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

[Phelonious Ponk]

This argument about spatial realism has been repeated here many times, and given what's available to us, I don't understand how it keeps getting traction. Yes, stereo can present a very pleasant sense of space, but no matter how good your system is, the odds are very high that you've very rarely even heard it attempt to create realistic spatial reproduction. I could be wrong though, it happens. Help me with this. Would those of you making the argument of live listening as reference please list for me the number of recordings in your collection that you know were recorded direct to tape or digital, from a single pair of microphones in a listening position in a performance venue?

Tim

 

[esldude]

This argument about spatial realism has been repeated here many times, and given what's available to us, I don't understand how it keeps getting traction. Yes, stereo can present a very pleasant sense of space, but no matter how good your system is, the odds are very high that you've very rarely even heard it attempt to create realistic spatial reproduction. I could be wrong though, it happens. Help me with this. Would those of you making the argument of live listening as reference please list for me the number of recordings in your collection that you know were recorded direct to tape or digital, from a single pair of microphones in a listening position in a performance venue?

Tim

That will be a very short list.

Many Chesky recordings were. Early ones used mid-side recording.

I believe most Wilson's were.

Reference Recordings are not.

Most minimalist commercial recordings are made at the very least with a spaced pair of omnis to blend with a stereo pair. Finding just a stereo pair on commercial recordings is very, very rare.

I am sure there are some scattered here and there.

I btw, am not of the group that thinks stereo is sufficient for realistic spatial reproduction. Only a believable (though not usually accurate) sense of space. Further, I think it could only have any chance of doing so with significant signal processing along the lines of what Qsound does only more advanced. And that is conjecture on my part.

I have a few of my own humble recordings to judge by. I think the best of them can suggest the proper sense pretty well. Worse, nearly all civilian music listeners dislike those recordings for that very reason. Everything we audiophiles call space they consider noise in the way of the music. Almost universally they want to hear instruments something like the room or space they are in without interference from the original venue.

 

[Tony Lauck]

That will be a very short list.

Many Chesky recordings were. Early ones used mid-side recording.

I believe most Wilson's were.

Reference Recordings are not.

Most minimalist commercial recordings are made at the very least with a spaced pair of omnis to blend with a stereo pair. Finding just a stereo pair on commercial recordings is very, very rare.

I am sure there are some scattered here and there.

I btw, am not of the group that thinks stereo is sufficient for realistic spatial reproduction. Only a believable (though not usually accurate) sense of space. Further, I think it could only have any chance of doing so with significant signal processing along the lines of what Qsound does only more advanced. And that is conjecture on my part.

I have a few of my own humble recordings to judge by. I think the best of them can suggest the proper sense pretty well. Worse, nearly all civilian music listeners dislike those recordings for that very reason. Everything we audiophiles call space they consider noise in the way of the music. Almost universally they want to hear instruments something like the room or space they are in without interference from the original venue.

Some Water Lilly Acoustics recordings were made with a Blumlein pair. I have two of them: 1. Tabula Rasa and 2. Mahler 5. The Mahler 5 is a superb recording if one can position oneself appropriately for a Blumlein recording (110 degree angle at the head between the two speakiers). With the speakers in a usual 60 degree spacing the realism is lost. The realism also requires a huge system dynamic capability to create row 10 concert volume for a Mahler orchestra. Some people have complained about this recording and it's their loss that they haven't heard it as it was meant to be heard.

With a small musical ensemble (or soloist) and a large living room the "in your room" approach can be very effective. That's the way I recorded my wife's Steinway B. Playing it back there was essentially no musical or sonic difference from the live performance except that the sound was positioned between the speakers and not where the piano was physically located. With large ensembles one one no longer has the option of moving the musicians into the room. The only reasonable possibility is transporting the listener to the concert hall, or at least into some facimile of a concert hall. I have some of my wife's piano recordings made this way in Jordan Hall in Boston. A different effect more like attending a recital than a living room soiree.

 

[esldude]

Some Water Lilly Acoustics recordings were made with a Blumlein pair. I have two of them: 1. Tabula Rasa and 2. Mahler 5. The Mahler 5 is a superb recording if one can position oneself appropriately for a Blumlein recording (110 degree angle at the head between the two speakiers). With the speakers in a usual 60 degree spacing the realism is lost. The realism also requires a huge system dynamic capability to create row 10 concert volume for a Mahler orchestra. Some people have complained about this recording and it's their loss that they haven't heard it as it was meant to be heard.

With a small musical ensemble (or soloist) and a large living room the "in your room" approach can be very effective. That's the way I recorded my wife's Steinway B. Playing it back there was essentially no musical or sonic difference from the live performance except that the sound was positioned between the speakers and not where the piano was physically located. With large ensembles one one no longer has the option of moving the musicians into the room. The only reasonable possibility is transporting the listener to the concert hall, or at least into some facimile of a concert hall. I have some of my wife's piano recordings made this way in Jordan Hall in Boston. A different effect more like attending a recital than a living room soiree.

Yes, that is a good point too. Most Chesky's that weren't M/S were Blumlein, I believe that is their preferred miking. You do need the appropriate angle for the correct playback. I have used 90 degrees as that is how Blumlein is usually angled. I didn't move my speakers, but rather myself. Re-aimed speakers some and moved closer to them.

I had forgotten Water Lily recordings are that way. I have a couple or three of them myself. Kavi Alexander I believe is the fellow behind Water Lily.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That will be a very short list.

Exactly.

Reference Recordings are not.

Exactly again.

Most minimalist commercial recordings are made at the very least with a spaced pair of omnis to blend with a stereo pair. Finding just a stereo pair on commercial recordings is very, very rare.

And even these minimalist recordings are very rare.

I am sure there are some scattered here and there.

I'm sure you're right.

I btw, am not of the group that thinks stereo is sufficient for realistic spatial reproduction. Only a believable (though not usually accurate) sense of space. Further, I think it could only have any chance of doing so with significant signal processing along the lines of what Qsound does only more advanced. And that is conjecture on my part.

Agreed.

I have a few of my own humble recordings to judge by. I think the best of them can suggest the proper sense pretty well. Worse, nearly all civilian music listeners dislike those recordings for that very reason. Everything we audiophiles call space they consider noise in the way of the music. Almost universally they want to hear instruments something like the room or space they are in without interference from the original venue.

Agreed again. And +1 to the part I bolded. The best recordings suggest a sense of space, so when audiophiles use the experience of live performances as a reference, they are mostly referencing it against the quality of the recording and post-production techniques used to emulate a sense of space, not their system's ability to accurately reproduce a particular space. Their systems have an impact, of course, but it's the same impact they have on all recordings, no matter if they were recorded with multiple pairs of mics over an orchestra in a hall, or a multi-tracked, close-mic'd studio recording. The system's impact is in its ability to reproduce the signal of the recording accurately. Nothing more. Nothing less. Hifi. High fidelity to the signal.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

This argument about spatial realism has been repeated here many times, and given what's available to us, I don't understand how it keeps getting traction. Yes, stereo can present a very pleasant sense of space, but no matter how good your system is, the odds are very high that you've very rarely even heard it attempt to create realistic spatial reproduction. I could be wrong though, it happens. Help me with this. Would those of you making the argument of live listening as reference please list for me the number of recordings in your collection that you know were recorded direct to tape or digital, from a single pair of microphones in a listening position in a performance venue?

Tim

Tim,

I have a 45 RPM direct to disk recording of Beethoven's "Appassionata on RCA with Kamiya playing the Bosendorfer. There are two Schoeps mikes near the piano and then four Neumann mikes in the audience. Not as pure as you suggest, but the result is a very realistic sounding piano, IMO. They went to great lengths to get the cutting equipment to the hall and let it settle for a couple of weeks before cutting the the disk.

I don't know why there are not more single pairs of microphones in the listening position in a performance venue type of pure recordings. Perhaps it is because the mikes are not as sensitive as our ears and the engineers feel they need more than a pair and in various locations to capture the sound.

I concede the point that the best recordings don't sound indistinguishable from live performances. How different is a matter for discussion. But is that an argument for abandoning a live acoustic performance as a reference standard? And if so, what should be used as a reference standard instead? Or is your position that there should be no standard and that we should only make recordings and equipment that pleases the consumer?

Or another position might be that the recording is what it is. It is a work of art and the equipment should just amplify the straight signal and transduce the signal into air waves as accurately as possible. I can understand this position as well. But if that is the case, then we are a very long way from this ideal because everyone seems to think that different kinds of systems are more accurate.

Thinking of these questions led me to consider whether or not the listening panel at Harmon considers any reference when they are asked for their preferences about the speakers under evaluation. Do they respond with the idea that one sounds more "real" than another, and if so, based on what, or do they simply prefer one speaker to another because they like the way it sounds? Perhaps Amir has some insight about this.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Some Water Lilly Acoustics recordings were made with a Blumlein pair. I have two of them: 1. Tabula Rasa and 2. Mahler 5. The Mahler 5 is a superb recording if one can position oneself appropriately for a Blumlein recording (110 degree angle at the head between the two speakiers). With the speakers in a usual 60 degree spacing the realism is lost. The realism also requires a huge system dynamic capability to create row 10 concert volume for a Mahler orchestra. Some people have complained about this recording and it's their loss that they haven't heard it as it was meant to be heard.

With a small musical ensemble (or soloist) and a large living room the "in your room" approach can be very effective. That's the way I recorded my wife's Steinway B. Playing it back there was essentially no musical or sonic difference from the live performance except that the sound was positioned between the speakers and not where the piano was physically located. With large ensembles one one no longer has the option of moving the musicians into the room. The only reasonable possibility is transporting the listener to the concert hall, or at least into some facimile of a concert hall. I have some of my wife's piano recordings made this way in Jordan Hall in Boston. A different effect more like attending a recital than a living room soiree.

I've recorded small acoustic ensembles and solo instrument/vocal with a pair of omins quite a few times. If you have the opportunity to play that recording back through quality monitors in the same room, in a similar position as the performance, it can get pretty close. But if you take that recording to a different room and play it back through the same quality monitoring system (yes, I've done this too), it's not nearly as close.

When audiophiles talk about their system reference being live performance, what they're really doing is referencing the ambient illusion created by the recording against their memory of a completely different performance in a completely different room. Not a realistic reference by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

Tim

 

[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"?

As usual, lots of confusion because of semantics. To clarify - when I think of "live sound" I am mainly thinking in the "sound of real instruments in a real space” as define by Harry Pearson in The Absolute Sound. The sound of real instruments in a real space is independent of the type of instruments, space or time - it has some unique properties and can be used as a reference.

No recording played in an audio system sounds exactly as live sound, but some systems approach it a lot more than others and I think we are able to grade them in a scale that will depend on our preferences, but always referred to this reference. And yes, I have listened to some systems that managed to fulfill many of these "properties", to a point I will not feel embarrassed by telling they "sounded live" with some recordings - they have enough of it to please me. But IMHO no one can explain how it sounded it without fantastic linguistic skills, it needs a lots of words, and people reading it must want to communicate with the other part, not to be shown proofs.

For me "live sound" means "sound of real instruments in a real space” blended with classical aspects such as imaging, timbre and envelopment I expect from a real life performance, although I have not been there in that moment.
As usual IMHO, YMMV.

 

[stehno]

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"?

Why? To illustrate the type of performance we can expect from a typical high-end playback system and to perhaps better qualify the level of playback music many of us are talking about in these forums. IOW, trying to establish a bit of a reference.

More specifically, many of these high-end exhibitors are putting forth their very best effort to produce the very best sound they can muster. And in spite of subtracting a few percentage points for "show conditions", high-end audio doesn't get much better than this for most. If you don't believe me, read some of the reviewers comments of the rooms they visited at shows and how they rate each room according to sound. Shoot, at one recent CES show John Atkinson even said about the Vandersteen Model 7A room, "made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Musically perfect, .... across the board." Whether or not Atkinson was eating his favorite ice cream when he made these claims, I don't know. Atkinson's claims can be found in recent Vandersteen 7A ads.

If there was any legitimacy to Atkinson's claims, then we can all go home, purchase some Vandy 7A speakers and call it quits because we would have arrived at reproduced musical perfection. But the real point is that for better or worse we're already hearing some of the very best reproduced music high-end audio has to offer at a show. And aside from the occasional over-the-top comments like Atkinson's, we're really talking rather flat, lifeless, 2-D, sterile, etc, etc. levels of musicality.

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

Essentially, so were my comments. Again, some of these systems at shows range from $300k to $500k. Trust me, when they're exhibiting at a show, they ain't holdin' nuthin' back.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I have a 45 RPM direct to disk recording of Beethoven's "Appassionata on RCA with Kamiya playing the Bosendorfer. There are two Schoeps mikes near the piano and then four Neumann mikes in the audience. Not as pure as you suggest, but the result is a very realistic sounding piano, IMO. They went to great lengths to get the cutting equipment to the hall and let it settle for a couple of weeks before cutting the the disk.

In all likelihood, the pair of mikes at the piano were there to record the piano, the audience mics were there to pick up ambience that was carefully mixed in in post-production.

I don't know why there are not more single pairs of microphones in the listening position in a performance venue type of pure recordings. Perhaps it is because the mikes are not as sensitive as our ears and the engineers feel they need more than a pair and in various locations to capture the sound.

I'm sure it's more complex than I understand, but the bottom line is, it doesn't sound good.

I concede the point that the best recordings don't sound indistinguishable from live performances. How different is a matter for discussion. But is that an argument for abandoning a live acoustic performance as a reference standard? And if so, what should be used as a reference standard instead? Or is your position that there should be no standard and that we should only make recordings and equipment that pleases the consumer?

In my opinion live music as a reference for audio system performance was never realistic. It is my position that a system's ability to reproduce recordings accurately is the only reference that counts. Measurements are probably the ultimate metric, but listening is good too. Do different recordings have similar tonality? Are recordings that are harsh on other systems warm on the one you're listening to? Then you might want to wonder if the system is coloring all your recordings with the same brush.

Or another position might be that the recording is what it is. It is a work of art and the equipment should just amplify the straight signal and transduce the signal into air waves as accurately as possible. I can understand this position as well. But if that is the case, then we are a very long way from this ideal because everyone seems to think that different kinds of systems are more accurate.

It's mostly about FR. Measure them. Dramatic coloration is easy to detect. But everyone will still think that different kinds of systems are more accurate, no matter what the data says.

Thinking of these questions led me to consider whether or not the listening panel at Harmon considers any reference when they are asked for their preferences about the speakers under evaluation. Do they respond with the idea that one sounds more "real" than another, and if so, based on what, or do they simply prefer one speaker to another because they like the way it sounds? Perhaps Amir has some insight about this.

Harman does a couple of things. They measure speakers in anechoic chambers on many axis, then they run blind listening tests for preference. What they've found is that more accurate speakers (flatter response on and off axis) are preferred. They have correlated measurements with preference. And they've repeated the results many, many times. I don't personally find it even remotely surprising.

Tim

 

[Tony Lauck]

In all likelihood, the pair of mikes at the piano were there to record the piano, the audience mics were there to pick up ambience that was carefully mixed in in post-production.



I'm sure it's more complex than I understand, but the bottom line is, it doesn't sound good.



In my opinion live music as a reference for audio system performance was never realistic. It is my position that a system's ability to reproduce recordings accurately is the only reference that counts. Measurements are probably the ultimate metric, but listening is good too. Do different recordings have similar tonality? Are recordings that are harsh on other systems warm on the one you're listening to? Then you might want to wonder if the system is coloring all your recordings with the same brush.



It's mostly about FR. Measure them. Dramatic coloration is easy to detect. But everyone will still think that different kinds of systems are more accurate, no matter what the data says.



Harman does a couple of things. They measure speakers in anechoic chambers on many axis, then they run blind listening tests for preference. What they've found is that more accurate speakers (flatter response on and off axis) are preferred. They have correlated measurements with preference. And they've repeated the results many, many times. I don't personally find it even remotely surprising.

Tim

I can not agree with your comment that a system's ability to reproduce a recording is the only reference that counts. The fact is that a recording is nothing but a bunch of numbers in a file or a wiggle on a piece of plastic or some magnetic spots on a tape. This physical artifact has no sound of its own until it is played back by some physical device. There are no, make that zero, standards for how these physical patterns are to be translated into sound. The recording has no sound of its own. If you have a playback chain that is identical to that used in the mastering studio then you will hear the recording the way the engineers heard it, in which case if they did a good job of selecting and placing the microphones, etc., you will get what they intended. But there is no standard for mastering studio playback either.

So, to take a specific example, if you take the Mercury Living Presence CDs (or high res equivalents) and play them back on a system that is truly flat, the result will be like fingernails on a blackboard. Truly horrible. These recording were made to be played back on speakers that have a slight roll-off on high frequency response to offset the rising response of the microphones used and the microphone placement, etc... They sound excellent on a system that has a substantial high frequency rolloff, comparing 1 kHz with 10 kHz for example. I have oversimplified this discussion. For example, the high frequency roll-off involves the polar response of the microphones, the polar response of the speakers and the acoustic properties of the recording venue and the playback room. It becomes even more of a mess in the bass. This is why we are dealing with an art and not a science and why there is no definition of how a recording is supposed to sound.

If you want to get seriously into these questions, the only way to understand the issues is by making and playing back your own live recordings, including playing them back immediately after hearing the live musicians. It is not possible to get a clue as to what is going on by any other method, like it or not. If you are not making recordings as well as playing them back you are nothing more than a second class audio citizen. Like it or lump it.

 

[amirm]

Thinking of these questions led me to consider whether or not the listening panel at Harmon considers any reference when they are asked for their preferences about the speakers under evaluation. Do they respond with the idea that one sounds more "real" than another, and if so, based on what, or do they simply prefer one speaker to another because they like the way it sounds? Perhaps Amir has some insight about this.

No reference. It is quite a paradox in how we can tell the good from the bad without one.

 

[stehno]

So, to take a specific example, if you take the Mercury Living Presence CDs (or high res equivalents) and play them back on a system that is truly flat, the result will be like fingernails on a blackboard. Truly horrible. These recording were made to be played back on speakers that have a slight roll-off on high frequency response to offset the rising response of the microphones used and the microphone placement, etc... They sound excellent on a system that has a substantial high frequency rolloff, comparing 1 kHz with 10 kHz for example. I have oversimplified this discussion. For example, the high frequency roll-off involves the polar response of the microphones, the polar response of the speakers and the acoustic properties of the recording venue and the playback room. It becomes even more of a mess in the bass. This is why we are dealing with an art and not a science and why there is no definition of how a recording is supposed to sound.

Your perspective is interesting as Living Presence recordings are generally noted for being well-engineered and excellent sounding. That said, I find it difficult to believe it’s the recording or that your system is truly flat. And it most likely is not because Living Presence intended its recordings to excel with speakers that roll-off at the frequency extremes.

Rather than be so quick to blame the Living Presence or similar labels, I suspect that fingernails on the chalkboard affect is most likely due to 1 of 3 distinct possibilities or combinations thereof:

1. Your system is distorted a bit more than others that in turn induces a bit more ear fatigue.

Though many deny it, it’s a fact that every last system is plagued with very serious distortions that utterly cripple their performance. Thus making some-to-many recordings difficult to tolerate. However, it would not be that unusual if you happened to possess a unique component and/or cable that takes distortions just a bit over the top.

2. In contrast, it could be that you possess a unique component and/or cable that is actually a bit more revealing than most.

Every once in a while we read about somebody reporting their findings about a new cable or component upgrade. They essentially report that their upgraded product was too detailed and as a result lack “musicality” so they removed the product from the system. Of course, there is no such thing as product being too detailed or 101% detail. Even though there are a few mfg’ers out there that like to zip up the highs a bit in the attempt to give the appearance their product is more detailed but that’s fairly rare.

In such cases, the “too detailed” product is really just more revealing and a truly more revealing product is indiscriminate about what it’s revealing. Whether it’s music or distortions. And if per chance this is the case, if more music is revealed it's a given that more distortions would be revealed as well.

3. It could be your hearing is perhaps just a bit more keen than average (not all that unusual) so that when a superior recording i.e. Living Presence is playing on your system, your ears become a bit more aware that something (else) isn’t right.

You’ve not mentioned anything about recent component upgrades, but in a sense are you not performing an upgrade every time you listen to a well-engineered or superior recording?

It’s a bit of a crapshoot, but none of these possibilities are unusual. They seem to be the only reasonable possibilities that could more fully explain what you may be hearing.

 

[PeterA]

Harman does a couple of things. They measure speakers in anechoic chambers on many axis, then they run blind listening tests for preference. What they've found is that more accurate speakers (flatter response on and off axis) are preferred. They have correlated measurements with preference. And they've repeated the results many, many times. I don't personally find it even remotely surprising.

Tim

Yes, this is very clear from all of Amir's many posts. My question is why do the people taking the blind listening tests prefer one speaker to another? Are they thinking back to some reference of live music and think this particular speaker sounds more real or do they simply like one speaker more than another for any number of reasons? Or is it because one has the flattest frequency response and that is what they associate with live unamplified music or are they thinking that chocolate is a flavor, just like warm sound is a flavor, and they prefer vanilla?

Do we or they know why they prefer one speaker over the others? Perhaps it does not even matter why they universally select the same speaker in these blind tests. Maybe it is as simple as Harmon gathering the data and then selling the speaker the blind listeners tell them they prefer?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can not agree with your comment that a system's ability to reproduce a recording is the only reference that counts. The fact is that a recording is nothing but a bunch of numbers in a file or a wiggle on a piece of plastic or some magnetic spots on a tape. This physical artifact has no sound of its own until it is played back by some physical device. There are no, make that zero, standards for how these physical patterns are to be translated into sound. The recording has no sound of its own. If you have a playback chain that is identical to that used in the mastering studio then you will hear the recording the way the engineers heard it, in which case if they did a good job of selecting and placing the microphones, etc., you will get what they intended. But there is no standard for mastering studio playback either.

Perhaps I should have said it's the only one we have. There are few standards for the recording/mastering/playback chain, and that is regrettable, resulting in quite a few bad recordings. But the recording is all we have; it is all that the system sees. The system isn't aware of your concert listening experience, your taste in music, your preferences in tonality. It is blissfully unaware of your room. All it knows is the in-coming signal, and it will reproduce it within its limitations. It can't do anything else...unless you add some sort of eq or processing.

So, to take a specific example, if you take the Mercury Living Presence CDs (or high res equivalents) and play them back on a system that is truly flat, the result will be like fingernails on a blackboard. Truly horrible. These recording were made to be played back on speakers that have a slight roll-off on high frequency response to offset the rising response of the microphones used and the microphone placement, etc... They sound excellent on a system that has a substantial high frequency rolloff, comparing 1 kHz with 10 kHz for example. I have oversimplified this discussion. For example, the high frequency roll-off involves the polar response of the microphones, the polar response of the speakers and the acoustic properties of the recording venue and the playback room. It becomes even more of a mess in the bass. This is why we are dealing with an art and not a science and why there is no definition of how a recording is supposed to sound.

I don't know these recordings and can't speak to them, but if they are all you listen to, by all means, buy speakers that roll off as these recordings rise, and achieve balance. If they are not all you listen to, I trust you understand that other recordings will sound dull and "rolled off" on this system. I'd suggest that ugly stepchild of audiophila; equalization. Digital would be even better, as you could program a pre-set for these CDs and simply hit the bipass button when playing something that is better recorded. Do you play vinyl? How does that sound on a system optimized for these CDs?

If you want to get seriously into these questions, the only way to understand the issues is by making and playing back your own live recordings, including playing them back immediately after hearing the live musicians. It is not possible to get a clue as to what is going on by any other method, like it or not. If you are not making recordings as well as playing them back you are nothing more than a second class audio citizen. Like it or lump it.

I'm a musician, and I've done exactly what you're suggesting quite a few times. Record with a single pair of stereo mics, then play it back through a quality monitoring system in the same room from the same position and you do get a much better understanding of how accurate your recordings are. That doesn't make me a first class audio citizen, but it does make me very skeptical of those who talk about realism without accuracy. Move that monitoring system to a different room, and the recording will sound different. Master that recording with a "substantial high frequency roll-off" and it will, of course, sound substantially different, even in the same room and position.

Recordings are, more often than not, engineered for the market they'll be sold to. So many popular recordings are compressed because most listeners these days listen through headphones, iPod docks and car stereos. The closest thing they get to the kind of listening experience audiophiles have is when they are rolling down the road with a noise floor coming up through the floorboard that would make the worst home system sound quiet. Perhaps Mercury understands its audience and is aiming their product at system with significant high frequency roll-off, or listeners with significant high-frequency hearing loss.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Yes, this is very clear from all of Amir's many posts. My question is why do the people taking the blind listening tests prefer one speaker to another? Are they thinking back to some reference of live music and think this particular speaker sounds more real or do they simply like one speaker more than another for any number of reasons? Or is it because one has the flattest frequency response and that is what they associate with live unamplified music or are they thinking that chocolate is a flavor, just like warm sound is a flavor, and they prefer vanilla?

Do we or they know why they prefer one speaker over the others? Perhaps it does not even matter why they universally select the same speaker in these blind tests. Maybe it is as simple as Harmon gathering the data and then selling the speaker the blind listeners tell them they prefer?

That's what I've been saying all along - we have internalised a model of how things sound in the world & this is our reference point - some reproductions sound more realistic than others because they better match the criteria that this model uses for evaluation.

Two immediate things spring to mind:
- we don't know these criteria & we don't know the model fully yet. Harmon's results are one aspect which seem to fit but what is the psychoacoustic rule here - that the frequency should not have any major deviations along it's spectrum (what's the deviation limit that is noticeable?) & that the off-axis frequency spectrum should match closely to the on-axis (how close a match is needed?)
- when we were building this psychoacoustic model(early in life) how come doing so sighted didn't cause us all to have a different set of criteria - how come we all came to roughly the same psychoacoustic model? I say it's because over time we average out any sighted biases through repetition - we hear through our biases - one day we might be biased towards one aspect, another day another aspect - what remains fixed is the underlying sound which we tease out over time. This is also the basis on which long-term sighted listening works!!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, this is very clear from all of Amir's many posts. My question is why do the people taking the blind listening tests prefer one speaker to another? Are they thinking back to some reference of live music and think this particular speaker sounds more real or do they simply like one speaker more than another for any number of reasons? Or is it because one has the flattest frequency response and that is what they associate with live unamplified music or are they thinking that chocolate is a flavor, just like warm sound is a flavor, and they prefer vanilla?

Do we or they know why they prefer one speaker over the others? Perhaps it does not even matter why they universally select the same speaker in these blind tests. Maybe it is as simple as Harmon gathering the data and then selling the speaker the blind listeners tell them they prefer?

I don't think we have definitive answers to these excellent questions, Peter, but because the results are so consistent over so many trials, in favor of flatter, smoother FR, I suspect there is something innate in our hear and perception that knows when something we're hearing is accurate, is natural. It's true that many audiophiles prefer a slightly rolled-of high end, many more casual listeners prefer a pumped-up lower midrange. An acquired taste, I suspect. I have acquired a taste for good bourbon. Prior to that acquisition, I preferred clear, clean water. What's really interesting is how, in these blind tests, these acquired taste disappear.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's what I've been saying all along - we have internalised a model of how things sound in the world & this is our reference point - some reproductions sound more realistic than others because they better match the criteria that this model uses for evaluation.

Two immediate things spring to mind:
- we don't know these criteria & we don't know the model fully yet. Harmon's results are one aspect which seem to fit but what is the psychoacoustic rule here - that the frequency should not have any major deviations along it's spectrum (what's the deviation limit that is noticeable?) & that the off-axis frequency spectrum should match closely to the on-axis (how close a match is needed?)
- when we were building this psychoacoustic model(early in life) how come doing so sighted didn't cause us all to have a different set of criteria - how come we all came to roughly the same psychoacoustic model? I say it's because over time we average out any sighted biases through repetition - we hear through our biases - one day we might be biased towards one aspect, another day another aspect - what remains fixed is the underlying sound which we tease out over time. This is also the basis on which long-term sighted listening works!!

More excellent questions, but I think you're talking about completely different kinds of sighted bias. That early psychoacoustic model develops, for example, the ability to recognize, in all it's variations, the human voice as human. You may see a young woman and expect higher pitch, sweeter tonality. You may see a big, rough-looking middle-aged man and expect something completely different. But you don't look at the quality of his shirt and expect him to sound "better." And that's what happens in sighted bias for audio gear. We expect the bigger speaker, the heavier amplifier, the more respected brand to be "better." And so we hear it as better. Immediately. If the component has a sonic flaw, can it begin to wear on us over time? Sure. I've never doubted that. What I doubt is that accuracy, naturalness is not self-evident at first the blind listening, and only reveals itself over time. I doubt it and the Harman studies confirm it. I think that "revelation" is more about acclimation, pride of ownership and purchase justification. YMMV.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) My question is why do the people taking the blind listening tests prefer one speaker to another? Are they thinking back to some reference of live music and think this particular speaker sounds more real or do they simply like one speaker more than another for any number of reasons? Or is it because one has the flattest frequency response and that is what they associate with live unamplified music or are they thinking that chocolate is a flavor, just like warm sound is a flavor, and they prefer vanilla? (...)

You are asking the proper question. In order to debate it we must analyze how the preference was established and measured and in what exact conditions it was carried. IMHO Harman tests were carried in non audiophile conditions - no synergy considerations, no fine tuning, no desire to sound life or reaching a live sound reference. If you deprive stereo sound reproduction from what some of use consider its best but very difficult to reach attributes, including sounding like real instruments, perhaps people will focus on other aspects, probably determined by the conditions of the test.

BTW, as far as I know science does not accept paradoxes, it should explain them ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You are asking the proper question. In order to debate it we must analyze how the preference was established and measured and in what exact conditions it was carried. IMHO Harman tests were carried in non audiophile conditions - no synergy considerations, no fine tuning, no desire to sound life or reaching a live sound reference. If you deprive stereo sound reproduction from what some of use consider its best but very difficult to reach attributes, including sounding like real instruments, perhaps people will focus on other aspects, probably determined by the conditions of the test.

BTW, as far as I know science does not accept paradoxes, it should explain them ...

This means, of course, that you've made testing impossible and any conclusions you care to reach irrefutable.

Tim