Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[microstrip]

stehno, Perhaps you could ask Amir or Tim to define the term, "audio science". My understanding of it is clearly vague.

Regarding there being few objective measurements in high end audio, I can tell you this from my limited experience: My analog set up relies on what I have always considered to be objective measurements. The turntable speed is either 33.333 or 45.00 measured in rotations per minute. The tonearm has a precise pivot to spindle distance, measured in mm. The VFT is precise and measured in grams. The tonearm's offset angle has a precise specification. My alignment protractor is made based on very specific measurements. If these measurements were not accurate and repeatable, in an objective sense, I would not hear the quality of sound that I hear from my system, in a subjective sense. This is also the case for my speakers' positions which are measured to be within +/- 1/16" in tilt, distance and toe-in relative to specific reference points at my listening position.

I suppose one could argue about how accurate the Sutherland TimeLine, KAB strobe, MINT protractor, SME engineering, my digital VTF gauge, my Ortofon bubble level and my Bosch laser are, but I find them accurate enough for my purposes.

I appreciate reading your perspective on this issue.

Peter,

Curiously IMHO audio science is connecting measurements with perceived subjective sound quality. The measurements are a way of expressing the physical reality in a quantifiable way.

Your example of the turntable measurements is an excellent example of measurement accuracy, but also a case of non-audio science, but excellent mathematical or electromechanical science. We have many theories on the optimum geometry of the tonearm alignment - and they all differ a lot. We can not tell scientifically one of them is better than all the others. You just want to repeat the manufacturer advised conditions of operation accurately, very wisely in my opinion.

 

[microstrip]

I'll bet your turntable speed is not exactly 33.333 rpm, since I don't think any 'table measured (excepting perhaps some $100k + tables) has that degree of accuracy or consistency.

IMHO absolute accuracy of turntable speed over 4 figures is just a marketing argument.

 

[amirm]

stehno, Perhaps you could ask Amir or Tim to define the term, "audio science". My understanding of it is clearly vague.

In my book, it is what is accepted as research by Audio Engineering Society (AES), Acoustic Society of America (ASA), IEEE Spectrum/Signal Processing, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Acustica, etc. There is a level of quality and standards that are required before papers and research are accepted by these organizations that defines what is credible research/"science."

 

[Tony Lauck]

In my book, it is what is accepted as research by Audio Engineering Society (AES), Acoustic Society of America (ASA), IEEE Spectrum/Signal Processing, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Acustica, etc. There is a level of quality and standards that are required before papers and research are accepted by these organizations that defines what is credible research/"science."

Listing the authorities does not define the content. Also it is not helpful to those who are interested in science more than in Science.

 

[amirm]

Listing the authorities does not define the content.

Said nothing about authorities. I named organizations that published audio research and have set of standards for publication. It is no different than answering what constitutes medical science.

Also it is not helpful to those who are interested in science more than in Science.

Don't know what this means...

 

[rbbert]

IMHO absolute accuracy of turntable speed over 3 figures is just a marketing argument.

A speed error of 0.2% (easily audible to sensitive listeners, and present on many curent tables) would be 33.39 or 32.27, so I think at least 4 figures is important.

 

[rbbert]

There is Science, where the goal is often to be published and/or obtain funding, and there is science, the pursuit of real and meaningful information.

 

[jkeny]

Yep, known from the time before you or I were born. I quickly looked at 1925 reference I have and there it was, leakage current explained.

Yes for leakage current but what about how capacitors change their level of leakage current & rate after some time in use?
An explanation for active devices burn in?

At the risk of advertising, here's a real-world example of a more notable comment by a record producer using one of my DACs (everybody comments on the change in sound after 48hrs to 1 week of use)
"You'll get a laugh out of this one, the first ten minutes were, for want of a better word, odd, sounding pretty screetchy and harsh and WTH? We had the whole engineering staff listening as Gabriel hooked the Ciunas up and my face almost went red. but! .. over only about 60 minutes the box went from "what??" to "Wow!", quite a wonderful transition. I have never heard of such a profound burn-in transformation, a first in my experience, and as you suggested would happen.But to such a degree I've never experienced. As well, after about 4 hours, it's already got an even more natural, and gratifying sound, not as crystal clear or dryly transparent as our Lavry Golds, but more quietly real and organic, just as usable as the $10K box, maybe more usable if you consider listening pleasure, which is my watchword, as long as there is accuracy, which even at this early date, the Ciunas seems to have. And that is something everyone here can hear! "

 

[Tony Lauck]

Said nothing about authorities. I named organizations that published audio research and have set of standards for publication. It is no different than answering what constitutes medical science.


Don't know what this means...

rbbert explained the difference between Science and science.

Organizations define what is Science and what is not according to the decisions of specific individuals who control or lead these organizations. They do so for personal reasons. The situation is far worse in medicine than in audio, because of the vaster amount of money and power to be gained by gaming the system.

Those of us who are not authoritarian followers do their own investigations before making up our own minds. If we are to work on "audio science" we need a definition that is more than "Audio science is what Mommy and Daddy say it is."

 

[amirm]

rbbert explained the difference between Science and science.

??? So from here on we need to capitalize the word one way or the other?

Organizations define what is Science and what is not according to the decisions of specific individuals who control or lead these organizations. They do so for personal reasons. The situation is far worse in medicine than in audio, because of the vaster amount of money and power to be gained by gaming the system.

Don't know about the medical field but in audio, the organizations represent the general consensus of the research and engineering community. To wit there is no movement to change the standards and norms.

Those of us who are not authoritarian followers do their own investigations before making up our own minds. If we are to work on "audio science" we need a definition that is more than "Audio science is what Mommy and Daddy say it is."

And what means do you have to replicate what the combined forces of audio research community have? How would you go about figuring out the effect of side reflections in a loudspeaker? How about audibility of speech in the presence of room reflections? Do you have what it takes to measure HRTF? Effect of varying IACC on localization?

So no, it is like saying you have no use for the medical science because you can do your own research. I have far better means than many to conduct my own audio experiments but that doesn't rise up to 0.0001% of what I can read and learn from in audio research.

 

[Tony Lauck]

Don't know about the medical field but in audio, the organizations represent the general consensus of the research and engineering community. To wit there is no movement to change the standards and norms.

I think you just made my point.

 

[rbbert]

I don't know of any scientific field where there isn't a big influence by money and prestige in establishing standards and what gets published. Yes some are worse than others depending on the amount of money and prestige involved, but you are fooling yourself if you think audio research is free of those influences.

There is a long overdue movement in medical science to try to minimize research for research's sake and focus on meaningful and useful information gathering. Because there is little financial reward present, only public interest, it's not making much progress at this time.

 

[stehno]

These devices (MRI X-Ray) use mechanical chambers and tube filaments glowing to operate, and so by that means, and temperature of the room, etc, physical things affect them, but there are circuits to compensate within limits. Yes, there is a burn in process in many things, however, audibility, ie in regards a previous post, it sounded like sheet but we then went and had dinner came back within two hours and now it sounds glorious...well, that's not a wire doing that.

But it is wiring thing, tomelex. It can be demonstrated repeatedly with near identical results every time. And such observations and results are repeatable with cables, line conditioners, components, speakers, etc.

What's so difficult to believe about that?

You say there's a burn-in process. What do you speculate is happening during this burn-in process time? And if "burn-in" is a legitimate process, why could there not be a similar, albeit more brief re-burn-in or warm up process after an electrical current ceases for a time and then restarts?

 

[Groucho]

I'll bet your turntable speed is not exactly 33.333 rpm, since I don't think any 'table measured (excepting perhaps some $100k + tables) has that degree of accuracy or consistency.

The peculiar parallel universe of audiophilia. You could regulate the speed of a motor to any arbitrary accuracy you like. Certainly the *average* speed could be regulated to a couple of parts per million for a few dollars. Or maybe you could regulate it using a GPS receiver, effectively giving you the accuracy of the world's best atomic clocks. Then it would *officially* be exactly 33.33333...RPM!

But it's that awkward combination of paying lip service to objective measurements while at the same time advocating the creation of the audio waveform using a wax disc and a cactus spike - or just the next step on. The cheapest CD player known to man is probably regulating its motor speed to within 100 ppm of what it needs to be i.e. slaved to a crystal clock that regulates the sample rate of the waveform.

 

[stehno]

I agree that JA does not have a laboratory to work in. And that just reflects the state of audio, a bit of a backroad of electronics compared to other electronic industries.

First things first. I agree that is just a reflection of the state of high-end audio. Which I have no doubt that at least from a performance perspective remains very much in its infancy.

I think that perspective explains why even the most engaged members and manufacturers remain all over the map with perhaps no two people shooting at the same target. This kind of aimless wondering just does not happen in mature performance-oriented industries.

Stehno,

Just something to think about, here is a question to ponder:

Do we know more about how to measure a signal from a mic to the speaker output BETTER than we know how the human ear/brain system operates? That right there should cause some time for reflection about our opinion of our ears and their stability over time and use as any sort of a calibrated system.

The mere fact that nobody acknowledges the tremendous distortions that greatly reduce the amount of music info audible at the speakers would be the clearest indicator to me that the answer to your question is no. There is no conclusive proof that we know more about measuring a signal from a mic to the speaker than we know how the human ear/brain system operates. Even if 10 out of 10 think we do.

For example. There’s an interesting little experiment as described by Robert Harley of TAS in the Mar/Apr 2009 TAS issue describing a simple test conducted by Ed Meitner of EMM Labs. It goes something like this:
Ed records a live guitar sound through a guitar speaker/amp. Ed then plays the recorded music through the same speaker/amp combo and the sound is entirely inferior.

Simple enough, right? As a result of that little experiment, Meitner and subsequently Harley conclude that something catastrophic must be occurring at the recording mic’s diaphragm preventing much of the music info from ever reaching the recording.

Well, an experiment can’t get much more simple than that but in my opinion, it was rather silly and shortsighted. They were right about the “catastrophic” results, but they were entirely wrong about the cause.

It does not mean we don't need to make our ears happy, but between the two, we know very little of the science of the ear/brain measurements compared to the science of making a signal move through a stereo system.

Make our ears happy? I’m not sure why so many people want to intentionally dumb-down the human ear’s capabilities. In all my years of being married, out of the hundreds or thousands of times my wife called me to the dinner table, I’ve never once thought it was your wife calling me.

There is instinctive hearing just as there is instinctive seeing. A baby does not know that he sees a red or blue blanket but over time is trained to make the distinction. The same goes for hearing, as obviously there are many “audiophiles” who’ve yet to train their ears (I’m not saying you). Having a great passion for music and/or acquiring a high-end audio playback system should never imply the owner has well-trained ears. But it does all the time.

And frankly that fact plays a huge role in this audio-only industry and that’s just one more reason why I’m convinced high-end audio remains very much in its infancy stages from a performance perspective.

 

[jkeny]

First things first. I agree that is just a reflection of the state of high-end audio. Which I have no doubt that at least from a performance perspective remains very much in its infancy.

I think that perspective explains why even the most engaged members and manufacturers remain all over the map with perhaps no two people shooting at the same target. This kind of aimless wondering just does not happen in mature performance-oriented industries.

The mere fact that nobody acknowledges the tremendous distortions that greatly reduce the amount of music info audible at the speakers would be the clearest indicator to me that the answer to your question is no. There is no conclusive proof that we know more about measuring a signal from a mic to the speaker than we know how the human ear/brain system operates. Even if 10 out of 10 think we do.

For example. There’s an interesting little experiment as described by Robert Harley of TAS in the Mar/Apr 2009 TAS issue describing a simple test conducted by Ed Meitner of EMM Labs. It goes something like this:
Ed records a live guitar sound through a guitar speaker/amp. Ed then plays the recorded music through the same speaker/amp combo and the sound is entirely inferior.

Simple enough, right? As a result of that little experiment, Meitner and subsequently Harley conclude that something catastrophic must be occurring at the recording mic’s diaphragm preventing much of the music info from ever reaching the recording.

Well, an experiment can’t get much more simple than that but in my opinion, it was rather silly and shortsighted. They were right about the “catastrophic” results, but they were entirely wrong about the cause.


Make our ears happy? I’m not sure why so many people want to intentionally dumb-down the human ear’s capabilities. In all my years of being married, out of the hundreds or thousands of times my wife called me to the dinner table, I’ve never once thought it was your wife calling me.

There is instinctive hearing just as there is instinctive seeing. A baby does not know that he sees a red or blue blanket but over time is trained to make the distinction. The same goes for hearing, as obviously there are many “audiophiles” who’ve yet to train their ears (I’m not saying you). Acquiring a high-end audio playback system should never imply the owner has well-trained ears. But it does all the time.

And frankly that fact plays a huge role in this audio-only industry and that’s just one more reason why I’m convinced high-end audio remains very much in its infancy stages from a performance perspective.

Pretty much agree with all you said but especially the highlighted piece. Just want to go back to the Toole video in which he said (although most of us didn't need reminding) - I paraphrase "that it's amazing how many different people converge towards the same preference i.e inherently have the same in-built auditory model of good sound"

 

[stehno]

Thanks, JKeny.

I saw the quote in your signature by Boorstin.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.

What a insightful quote. Especially here.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

For example. There’s an interesting little experiment as described by Robert Harley of TAS in the Mar/Apr 2009 TAS issue describing a simple test conducted by Ed Meitner of EMM Labs. It goes something like this:
Ed records a live guitar sound through a guitar speaker/amp. Ed then plays the recorded music through the same speaker/amp combo and the sound is entirely inferior.

Simple enough, right? As a result of that little experiment, Meitner and subsequently Harley conclude that something catastrophic must be occurring at the recording mic’s diaphragm preventing much of the music info from ever reaching the recording.

Well, an experiment can’t get much more simple than that but in my opinion, it was rather silly and shortsighted. They were right about the “catastrophic” results, but they were entirely wrong about the cause.



Make our ears happy? I’m not sure why so many people want to intentionally dumb-down the human ear’s capabilities.

First, the Meitner experiment. I have not seen or read it, but it is quite obvious that unless Ed recorded the guitar in an anechoic chamber, which I doubt, that the primary influence here was room reflections in the recording. That alone would have made the sound quite different between hearing the guitar directly live in the room and hearing the recording made in the same room and played back in the same room, when the adverse influence of reflections was doubled up!

It remains a mystery to me why audiophiles simply refuse to understand that room reflections are a major issue in both recording venues and especially in the the playback setup in their rooms. And, the contributions of the room in playback are huge, measurably and verifiably. If Ed had applied competent DSP EQ to nullify most room issues on playback, I am quite confident that the recorded sound would have been much closer to the original guitar. We cannot change how the recording was made, but we can deal with the room on playback - get it out of the way. Then, everything starts to come into much clearer focus, and playback reality becomes much closer sounding to what was recorded.

I do not think anyone is dumbing down the ear's abilities. Is that a swipe at audio science and objectivism, which is precisely dedicated to the opposite of that? I think we need to understand clearly what the ear/brain can do and what it cannot do. I do not think that audiophiles with a "trust only your ears" mantra have the remotest clue and have precious little understanding of the complex influences on the sound that they hear and how they perceive it.

I trust my ears, audition equipment and recordings with them only, but there is nothing worse than self delusion about my ears and momentary sonic perceptions being perfect without limitations.

 

[jkeny]

Thanks, JKeny.

I saw the quote in your signature by Boorstin.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.

What a insightful quote. Especially here.

Indeed & here's my adjunct to my paraphrased statement of Toole above - "wouldn't it be great if OTHER audio measurements converged to this same singularity as our auditory processing"
It's amazing that people confuse the objective - how accurately we can measure something has nothing to do with how relevant it is to achieving it's goal - creating an auditory illusion that is as realistic as possible (as judged by our auditory systems) given the current technology & limitations of 2 channel stereo

 

[jkeny]

......
I trust my ears, audition equipment and recordings with them only, but there is nothing worse than self delusion about my ears and momentary sonic perceptions being perfect without limitations.

Ah, but who is talking about "momentary sonic perceptions"?