Who says those irritations are not the result of peeking/knowing/biases, etc, etc?
Especially when they completely disappear when removed from listening to the audio?
There are no time limits on blind/controlled tests. Just blinding/controls.
Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
Especially when they completely disappear when removed from listening to the audio?
There are no time limits on blind/controlled tests. Just blinding/controls.
Actually, you do. Right here:
...where you say the subtlety and detail are false, actually due to distortion, and that this variety of subtlety and detail is not revealed by long-term listening (that you say, is an illusion heard in early, or at least previous, listening), but the irritation from the distortion that reveals itself on longer listening.
You're making my case, Jon.
Second sentence, first paragraph above is another new subject. If you want to discuss where the subtleties and details that make a performance engaging come from (the performer), that would be a very interesting conversation. If you want to talk about what, in audio reproduction can obscure that artistry, it's a very short conversation: Noise and distortion.
Tim
Sure, I'm making your case, if you want to restrict the meaning of irritations to be strictly the addition of some distortion but I also consider the absence of an emotional connection with the music as an irritation - simply the reproduction of notes is an irritation.
About video science...with double-blind tests? ;-) ..Yep without observable comparisons with both our eyes and measurements, we wouldn't know what to pick (which TV) for best.
Ok, science includes everything measurable and definite. But the science of audio preferences is more complicated, because it introduces the human brain, and with it personal differentiation of preferences.
It is that balance between science and human's personal perception that is @ the center of the controversy from different opinions...I think.
I don't know how many more pages, posts in this thread till we find the door to the ultimate truth...I really don't know...because it seems to be a moving intangible inconsistent affair. How can we determine with exactitude a personal musical emotion? ...Not only that but also in time and in space...@ different times of different venues (acoustics).
The audio science cannot be applied to all spaces and times. ...In a definite space, ok, from a definite group of people, ok, @ a certain time, ok. ...But from all spaces, from various other groups of people, and @ different times?
Yeah, we first have to establish all audio parameters before we can use the audio science to explain everything...a challenge that cannot ever be accomplished when the human hearing and musical emotion are involved. ...Anyone else thinks of the contrary?
* It's funny sometimes what makes people react to some stuff, to their beliefs, ...
Ok, science includes everything measurable and definite. But the science of audio preferences is more complicated, because it introduces the human brain, and with it personal differentiation of preferences.
It is that balance between science and human's personal perception that is @ the center of the controversy from different opinions...I think.
I don't know how many more pages, posts in this thread till we find the door to the ultimate truth...I really don't know...because it seems to be a moving intangible inconsistent affair. How can we determine with exactitude a personal musical emotion? ...Not only that but also in time and in space...@ different times of different venues (acoustics).
The audio science cannot be applied to all spaces and times. ...In a definite space, ok, from a definite group of people, ok, @ a certain time, ok. ...But from all spaces, from various other groups of people, and @ different times?
Yeah, we first have to establish all audio parameters before we can use the audio science to explain everything...a challenge that cannot ever be accomplished when the human hearing and musical emotion are involved. ...Anyone else thinks of the contrary?
* It's funny sometimes what makes people react to some stuff, to their beliefs, ...
Last edited:
Weak and only added to make your interpretation of "irritations" more broad. Has no correlation with noise and distortion.
Considering I already said that the nuances & subtleties within the recording are part of the elements that convey emotion &realism - I think it does have a lot to do with noise& distortion i.e low signal level accuracy
I think it is getting very far from the original point which was this posted by Tomolex which Tim highlighted
And Tim replied:
What are we debating here - what is the meaning of subtleties/irritations or what can long-term listening reveal that blind A/B testing doesn't?
A strong case was made for favouring long-term listening over blind ABX tests if we are talking about real-world practicalities & what is possible. If instead you want to talk about hypotheticals & perfect tests administered by professionals in a large-scale & expensive study, be my guest
You may disregard the flaws I pointed out in the Clarke paper
You may disregard the flaws I pointed out in the other paper usually referenced in relation to this - Nousiane's paper
You may disregard the object of what listening is about - to decide what piece of equipment we want to live with on a long term basis
You may disregard the fact that we seldom make such a decision solely using a blind test
You may disregard all this in favour of some theoretical test that is seldom administered correctly & requires expertise from both the administrator/test designer & the listener to be of any use!
I thought it was readily apparent. Guess not. Go back and re-read the post that Amir was responding to when I quoted Amir's response. If you still have questions, please let me know.
Tim, I, for one, am not dismissing the value of quick A/B listening tests in favor of longer term listening. I fully admit that quick A/B tests, sighted and blind, have revealed certain things to me about components. (It is much harder to do such a test for whole systems). However, they have not revealed every thing to me about a component. They are also difficult to carry out, especially when unsighted, in one's home.
Here is the thing though. Even if these short tests reveal differences, it may not be clear to me which difference I prefer. For this, I may need longer term listening to decide. After all, some of these components can be expensive, and I want to be sure that I will like it longer term. So, I tend to keep a component for trial as long as I can. In the process, I do learn things about nuance and detail. I can' prove it, because I don't have that skill or equipment in my home.
I was auditioning a new phono stage about two years ago. Fortunately, the dealer has a very generous trial period. Before the unit arrived, I listened to five or six specific tracks that gave me a good understanding of a variety of music. After the new unit arrived, I listened and heard some things I liked with the older unit, and some that I liked with the new unit. But in general, the overall tonal difference was what I heard. It took me a while to understand which was more accurate. The differences were subtle. Only after extensive listening over a period of three weeks did I realize the first unit had slightly more distortion. I heard this as more detail at first and a more neutral tonal balance. The second unit had a richer, warmer tonal balance which I learned over time was actually a more nuanced and transparent portrayal of harmonics and dynamics. The first unit had a higher noise floor and that obscured this level of resolution. The new unit also had a lower noise floor, was slightly more transparent, and had lower distortion. The result was a more accurate portrayal of timbre, dynamics and presence.
I think all types of listening tests have some value. The challenges are that most of us are not equipped to do comprehensive quick, unsighted A/B tests in our home. And I am not willing to base purchasing decisions on Harmon's or anyone else's test results. I need to hear the component in my system for myself and live with it for a while before I know that I will be happy with it. That is the reality of my situation. I can not prove this to you, and I don't really care about that. I have read many testimonials from others, and I have spoken to friends about their experiences, so I am confident in knowing that my approach is not unique to me and that it does have some merit.
I am sure that you are certain about your opinion and methods. Amir is also, and he can rely on science for his support. I'm glad that neither of you has approached me to sell anything based on your word, your tests, and your scientific proof about what it sounds like. I would need more than that before I buy anything.
The complete absence of noise and distortion in a reproduction system, while currently impossible, would = perfect reproduction. All barriers to connection to the music are noise or distortion, unless of course, the music just sucks. But that's a sidebar. The posts you pointed me to were about listening fatigue. The path you described began with the illusion of detail that revealed itself, over time, to be distortion. You pointed me to posts, then wrote one yourself, that described precisely the opposite of your original position of "detail revealing itself over long-term listening." You made my case and denied your own. Why? Because you were wrong in the first place. Regarding the rest, do you honestly believe that circuits and wires and drivers can actually create an emotional connection? Surely you understand that the emotional connection is in the music, and that getting out of the way is the best thing a system can do?
Tim
For audio/sound it absolutely can and does. We are talking about (largely) stereophonic encode/decode yes?
Yes. If an audio parameter is undefined, exactly how is it designed, engineered and manufactured into a product? By accident? Voodoo?
cheers,
AJ
That is the reality of most every ones situation. Ultimately, it comes down to what you prefer via all your senses and the total experience provided.
Unlike an audiophile, I'm not ashamed to admit that price, looks, pride of ownership, etc,...and sound, all play roles in my buying decisions. Ditto for cars, watches, etc.
In my world, self deception exists, there is no circular logic "self-immunization", etc....and I'm quite happy with it, while at least being cognizant.
cheers,
AJ
For audio/sound it absolutely can and does. We are talking about (largely) stereophonic encode/decode yes?
Yes. If an audio parameter is undefined, exactly how is it designed, engineered and manufactured into a product? By accident? Voodoo?
cheers,
AJ
I'm talking about music/sound recordings through mics and machine recorders in studios and halls and then sound reproduction @ home through our audio loudspeakers and amps and preamps and electricity and turntables and LPs and CD/SACD players and CD/SACD discs. ...The music recordings reproduced @ home.
Encode.
Decode.
Encode/decode. Ok, we are talking the same thing Bob.
Which part of that escapes known audio science at this time? If so, how is it designed, engineered and manufactured into the encode and decode side of things?
cheers
AJ
Sorry to go back a few posts, and I know you are getting hammered from many sides. But, I do not see a proven "fact" in your statement above. I am not saying the Clark paper is factual either, and Clark is not here to defend it. But, it is food for thought.
What you keep harping on is merely your belief or hypothesis about longer term testing, not a fact. There has been no controlled experiment to prove your belief is true or factual, as far as I am aware. Even proving (or repetitive hand waving) that says the Clark paper is wrong, still does not prove as a fact that long term listening "can often reveal unpleasant aspects of the sound" or anything else.
My own belief, while I do not try to glorify it as fact, is that longer term testing is a good thing. I try to do that myself as much as possible in auditioning new components. I further believe that we, as audiophile consumers, need longer term testing specifically as a substitute because we do not generally have access to well controlled, double blind short term listening test capabilities for most all components, especially speakers. We are also not conditioned, trained or experienced at doing short tern, double blind. That, and it is a lot of trouble to try to do.
I do believe that better double blind unsighted auditions, if we had access to them which we don't, would help us discover component differences much more quickly. I still believe that longer term listening can be of some value, at least in confirming our short term impressions with a wider mix of recordings and under less stressful conditions. This greater assurance or comfort level is important in buying decisions.
I have done a fair number of long term listening tests to a variety of components, some of which I bought. Anecdotally, I cannot recall a single case where my sonic opinion changed materially between day 1 or 2 and day 30, if indeed the audition carried on that long. I think I did feel that I was generally more confident in my opinion after longer listening. And, I have not turned over my system frequently due to sonic dissatisfaction discovered after purchase. I generally keep my stuff for years.
I might add that component comparisons for my own system are something I have been doing for many decades, and I have tried to learn how to listen and to make good choices for myself. I have gotten better at it. We had a discussion elsewhere about learning a "tell" - the specific sonic characteristics - that make up the difference between components (not something extraneous in 2 different versions of a recording as we were discussing). Often it takes a little while to discover and then pay attention to that in comparative listening. But, I think with experience, one gets better and quicker at identifying it.
The complete absence of noise and distortion would not provide perfect reproduction. At best one would have 2 or 5 or n channels which cannot represent a vector field plus a scalar field, where each point in space is represented by a three dimensional velocity vector and a one dimensional pressure scalar. The relationship between this sound field and the impulses on the listener's acoustic nerve are defined by a whole cluster of unknowns, starting with the size and shape of the listeners head (including the pinna) and its changing position (six degrees of freedom). It gets worse if we start talking about the brain and even worse if we start talking about the mind and human perception, a subject that can not be fully understood without understanding human consciousness, which is probably never going to be understood (e.g. for Goedelian reasons).
Since perfect reproduction is physically and logically impossible, we are left with "good enough" and thus decend inescapably into psycho-acoustics and the reality that different listeners hear and perceive differently because of physical and mental factors.
Taking this to the next level, the whole concept of a single objective reality is itself a delusion. What we perceive has learned aspects with a cultural basis. We construct models of reality that are good enough for certain purposes and inadequate for others. The "objectivists" and the "subjectivists" construct radically different models. This is the main cause of the split between the factions.
If this makes no sense, then I suggest sitting on the floor with some cushions and doing some mediation, i.e. some serious introspection.
There are facts here.
Most people get fatigued after listening to music for a long period. This is true even for live music. Different people fatigue at different rates and these depend differently on the particular music and how it is presented. There is no need to "prove" these "facts". It is completely obvious to any air-breather. It is also obvious that different sounds produce different rates and levels of fatigue.
No evidence is needed for these obvious facts. We each have years of the necessary personal experience.
- Status
