand, Mark Levinson - see http://www.marklevinson.com/ml-newsdetail/~/item/harmans-mission-to-revitalize-mark-levinson.html or http://www.aes.org/events/139/presenters/?ID=4061. Good news for audiophiles.

I can not understand why people are just supposed to love blindly or reject the Harman studies, nothing else ...

 

[FrantzM]

But the "pleasing" in 3 can only be shaped by experience. Similarly to do 1, one needs live concert experience

Not really. It is getting to a point where for many the reference is music through Electronics means. Also we are getting to apoint where preferences seem to be the dominant factor and on that many favored components distort the signal in ways that many favor however removed it is from any event. i tend to take the example of solo violins which are per their very nature screechy and strident instruments (pleasing to many, including I, but strident nonetheless). SOme audiophile-approved, editorialized versions of a solo violin is a syrupy sound.. sweet sounding is the term used.
One of the most annoying aspects of many systems is the lousy bass reproduction. Some just avoid any semblance of accurate bass reproduction in the name of "preservng" the midrange and one ends up with a system only capable of midrange.. These systems often find their ways in audio shows where some enthusiasts gush about them with fake enthusiasm while most other politely do not say nothing ...

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

I am astonished that you are endorsing this victimization discourse when starting such an interesting thread. As far as I know the published Harman studies only apply to loudspeakers and acoustics. Their studies are beyond reproach, scientifically correct in their framework - determine which speakers are preferred by the majority of listeners in well defined conditions, and create models and measurements to develop and test them. Considering the people I know at this forum, IMHO the majority of them are audiophiles with different needs and preferences from the mean typically defined by their statistical analysis. Do you also think that everyone that scored higher the B&W or the Martin Logan speaker in the Harman listening tests are guilty of rejecting their studies and should be banned?

And I have found that even Harman electronics is changing a lot - as we can read they have hired an ex-Krell man with a brilliant CV- Todd Eichenbaum - to take the leadership of the electronic development of their top brand, Mark Levinson - see http://www.marklevinson.com/ml-newsdetail/~/item/harmans-mission-to-revitalize-mark-levinson.html or http://www.aes.org/events/139/presenters/?ID=4061. Good news for audiophiles.

I can not understand why people are just supposed to love blindly or reject the Harman studies, nothing else ...

microstrip

I love when you talk about majority, "most", etc.. Have you conducted surveys to arrive at those generalizations? .. Victimization? Come on man! .. find another subject of debate there are plenty

 

[FrantzM]

Interesting thread.
Since we learnt Heisneberg's uncertainty principle we know that blind test are irrelevant in audio just because the measurement instrument isn't stable during the observation.
Taking that into consideration the only thing which is reliable is emotion of an individual person. Because of the fact that we are not the same and we learn during our audio journey our reception also evolves.
Moreover none of systems can reproduce the scale and palpability of live concert.
What we can do is to select the elements and build the system which conveys as much as possible emotions - the only common element of live music and reproduced music.
And those elements are choosen according to the skill and experience accumulated during our audio journey.
IMHO

Fail to see how you can so easily connect Heisenberg to blind tests... Else I am ok with your argument. I do not share your point of view though

 

[Al M.]

Al. M.

Can I ask you about the exact timing of these going back and forth multiple times? IMHO the typical procedure and timing of such operations will just persuade people that there are no audible differences even if they exist. After some tries, in a short evaluation time with significant pause time your mind you will focus on the similarities, not on the differences.

The back and forth was fast at times. I was concentrating on certain differences that I thought I heard, but then found they were not there when switching back to the other component. I was specifically focusing on differences. I was also listening for specific parameters, like dynamics, rhythm & timing, certain timbres etc., and then the stretches of listening to one component were longer.

BTW, the best existing bias is just considering ourselves to be objective observers. My only technique for personnel evaluation when considering an acquisition is listening for a few weeks using my personnel references, then removing the equipment and re-listening. I do not know about any fast way to evaluate equipment. And many times, we only see how good some equipment was when we take it out of the system, re-listen to the old one for some time and re-introduce it again.

There may be a point to that. There might have some differences evident upon longer-term listening to the components in the cases I described, but I am not interested in spending money on subtle differences. Large differences will reveal themselves quickly, and that's mostly where cost-effective spending lies.

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

I love when you talk about majority, "most", etc.. Have you conducted surveys to arrive at those generalizations? .. Victimization? Come on man! .. find another subject of debate there are plenty

Frantz,

Just read the original papers and book - they show the data and carry the statistics and distributions. It is not difficult to interpret.
People seem to forget that WBF posters as an whole can not be considered as a random sample of listeners.

And as afar as I read you were the one complaining about the other people sports ...

OK, back to synergy matters!

 

[microstrip]

There may be a point to that. There might have some differences evident upon longer-term listening to the components in the cases I described, but I am not interested in spending money on subtle differences. Large differences will reveal themselves quickly, and that's mostly where cost-effective spending lies.

This is another interesting subjective aspect - cost effective spending. It is an easy subject if you are assembling a system from zero - we all would loved a fresh start at some moment, but becomes complex as soon as you already have a system and a listening room.

BTW, Caelin Gabriel of Shunyata Research has once written in WBF that the small differences are the essence of the high-end. I have to say that I agree with him. The trouble sometimes is differentiating small from subtle differences.

 

[microstrip]

Fail to see how you can so easily connect Heisenberg to blind tests... Else I am ok with your argument. I do not share your point of view though

Most probably marlso is philosophically addressing the observer effect, not the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is a similar but differently rooted phenomena in physics.

 

[marslo]

Fail to see how you can so easily connect Heisenberg to blind tests... Else I am ok with your argument. I do not share your point of view though

It's quite clear to me ."The uncertainty principle arose as an answer to the question: How does one measure the location of an electron around a nucleus if an electron is a wave?" ( Wiki, Philosophy of physics)

During the blind test we try to define the properties of the source of the audio signal ( music) being all the time "unstable" ( like an electron ) .

It's even more complicated because we - audiophiles - are in the same time like electron from our example and we are measuring instrument . Moreover during the observation an important neurobiological changes may occur.

How one can make conclusions after such an uncertain test?


The example of the neurobiological change during the listening to the music:

 

[FrantzM]

It's quite clear to me ."The uncertainty principle arose as an answer to the question: How does one measure the location of an electron around a nucleus if an electron is a wave?" ( Wiki)

During the blind test we try to define the properties of the source of the audio signal ( music) being all the time "unstable" ( like an electron ) .

It's even more complicated because we - audiophiles - are in the same time like electron from our example and we are measuring instrument . Moreover during the observation an important neurobiological changes may occur.

How one can make conclusions after such an uncertain test?


The example of the neurobiological change during the listening to the music:

Stretching ... and not by a quanta rather by light years

During a blind test, the entity conducting the test is not trying to define the properties of the signal. Such entity is trying to evaluate our response to a given stimulus whiile trying to reduce the biases often induced by the presence of information about the stimulus or stimuli.

 

[marslo]

Stretching ... and not by a quanta rather by light years

During a blind test, the entity conducting the test is not trying to define the properties of the signal. Such entity is trying to evaluate our response to a given stimulus whiile trying to reduce the biases often induced by the presence of information about the stimulus or stimuli.

Pls let me disagree with your definition of the blind test.
Before we specify that, I prefer my stretching

 

[FrantzM]

Pls let me disagree with your definition of the blind test.
Before we specify that, I prefer my stretching

No Problem marslo .. Let's get back to the discussion at hand ...

 

[BobShermanEsq]

I totally agree - being honest with oneself & listening with care to BOTH old & new configuration is how I approach critical listening. Listening bias is driven by psychological expectation - one doesn't need to have such expectation even if you have just done a tweak & are honestly trying to figure out if the tweak has made a difference.

I agree John, one does not have to have expectation bias when making changes or upgrades. We just have to understand and be practical when listening and trying to recognize differences in our system. Not everything has to be an improvement and we are aware enough I hope to understand this. If we are not we are only fooling ourselves and traveling down an unnecessary road.

 

[Steve Williams]

When I do such a test and find there is a difference, I ask myself " is it something better or merely something different" and if it is something better I ask myself "how so"

 

[jkeny]

When I do such a test and find there is a difference, I ask myself " is it something better or merely something different" and if it is something better I ask myself "how so"

Steve, if you mean by "how so" that you are looking to understand the mechanism that underlies the audible difference then I too find it an interesting question. But not being able to answer it does not negate the audible difference. I put such "unknowns" into my catalogue of experiences & may find that there emerges a correlation with future differences found - a correlation that begins to uncover possible mechanisms of action.

This is why I have come to the premise that some form of noise is a factor in some audible differences, I have noticed

 

[Steve Williams]

For me the notorious A B test is meaningful if I do A-B-A where I switch back to what I had. And no I don't do the test blinded.

 

[PeterA]

Frantz, Isn't a threshold question to ask and to figure out, at least conceptually, what you are trying to achieve?

I think in terms of the three primary objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.

Out of these three which do you select as your objective?

Ron, I've been thinking a while about your list of three objectives. I think these are quite similar to Jon Valin's which he has described in TAS. #3) is subjective and can not really be argued. #1) is difficult to verify unless one was at the original musical event AND is luck enough to have a recording of that event to then compare it in his own system. #2) seems to be the most challenging objective. What exactly is on a master tape? Are systems so transparent that we can hear this recorded data with no distortion and exactly as originally intended? And even if we think there has been no corruption to the signal, how do we really know that what we hear in our listening rooms is what the mastering engineer heard through his monitors when creating his tape? The speakers, listening space, associated gear, are all different. I suppose, under ideal circumstances, and with extremely advanced technology, the engineer and we can approach hearing different versions or electronic interpretations of exactly what is on the master tape.

For me it is more than simply sounding pleasing, as in #3, because that may or may not sound real and music is not always pleasing. And it is wholly different from #1 and #2 because they are far too difficult to verify.

I think there is at least one more primary possibility or objective in High End audio: that is to attempt to recreate a sound which reminds the listener of what he thinks actual acoustic instruments sound like, alone or in combination with other instruments. Of course, this is dependent upon the listener's own references of those sounds AND they necessarily fall within some wide range, because each instrument sounds different from the next and they are heard in different spaces throughout one's musical experiences.

So, my goal or objective with my system is for it to sound "similar" to what I remember certain instruments sounded like when I heard them from my unique listening position, in a particular hall, at a particular time, using my own ears. I have heard pianos, violins, cellos, voices, horns and percussive instruments many times, in many different venues. There is no absolute sound for these instruments, because they all sound different. There are way too many variables to mention. But, I can tell if the sound of a violin seems real to me. If I can manage to get my system to sound similar to my memory of the range of a violin, based on the many times I have heard one live, my stereo listening experience will be convincing, believable, and very emotionally rewarding. That is my goal.

 

[YashN]

I think in terms of the three primary objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.

Out of these three which do you select as your objective?

I would add to these the following which could be included in #1, but not necessarily:

0) recreate the performance of the artist as the latter meant it.