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

[amirm]

I think you just made my point.

I like a happy ending.

 

[amirm]

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.

Would those flaws in the medical research, allow a lay person to have routinely more insight about medical field than his doctor?

 

[Tony Lauck]

Would those flaws in the medical research, allow a lay person to have routinely more insight about medical field than his doctor?

I would say the main thing to keep in mind is whose ox is being gored.

 

[microstrip]

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."

A definition that needs to use the word "etc. " is not clear. Unless you quoted or summarized the precise intentions and objective of each of these publications (they have them in their regulations and rules) you are not defining anything. Besides, some of them, e.g. IEEE Signal Processing, also publish other types of science, non related to audio.
Also claiming that science is the outcome of research seems to imply you are addressing scientific research - and then you are using the concept to be defined in the definition.

IMHO the key to clarify our debates is to identify the specificity of the science exclusive to audio reproduction, that includes perceptual sciences. We all know that audio uses electrical and mechanical science, as well as lots of physics and maths.

 

[microstrip]

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.

32.27/33.33333 = 0.9681 , a more than 3% variation. But I changed my argument to 4 figures - one less than the quoted 33.333.

 

[amirm]

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.

That wouldn't even cover 1% of total audio research.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

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

It is the nature of our reaction to music itself as a high speed, serial medium which constantly flows, somewhat like a water hose but with new tones, new sounds, new emotions instant by instant, as in momentarily. One thing that is pretty clear from audio science is that our in-detail acoustic memory of this ever changing stream of sounds, particularly when constantly overlaid by new sounds in the stream of the musical flow, just ain't all that good. Our internal "memory buffers" just are not all that big if we want to retain all the detail. So, we internally save a summary subset description of what we heard, minus many details.

If we are not trying to be cognitively analytical, we can just enjoy the process and whatever emotions it might bring, as music so eloquently does, for our listening pleasure. We can recall the good emotions, but are they constant? Emotional pleasure is a terrible measure of component A vs. B in an equipment comparison affected by so many extraneous things.

Don't get me wrong. I listen and I form equipment, etc. judgements myself using this highly imperfect process, but I try to factor in the falability of my ears and perceptions, as much as I understand them. Mostly, though, I just listen and get carried away with the considerable, amazing musical pleasure of what my system delivers. I just don't think pleasurable listening - short term or long term - rises to the level of determining significant "truths" about how to get better sound.

Up late, aren't you, over there in Ireland?

 

[Mosin]

32.27/33.33333 = 0.9681 , a more than 3% variation. But I changed my argument to 4 figures - one less than the quoted 33.333.

The key word here is variation. If a turntable is off a percent one way or the other, I suppose it might not be heard by those with less than stellar hearing. However, if it varies a percent in both directions, I maintain that it is easy heard. That would be especially true when the given turntable is directly compared with an accurate one.

I see no reason why any turntable that is supposed to be a serious effort does not maintain speed within a few parts per million. The electronics are only part of the solution, though. Inertia has to be right from the outset. It's not happenstance; it requires thought to build such a beast.

I'll go further and say that I truly believe that most turntables are made for marketing purposes, not sheer performance.

...my opinion for whatever it is worth.

 

[stehno]

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!

I have that issue of TAS and could quote it verbatim according to Harley’s words if needed. But hopefully I summarized the deliberately simplified experiment where as I recall Meitner's intention was to use the very same electronics e.g. speaker/amp for the playback as they did the recording of the live music.

I could not disagree more about your thoughts of the anechoic chamber, room reflections, their importance, etc. but that’s a whole ‘nuther subject. Even though on the surface, your suggestion of reflections could be doubled up has merit, it seems you’re also implying you have an awareness of the room the experiment took place in and that perhaps every live performance should be recorded in an anechoic chamber to ensure during playback there’s no potential for doubling up of reflections of any type.

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.

It seems obvious that you consider room acoustics to be the most significant components of a playback system and if so, you certainly would not be alone. But I would attest that the more a system’s greatly raised noise floor is reduced, thereby allowing more of the previously inaudible music to now be audible, IOW, the closer a playback system gets to live music aka the absolute sound, the less important the room acoustics, first reflections, etc.

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.

Sure they do. In fact, I suspect you are doing that in limited doses right now. All over the forums, including this one, people cease relying on their “untrustworthy” ears almost as if they have become useless appendages and lean more and more toward relying solely on their “trustworthy” eyes.

And if it is your intention to better understand what the ear/brain can and cannot do, then I suggest you add to your research what the eye/brain and brain/brain can and cannot do, just to ensure you remain completely objective. And if this is so important to you, how come this ear/brain subject doesn’t come up when you’re attending a live performance?

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.

So you admit that your ears are untrustworthy? What if anything have you done about that? Are you also implying that none of your other senses or cognitive thinking have ever failed you?

But the point being is that those who desire to introduce the “our ears are untrustworthy” subject should realize it’s a slipper slope. Honestly, I see it first and foremost as a cop out or an excuse for covering the possibility that even though their hearing is fine, they simply lack the discernment to interpret what they hear (i.e. the infant's inability to discern a red vs blue blanket analogy). And rather than focus inward by investing time to improve their own audible discernment, they choose instead to focus outward trying to convince everyone else their hearing and discernment is no better than their own. There's a guy named Ethan Winer who, near as I can tell, has dedicated the rest of his life to this very effort. And regrettably he is far from alone.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Once I was blind but now I can see."? As I'm sure you know, the author of that song was was never actually blind. To that I would say, just because we can hear doesn't mean we can hear. Where's Bob Stuart with his vast neuroscience research when I really need him?

But for those introducing the "untrustworthy ear" thing, I suggest they should also take stock in the reliability of all their other senses too while also taking into account the tremendously deceptive powers of the brain. Do you really think your eye/brain abilities are any more reliable than your ear/brain abilities? And I suspect there are just as many mentally challenged scientists as there are in any other profession.

I would attest for the vast majority of all societies, it’s really a brain/brain thing only. But of course I have no scientific proof of that.

 

[jkeny]

It is the nature of our reaction to music itself as a high speed, serial medium which constantly flows, somewhat like a water hose but with new tones, new sounds, new emotions instant by instant, as in momentarily. One thing that is pretty clear from audio science is that our in-detail acoustic memory of this ever changing stream of sounds, particularly when constantly overlaid by new sounds in the stream of the musical flow, just ain't all that good. Our internal "memory buffers" just are not all that big if we want to retain all the detail. So, we internally save a summary subset description of what we heard, minus many details.

Sure but remember what Toole said - we all converge towards this singular recognition of good sound. Therefore this isn't done by storing & remembering the "details" but by forming & storing a high level analogue of what we experience. This analogue has enough informational content to be able to form a preference that we all converge to - it happens with respect to that blind speaker test.

My point is that we don't need these "details" to compare two sounds - we have a different way of storing & retrieving this auditory perception which is shown to work consistently well.

Too much emphasis is put on this "detail" "memory buffers" & the idea that unless we can do what measuring equipment can do that we therefore are flawed in our abilities to successfully differentiate & accurately identify which sounds better.

If we are not trying to be cognitively analytical, we can just enjoy the process and whatever emotions it might bring, as music so eloquently does, for our listening pleasure. We can recall the good emotions, but are they constant? Emotional pleasure is a terrible measure of component A vs. B in an equipment comparison affected by so many extraneous things.

Don't get me wrong. I listen and I form equipment, etc. judgements myself using this highly imperfect process, but I try to factor in the falability of my ears and perceptions, as much as I understand them. Mostly, though, I just listen and get carried away with the considerable, amazing musical pleasure of what my system delivers. I just don't think pleasurable listening - short term or long term - rises to the level of determining significant "truths" about how to get better sound.

Wow, that's a loaded phrase "significant truths".
I think that we don't have any such significant truths - there ain't too many places that you will find such certainty. I doubt many of us will ever be involved in a blind test that is sufficiently rigorous to qualify for such an exalted phrase.

So, in the absence of such certainty, all we have are our flawed, human abilities that we rely on every day to make our way through life. This is what we do - we live with uncertainty & if we try to do otherwise we become less human as a result - more sterile - more anti what this hobby is about, the emotional connection with the music.

Up late, aren't you, over there in Ireland?

I like late nights

 

[microstrip]

That wouldn't even cover 1% of total audio research.

I am not so pessimist as you - but unfortunately perhaps you are right, specially considering mainly sound reproduction in high quality stereo, the main area of interest of debate of more than 99% of this forum members.

Anyway there is still hope - e.g. at the last AES Convention there was a paper on microdynamics and measurements that could correlate it with the way it was perceived in listening experiences. Audiophiles have been talking about it since many decades ...

 

[Al M.]

It seems obvious that you consider room acoustics to be the most significant components of a playback system and if so, you certainly would not be alone. But I would attest that the more a system’s greatly raised noise floor is reduced, thereby allowing more of the previously inaudible music to now be audible, IOW, the closer a playback system gets to live music aka the absolute sound, the less important the room acoustics, first reflections, etc.

It is the other way around. The more the first reflections are controlled and the better the room acoustics are, the more the lower noise floor of a system is audible. If your room acoustics are horrible, you will hear little improvement going from a system with higher noise floor to one with a lower one.

And bad room acoustics suppress the recorded acoustics of the hall because unwanted room reflections override that spatial information. The more a system inherently is capable of reproducing this low-level spatial information from recordings, the more you will hear improvement going from bad room acoustics to well controlled room acoustics. That is, the closer a playback system gets to live music aka the absolute sound, the more important the room acoustics, first reflections, etc. -- Precisely the opposite from your assertion.

There will not be that much difference between a boombox playing in a good room or in a bad room -- it will sound like a boombox either way.

 

[Al M.]

32.27/33.33333 = 0.9681 , a more than 3% variation. But I changed my argument to 4 figures - one less than the quoted 33.333.

rrbert apparently meant 33.27 and not 32.27 which must have been a typo. 33.27 is as much removed from 33.33 as 33.39, which was the other number he mentioned.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It is the other way around. The more the first reflections are controlled and the better the room acoustics are, the more the lower noise floor of a system is audible. If your room acoustics are horrible, you will hear little improvement going from a system with higher noise floor to one with a lower one.

And bad room acoustics suppress the recorded acoustics of the hall because unwanted room reflections override that spatial information. The more a system inherently is capable of reproducing this low-level spatial information from recordings, the more you will hear improvement going from bad room acoustics to well controlled room acoustics. That is, the closer a playback system gets to live music aka the absolute sound, the more important the room acoustics, first reflections, etc. -- Precisely the opposite from your assertion.

There will not be that much difference between a boombox playing in a good room or in a bad room -- it will sound like a boombox either way.

++++++1.

brilliantly stated and the exact experience I've had the last 4 months.

exhibit #1-

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17389-almost-free-and-4-inches-the-final-1

exhibit #2-

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18116-suck-out-fixed-i-think

the closer one gets to the 'ideal' the more everything matters.

I have had to solve issues in my system that are not heard in some/many other systems. they might exist but are not revealed. frustrating, but also exhilarating when solved.

 

[stehno]

Look, you hear what you hear. The particular story you told to us, well, I was not there, however, wire in an interconnect does not burn in in two hours to a point that I can hear it. I do not apply "burn in" to wires in interconnects. Neither my ears or measurements reveal anything here in regards to burn in (yes interconnects can sound different for scientific proved and measured reasons, but not burn in IME). So, for me, that's conclusive enough for my world.

No offense to those whose world does experience wire burn in.

To be accurate I never mentioned anything about a 2 hour burn-in time period. I was speaking of a short warm-up period of time that some to many components and cables go through (long after being fully burned in) before sounding their best after being shutdown / uninstalled and then turned on / reinstalled.

But let me ask you, since you've no experience with IC burn-in, does your planet allow for speaker cables, components, speakers, power cables, and other electrical types of burn-in? Have you had any "burn-in" experiences there? If so, can you provide an example or two, e.g. product type and the length of time required to burn-in?

 

[Al M.]

++++++1.

brilliantly stated and the exact experience I've had the last 4 months.

exhibit #1-

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17389-almost-free-and-4-inches-the-final-1

exhibit #2-

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18116-suck-out-fixed-i-think

the closer one gets to the 'ideal' the more everything matters.

Yes, I thought at the time that those were very good reads, thanks for sharing your experiences, Mike.

I have had to solve issues in my system that are not heard in some/many other systems. they might exist but are not revealed. frustrating, but also exhilarating when solved.

Precisely my experience too. When I bypassed the internal power supplies of the amps in my system with external ones from BorderPatrol, among other benefits the noise floor dropped dramatically, and I heard a whole lot of spatial information from my humble ordinary Redbook CDs that I had never thought was encoded in them, see my review:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...trol-MB-external-power-supplies-for-tube-amps

Yet especially after correcting my speaker set-up I found that many recordings sounded too recessed, because the room artificially altered that spatial information; the space behind my speakers was too lively acoustically. I solved that problem with ASC window plugs, which gave additional, completely unexpected benefits of resolution, see page 2 and beyond of my system thread:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17334-My-minimonitor-subwoofer-system/page2

So without the addition of the external power supplies for the amps in my system, which gave so much improvement in resolution, I would never have heard the problems in my room acoustics. Yet when those were solved, the overall resolution of the system took yet another step forward. The problem had been frustrating, but the solution exhilarating, just as you say, with benefits beyond expectations.

 

[jkeny]

Precisely my experience too. When I bypassed the internal power supplies of the amps in my system with external ones from BorderPatrol, among other benefits the noise floor dropped dramatically, and I heard a whole lot of spatial information from my humble ordinary Redbook CDs that I had never thought was encoded in them, see my review:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...trol-MB-external-power-supplies-for-tube-amps

Yet especially after correcting my speaker set-up I found that many recordings sounded too recessed, because the room artificially altered that spatial information; the space behind my speakers was too lively acoustically. I solved that problem with ASC window plugs, which gave additional, completely unexpected benefits of resolution, see page 2 and beyond of my system thread:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17334-My-minimonitor-subwoofer-system/page2

So without the addition of the external power supplies for the amps in my system, which gave so much improvement in resolution, I would never have heard the problems in my room acoustics. Yet when those were solved, the overall resolution of the system took yet another step forward. The problem had been frustrating, but the solution exhilarating, just as you say, with benefits beyond expectations.

I know it's not one or the other & both matter but I've seen it stated like this - an improvement to room/speaker changes the "character" of the sound, an improvement to source/amp changes the "quality/detail" of the sound. I know it's probably too simplistic a statement & like all simplistic statements therefore wrong but Al & Mike how would you characterise room changes Vs source/amp changes?

 

[Al M.]

I know it's not one or the other & both matter but I've seen it stated like this - an improvement to room/speaker changes the "character" of the sound, an improvement to source/amp changes the "quality/detail" of the sound. I know it's probably too simplistic a statement & like all simplistic statements therefore wrong but Al & Mike how would you characterise room changes Vs source/amp changes?

In my experience, both room treatments and source/amp changes played mostly in the area of "quality/detail" of the sound.

Time line, upgrades in order:

1. Room treatment with ASC tube traps and sound panels > pronounced increase in both spatial and timbral resolution

2. Upgrades from modified Wadia 12 DAC to Berkeley DAC, as well as switch to BorderPatrol external power supplies for amps > pronounced increase in both spatial and timbral resolution

3. Insertion of ASC window plugs into windows > increase of 'fleshing-out' of the spatial information (palpability, layering) / pronounced increase in timbral resolution (e.g., solo violin)

As for character of sound, I would say that the ASC window plugs have done most for the tonal balance of my bass; the mid-bass is now much stronger so that Ian (Madfloyd) could not hear anymore the cross-over point between my minimonitors and the subwoofer (see his comments on my system thread). The mid-bass is now pretty much in line with what you would expect from a large floorstander. You could also call that quality of bass, of course, instead of character of sound.

The tonal balance overall has not changed much by the ASC room treatments (the sound is now somewhat more dampened in the highs after insertion of the window plugs, but that also coincides with the hot summer days where I have noticed a similar thing before). If I really want to change the tonal balance, the character of the sound, something as simple as experimenting with diverse rugs in the room will do the trick.

A speaker change I suppose might have a more dramatic effect on the character of sound than the room treatments that I have implemented.

ASC says that their room treatments will cure 'bright' rooms, but mine was never really bright sounding.

 

[jkeny]

Thanks, Al

 

[microstrip]

I know it's not one or the other & both matter but I've seen it stated like this - an improvement to room/speaker changes the "character" of the sound, an improvement to source/amp changes the "quality/detail" of the sound. I know it's probably too simplistic a statement & like all simplistic statements therefore wrong but Al & Mike how would you characterise room changes Vs source/amp changes?

John,

I think that this type of statement is an oversimplication of complex thinks, and analyzing only our individual cases can be misleading. If we go to the fundamentals, our brain accommodates rather easily to some room faults or speaker characteristics but some people are very susceptible to source/amp characteristics, particularly if mixed with some kind of room/speakers. Although "character" of the sound is diffuse and vague concept for me I would be tempted to say the source/amplifier creates the "character" of the sound.

It is curious how most people define "room improvement" in this forum - anything that increases their enjoyment for their specific system and taste. Except for the case of BruceB, who posted relevant data on the positioning his Alexia's, mostly because he is a professional and must have reference levels, people post their subjective opinions, creating informative and enjoyable threads, but not situations we can reproduce.