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

[microstrip]

At what point do you trust that your ears are telling you the truth because you say that you must listen long term to hear the subjective differences that short term listening does not reveal. At what point in time do your ears now tell you the truth...after a week, month, ? How do you know that they are now telling you the truth?

I only ask because you are a very vocal advocate of trusting your ears.

I have explained it several times with detail along several years in WBF ... I have several reference recordings, some I have been able to listen life, I cross my opinion with non-audiophile and audiophile friends. Usually I do not form an opinion before one / two weeks listening, although I would risk an immediate opinion son extremely positive aspects.

An example - Bernstein "West Side Story". The recording should sound rhythmic, fast but not aggressive. If you ever saw the DVD of Bernstein directing it you will understand.
Chamber music - in some recording you are able to feel the communication between the performers in the decays, as you have felt life.
The power of symphonic orchestra filling the hall, powerful but never too loud in life performances.

The whole of these and many other aspects, including the insects and water noises in "La Folia", give me some assurance my ears and brain interpreting the information are conducting me to a better (or many times worst) sounding system.

 

[Mosin]

"Now that right there is real funny."

I have a friend whose wife threw a returnable Dr.Pepper bottle all the way through a sheetrock wall. She's a redhead, but Kelly does pretty good at tirades for a brunette, though.

I've been around her for 38+ years, and she hasn't killed me, yet!

 

[amirm]

I’m guessing it’s impossible for anybody to prove that ALL the ambient info made it to a given recording, but I can demonstrate that there exists far greater volumes of ambient info than anybody ever thought possible in virtually every recording.

It is not about ambient (which is artificial in most recordings anyway). It is about inability or non-goal of capturing what you would have heard in the live venue. You have two ears. Each picks up a very different signal. Here is a measurement of it from a source at 30 degrees:

The two responses are wildly different because your face/torso modify what is heard in each ear. Each also picks up the sound at different time arrival. Your brain uses this differential reception to determine 3-D position and sense of space of the source. Vast majority of recordings are done with a single microphone. That single microphone by definition cannot record any of this information. Any ambience you hear, i.e. virtual location of the instrument, is artificially created in post production of music.

So right at capture, anything resembling the live experience is lost. The very thing we cherish, sense of space, imaging, etc., is left behind in the very start of the capture by the microphone. You can never get that back in playback.

Special binaural recordings exist that capture this type of data but require systems without crosstalk such as headphones.

 

[Orb]

For the same reason I don't believe in UFOs no matter how much the person insists he has been visited by the same.

I used to believe in the live thing until someone explained it to me as I have been doing and I quickly saw the logic and wisdom in it and changed my mind. So I am here to do the same thing for benefit others reading these threads. That's why.

Although it is interesting some (appreciate not all) of those that describe UFOs and their rotational pattern unknowingly mention the Coanda effect saucer design, so I am not one to poo poo this totally
I doubt many of the population would know what the Coanda effect is and how it is even usable for a craft; even our own science-tech is pretty limited in implementing this.
One declassified government design from the 1950s was released earlier this decade (sometime between 2010 and 2014) showing how a UFO design can be built using this effect (of course we do not necessarily have the complete tech/engineering/materials to make it work well).
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Orb,

It is a hard question, alas without an answer by anyone I suspect, but it is at the very core of trusting ones ears. I added it as number 10 to my feeling about audio reviewers thread just now, as it certainly pertains to that thread. I hope that works for you. Micros response above also veers from the question at hand, I suspect a language barrier.

Yeah I think you two are/were coming from different context and both are important.
Cheers
Orb

 

[esldude]

Although it is interesting some (appreciate not all) of those that describe UFOs and their rotational pattern unknowingly mention the Coanda effect saucer design, so I am not one to poo poo this totally
I doubt many of the population would know what the Coanda effect is and how it is even usable for a craft; even our own science-tech is pretty limited in implementing this.
One declassified government design from the 1950s was released earlier this decade (sometime between 2010 and 2014) showing how a UFO design can be built using this effect (of course we do not necessarily have the complete tech/engineering/materials to make it work well).
Cheers
Orb

Coanda effect is no big deal. I have several hundred hours flight time with such a craft.

 

[stehno]

It is not about ambient (which is artificial in most recordings anyway). It is about inability or non-goal of capturing what you would have heard in the live venue. You have two ears. Each picks up a very different signal. Here is a measurement of it from a source at 30 degrees:

The two responses are wildly different because your face/torso modify what is heard in each ear. Each also picks up the sound at different time arrival. Your brain uses this differential reception to determine 3-D position and sense of space of the source. Vast majority of recordings are done with a single microphone. That single microphone by definition cannot record any of this information. Any ambience you hear, i.e. virtual location of the instrument, is artificially created in post production of music.

So right at capture, anything resembling the live experience is lost. The very thing we cherish, sense of space, imaging, etc., is left behind in the very start of the capture by the microphone. You can never get that back in playback.

Special binaural recordings exist that capture this type of data but require systems without crosstalk such as headphones.

Of course it's not about ambient info. It's about detail and the quantifiable music information illustrated as 100% in a given music track by its finite amount of data and what percentage of that 100% data remains audible verses inaudible at the speaker output, of which ambient information (whether artificial or actual it's still embedded in the recording) is but one small but still important segment and example of that detail.

But I hope by your potentially dissecting another leaf of a tree within the forest (overall music presentation) you don't intend to ignore the numerous other points I made about your many claims.

You've made it quite clear in your previous post that when compared to a live performance even the industry's best playback systems fall way short of the mark. Perhaps not unlike the picture below.



And I cannot and will not argue that point. Except for the fact you have not been exposed to every last significant technology advancement made thus far.

 

[Orb]

Coanda effect is no big deal. I have several hundred hours flight time with such a craft.

It is a big deal when trying to implement in on a hypersonic (ok even supersonic) craft weighing X tonnes
And yeah I know of quite a few DIY builds around the Coanda effect craft.
Anyway the point was that those describing quite a few of the UFO designs going back decades involve a known scientific effect that the majority of the public has never heard of or seen described, hence it is difficult to dispute that they did see a craft using 'advanced' Coanda effect related technology or even something beyond that.
As a bit of conspiracy I think a lot of the engineering and research designs (that 1950s one anyway) is probably from the earlier work done by the Nazis, and it was one of the early research stages before designing more advanced saucer crafts.
However it is only more recent that we are closer to the technology required to build such an effective Coanda design (not the designs that would come after this) - personally still not sure we have all the materials and tech to do this very well and maybe it will be a white elephant in the military-nasa world like the Strategic Defense Initiative (orbital design).

Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

(...) You can believe what you want. But if you are going to challenge something that I said, you need to come up with some demonstration of your belief that is separate than just taking what you say at face value. Just post your beliefs without responding to me and all would be well. But if you challenge me, then you need to be prepared to back up what you said. Otherwise I can just as well claim you are all wrong and you better take my word for it.

Well, well, well ... Should we rename this forum (DBF) Demonstration Best Forum or CBF (Challenge Best Forum)? I posted an opinion on your post and you are free to claim whatever you want.

For the same reason I don't believe in UFOs no matter how much the person insists he has been visited by the same.

I used to believe in the live thing until someone explained it to me as I have been doing and I quickly saw the logic and wisdom in it and changed my mind. So I am here to do the same thing for benefit others reading these threads. That's why.

I feel embarrassed - I am here to have a good time and share and debate opinions with people, not to challenge them. No philanthropic ambition or sense of crusade. My sincere apologies for disturbing your mission.

BTW1, I now know about a few WBF members who suddenly saw the "truth" after a long time of sin. Fortunately it does not seem to be contagious through the net ...

 

[microstrip]

Of course it's not about ambient info. It's about detail and the quantifiable music information illustrated as 100% in a given music track by its finite amount of data and what percentage of that 100% data remains audible verses inaudible at the speaker output, of which ambient information (whether artificial or actual it's still embedded in the recording) is but one small but still important segment and example of that detail. (...)

There is a lot of information existing in recordings that only shows in appropriate reproduction systems if listeners are prepared to use it. As a significant part of our musical sound knowledge was acquired life, it seems natural that, in part, the quality of a system should be established comparing it with the reference of real (life) music.

Mono recordings can encode depth information that only shows in some systems. And sometimes stereo recordings encode natural relative height information.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The two responses are wildly different because your face/torso modify what is heard in each ear. Each also picks up the sound at different time arrival. Your brain uses this differential reception to determine 3-D position and sense of space of the source. Vast majority of recordings are done with a single microphone. That single microphone by definition cannot record any of this information. Any ambience you hear, i.e. virtual location of the instrument, is artificially created in post production of music.

It is more than that. We subtly and subconsciously reorient our head/ears as we respond to cues in the music. This means that we are constantly optimising use of the HRTF to attend best. With a recording from a stable pair of mics, the reproduced impingement vectors from the two speakers will not match that in the performance.

Special binaural recordings exist that capture this type of data but require systems without crosstalk such as headphones.

Yes but even here one needs corrections based on head-position tracking to keep the performance sound fixed in space and not moving in synch with your head movements. Those who have used the Smyth Realiser system have probably experienced the decrease in ease and enjoyment when the head tracking is off.

 

[esldude]

It is a big deal when trying to implement in on a hypersonic (ok even supersonic) craft weighing X tonnes
And yeah I know of quite a few DIY builds around the Coanda effect craft.
Anyway the point was that those describing quite a few of the UFO designs going back decades involve a known scientific effect that the majority of the public has never heard of or seen described, hence it is difficult to dispute that they did see a craft using 'advanced' Coanda effect related technology or even something beyond that.
As a bit of conspiracy I think a lot of the engineering and research designs (that 1950s one anyway) is probably from the earlier work done by the Nazis, and it was one of the early research stages before designing more advanced saucer crafts.
However it is only more recent that we are closer to the technology required to build such an effective Coanda design (not the designs that would come after this) - personally still not sure we have all the materials and tech to do this very well and maybe it will be a white elephant in the military-nasa world like the Strategic Defense Initiative (orbital design).

Cheers
Orb

I think there are some leaps of logic in your post there. That is okay though.

There is always the frisbee based approach to flying saucers. A spin stabilized curved disc with propulsion attached.

 

[Orb]

I think there are some leaps of logic in your post there. That is okay though.

There is always the frisbee based approach to flying saucers. A spin stabilized curved disc with propulsion attached.

Well it is based on papers, and knowing people who worked at NASA and Rolls Royce (one worked within team on/like scramjet).
Joys of working in the past for some of the top tech companies.
But these posts are not talking about detail and was a response with regards to Amir not believing in UFOs associated with aliens, my point again lol is that there is a valid scientific reason for the UFO saucer design (includes rotational aspects, ionic charge), the possible visual effects,etc that people have reported seeing even though they would not understand scientifically the reason for the design being like that/influences/etc.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Part of this if anyone is interested and a part I was hinting at is Viktor Shauberger's Repulsine air vortex disc or implosion.
Anyway lots of info out there for Repulsine or Coanda Effect crafts, but their implementation is rather more advanced than any DIY drone done, or shown on Youtube.
Sorry for digressing, so will leave it at that for people to check, including ionic charge.
But the UFOs, they are out there!!!

Cheers
Orb

 

[stehno]

No, it sounds great and in some relevant aspects, it manages to sound live. Why do you find it so hard to accept?

Obviously "great" and "live" are quite relative terms. If you've ever attended an audio show, have you ever noticed that the vast majority of systems / exhibiting rooms sound far more alike than they do different? Relatively flat, lifeless, sterile, lacking detail, depth, etc, IMO.

I'm well aware that we're talking "show" conditions but even so, most of those exhibits at a show most always seem to surpass those systems I've heard in dealer showrooms.

Nevertheless, many of these systems at audio shows are relatively comparable to those I've heard in various homes.

Do you consider that "great" sound or "sound live"?

 

[stehno]

There is a lot of information existing in recordings that only shows in appropriate reproduction systems if listeners are prepared to use it. As a significant part of our musical sound knowledge was acquired life, it seems natural that, in part, the quality of a system should be established comparing it with the reference of real (life) music.

Mono recordings can encode depth information that only shows in some systems. And sometimes stereo recordings encode natural relative height information.

Microstrip, I'm a bit unsure of all that your stating here.

The ultimate goal is of course to have a playback system that not just once or twice but routinely seems to transform your listening perspective from your listening chair to a listening perspective somewhere in the recording hall. Even if that listening perspective seems to be near the men's restroom in the recording hall, that's still certainly better than your listening chair.

However, we must be mindful that our scope is limited to attempting to maintain the fidelity of the music info embedded in the recording through to the speakers. Anything from the recording itself back up the chain to the recording session is simply outside of our scope and our playback system's scope.

Nevertheless, I would attest that many of the engineers of even grossly inferior recordings can be shown having performed at least a minimum amount of due diligence. This can even be demonstrated on many 1960's pop music to a very good extent. For that matter, it can even be demonstrated that based on the information stored, the Redbook format never was the inferior format the high-end audio sector spent the last 10 years condemning it to be. In fact, I would attest Redbook always has been sufficiently musical for even the most discriminating audiophile.

 

[microstrip]

Obviously "great" and "live" are quite relative terms. If you've ever attended an audio show, have you ever noticed that the vast majority of systems / exhibiting rooms sound far more alike than they do different? Relatively flat, lifeless, sterile, lacking detail, depth, etc, IMO.

I'm well aware that we're talking "show" conditions but even so, most of those exhibits at a show most always seem to surpass those systems I've heard in dealer showrooms.

Nevertheless, many of these systems at audio shows are relatively comparable to those I've heard in various homes.

Do you consider that "great" sound or "sound live"?

Only very exceptionally I address show demos - and then only if something really positive strikes my attention. Why spending time commenting "Relatively flat, lifeless, sterile, lacking detail, depth, etc"?

My comments refer to well set up systems that I could enjoy and evidently are biased by my preferences.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip, I'm a bit unsure of all that your stating here.

The ultimate goal is of course to have a playback system that not just once or twice but routinely seems to transform your listening perspective from your listening chair to a listening perspective somewhere in the recording hall. Even if that listening perspective seems to be near the men's restroom in the recording hall, that's still certainly better than your listening chair.

However, we must be mindful that our scope is limited to attempting to maintain the fidelity of the music info embedded in the recording through to the speakers. Anything from the recording itself back up the chain to the recording session is simply outside of our scope and our playback system's scope.

Nevertheless, I would attest that many of the engineers of even grossly inferior recordings can be shown having performed at least a minimum amount of due diligence. This can even be demonstrated on many 1960's pop music to a very good extent. For that matter, it can even be demonstrated that based on the information stored, the Redbook format never was the inferior format the high-end audio sector spent the last 10 years condemning it to be. In fact, I would attest Redbook always has been sufficiently musical for even the most discriminating audiophile.

You are addressing too many important aspects in a single post! Yes, a good system should sound great not once or twice, but systematically. We all can have a good experience in an average system, but a good system would allow us to have a much higher number of memorable musical moments.

I have found Redbook to be particularly problematic in this aspect. I have had great experiences with the format, but found them too specific of the recording and system. Large systems that sound "life" in classical, but a disaster with some jazz recordings I know can sound exceptional. Or systems that seem good sounding and fail playing 60's and 70's pop music. But as you, I find it can be very musical in a appropriate system.

 

[Robh3606]

You are arguing a very different point. The debate is whether what we hear at home can approach what one would have heard in the real venue.

Hello Amir

Well that depends. With multichannel and a good recording the stadium shows can sound very good. Can't quite get the SPL but overall not bad. Just did 4 live shows in a row U2, Smashing Pumpkins Marylyn Manson, Big Shot Local Billy Joel cover band and lastly Gathering of the Vibes for The New Orleans Preservation Hall band and Zappa plays Zappa. One show U2 was in the MSGarden the other 3 were at outside venues. You are basically listening to a huge stereo with the outside shows. With the stadium shows you have all kinds of slap echo's going on that can lend itself to sounding reasonably real on a good surround system. Depending on how it was recorded

Rob

 

[amirm]

Hello Amir

Well that depends. With multichannel and a good recording the stadium shows can sound very good.

Hi Rob. My comments are specifically in the context of stereo. Multichannel can certainly go well beyond stereo in that offering.