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

[steve williams]

Curious, the post to me reads like hundreds I have read. And amounts to little more than believing in the magic of hearing with full faith no regimented test signals can do justice to it. Not wise at all IMO.

Not really. I believe he's saying there room for both rather than just one way or another which results in acrimony and a bunch of posts which have been rehashed ad nauseum

 

[ddk]

Curious, the post to me reads like hundreds I have read. And amounts to little more than believing in the magic of hearing with full faith no regimented test signals can do justice to it. Not wise at all IMO.

That's what's called self confidence and the knowledge that comes with years of experience; some of us have it ! The human ear is a marvel, one hell of a complex instrument hardwired into your brain connected to ones auditory and sensory systems. I guess its wise to rely on bleeps, a mic, and a few plots on a computer screen when you don't have the knowledge or the ability to trust or use your own faculties. You're in the wrong hobby my friend when you trust paraphernalia over your own senses...

david

 

[PeterA]

It is an experience Tim and quite honestly the only way I think any one will truly understand what David means is to hear it. Short of that it's all conjecture.

That is one way, Steve. The other way is to go and listen to real musicians playing unamplified instruments. That sounds natural. If a system makes one believe he is listening to musicians playing real instruments, then that system sounds natural. I don't see what there is to argue about.

 

[DonH50]

That's what's called self confidence and the knowledge that comes with years of experience; some of us have it ! The human ear is a marvel, one hell of a complex instrument hardwired into your brain connected to ones auditory and sensory systems. I guess its wise to rely on bleeps, a mic, and a few plots on a computer screen when you don't have the knowledge or the ability to trust or use your own faculties. You're in the wrong hobby my friend when you trust paraphernalia over your own senses...

david

I have decades of experience making and taking measurements, and decades listening to a wide range of systems. I have a pretty good understanding of the limitations, and advantages, of both. Why should I favor one over the other, but rather try to reconcile the two? Why belittle one, or the other? It is this attitude of condescending superiority, and it occurs regularly on both sides, that puts me off.

"You don't have to put out another's candle to make your own shine." -- Bill Adams

 

[steve williams]

as I said there is room for both. I agree Don

 

[ddk]

I have decades of experience making and taking measurements, and decades listening to a wide range of systems. I have a pretty good understanding of the limitations, and advantages, of both. Why should I favor one over the other, but rather try to reconcile the two? Why belittle one, or the other? It is this attitude of condescending superiority, and it occurs regularly on both sides, that puts me off.

"You don't have to put out another's candle to make your own shine." -- Bill Adams

Everything has context Don, what I wrote was a measured (no pun intended) reply to a series of posts! And it is true for me, final analysis is based on what I hear, not what it measures.

david

Edit-PS I'm not discounting science, measurements etc. or telling anyone to ignore them but that's an end to a means in creating an instrument for the human machine which can't be plotted and graphed.

Please allow me to reply with your own favorite quote, "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley

 

[esldude]

That's what's called self confidence and the knowledge that comes with years of experience; some of us have it ! The human ear is a marvel, one hell of a complex instrument hardwired into your brain connected to ones auditory and sensory systems. I guess its wise to rely on bleeps, a mic, and a few plots on a computer screen when you don't have the knowledge or the ability to trust or use your own faculties. You're in the wrong hobby my friend when you trust paraphernalia over your own senses...

david

Or been there, done that and know more than I once did.

 

[NorthStar]

I'm listening to classical music right now (classical guitars, duo), from the analog FM stereo radio, and I feel completely relax and fulfilled in my heart and soul.
How can we explain that?

* Now it's a solo piano, and my emotion just shifted towards an even more relaxed state-of-mind, totally @ peace with my environment...outside with the gentle breeze, the trees, the birds, the mountains, and the smell of the ocean's waves.
How can that be? ...And can it be measured from scientific tools in the moment present without disturbing my aura.

** And now it's the violins from an orchestral work. How can I translate my present experience with total accuracy so that all of you understand exactly my emotional level with the music and all playing?
Am I too daring to even try to explain it, or should I just forget about it thinking that it's all just an illusion and nothing is real as it appears to?

About showing you a video of the entire love affair, would that help? :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim
in the context of David's definition for him " natural" is no coloration. Does that simplify things for you.

Then I assume he is a digital/ss guy. Maybe even active. Yes?

Tim

 

[ddk]

Then I assume he is a digital/ss guy. Maybe even active. Yes?

Tim

!

 

[NorthStar]

Then I assume he is a digital/ss guy. Maybe even active. Yes?

Tim

He has to be. ...Streaming?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know what to tell you guys that hasn't already been said here many times before, but I hear live, unamplified music far more than most. I hear it every day, in my room, in my lap, in rehearsal spaces, in my life. I've listened to it daily for more than four decades. I know exactly what live mandolins, cellos, violins, drum kits, acoustic guitars, stand-up basses, male and female voices, etc. sound like live. And what I hear lines up pretty well with what can be measured. I've come to the conclusion that flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next, particularly when that drum kit kicks in. You can disagree, of course. Enjoy. But if what you enjoy is formats and systems that do anything more to achieve "natural" than reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible within their design and financial limitations, disagree is what we'll do. I didn't come to this as a scientific objectivist hearing what he saw in a graph. I came to it as a musician looking for what he hears when instruments play live in a room. The objectivism followed that.

Tim

 

[Don Hills]

...The room; it always come down to the room. :b

The elephant is the room.

 

[NorthStar]

That's what they all say; the ones living inside them. ...But outside of our rooms, we are finally free...and the music can flow freely. :b

 

[ddk]

I don't know what to tell you guys that hasn't already been said here many times before, but I hear live, unamplified music far more than most. I hear it every day, in my room, in my lap, in rehearsal spaces, in my life. I've listened to it daily for more than four decades. I know exactly what live mandolins, cellos, violins, drum kits, acoustic guitars, stand-up basses, male and female voices, etc. sound like live. And what I hear lines up pretty well with what can be measured. I've come to the conclusion that flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next, particularly when that drum kit kicks in. You can disagree, of course. Enjoy. But if what you enjoy is formats and systems that do anything more to achieve "natural" than reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible within their design and financial limitations, disagree is what we'll do. I didn't come to this as a scientific objectivist hearing what he saw in a graph. I came to it as a musician looking for what he hears when instruments play live in a room. The objectivism followed that.

Tim

L'Chaim Tim! What's more objective than nature and natural? There are objective and scientific differences in the formats, why is one preference considered objective and the other subjective? Is it objective or subjective to praise digital by calling it analog like and dissing analog when it sounds digital? But that's not what's being discussed here, its the dismissal of the sophisticated human machine fully equipped and capable of analysis and drawing natural conclusions in favor of tools which I & others are objecting to. You have to accept that we have different motives and goals for engaging here, the forum is just a meeting place. "Natural" for me is the highest form of praise, truth to the recording, performance and music is naturally an extension of the adjective. It doesn't mean that its all good, bad is also Natural.

A parting thought, two tubes, same design, same country of origin, probably even made from the same tooling but at different times. They have the same measured parameters and are almost near identical in their measured numbers, but they sound completely different. In every Blind Test I conducted the listener picked the same tube and used the terms natural, musical and real, the other was called hifi, flat and broken without me opening my mouth. All I did was to place one type in amp and the other in another amp, then play a mono recording and let them compare each channel. During the tests I switched the tubes around in both amps, same results. This is purely subjective, natural human valuation based on objective knowledge, measurements can't differentiate or distinguish between the two but everyone's brain easily managed it.

david

 

[PeterA]

I don't know what to tell you guys....I've come to the conclusion that flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next, particularly when that drum kit kicks in. You can disagree, of course. Enjoy.

Tim

I agree with you. Those things are critical to good sound. However,

When I listen to an orchestra, I am struck by the beauty of the music and the passion of the performance. When thinking about how it sounds critically, I notice the incredible energy generated by the musicians playing their instruments and the utter clarity of the sound. I don't think about things like distortion, flat and smooth frequency response or dynamic range. I presume the designers think about those things so that they can make the recordings and create the gear that can reproduce something approximating what I hear at the symphony in my living room. I select gear and assemble my system with a "faithful reproduction of the recording in mind". I know that noise and distortion hinder that effort. I know that the quality of the tone, dynamics and presence are important in helping us to forget that we are listening to a stereo system.

If I get home and my system sounds pretty convincing, realistic, believable and natural compared to what I just heard at the BSO or some chamber performance, I am satisfied and thrilled that this is even possible. I am grateful that others have studied the audio sciences and can create the devices that attempt to reproduce the performances.

How accurate is it all? I leave that to those who want to measure what they can and judge it on their terms. And I applaud them for their efforts because it leads to a better understanding of audio science.

I invite you to come for a listen and tell me what you think. Bring measuring equipment if you want, and teach me how the results correspond to what we hear. We might both be pleasantly surprised. I only have analog, so you would have to bring your own CDP or transport/server and DAC, but I do use solid state electronics and well-measuring speakers.

 

[esldude]

I don't know what to tell you guys that hasn't already been said here many times before, but I hear live, unamplified music far more than most. I hear it every day, in my room, in my lap, in rehearsal spaces, in my life. I've listened to it daily for more than four decades. I know exactly what live mandolins, cellos, violins, drum kits, acoustic guitars, stand-up basses, male and female voices, etc. sound like live. And what I hear lines up pretty well with what can be measured. I've come to the conclusion that flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next, particularly when that drum kit kicks in. You can disagree, of course. Enjoy. But if what you enjoy is formats and systems that do anything more to achieve "natural" than reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible within their design and financial limitations, disagree is what we'll do. I didn't come to this as a scientific objectivist hearing what he saw in a graph. I came to it as a musician looking for what he hears when instruments play live in a room. The objectivism followed that.

Tim

Reasonably similar story for me. Over, and over I see people label someone an objectivist. Part of that label often includes saying they don't hear live music, approach they hobby as if all is known and don't investigate other possibilities. Yet the few I know have done nothing of the sort. It is experience, comparison with the real thing, and the results that lead one to be more objective.

 

[jkeny]

Hmmm, how many recordings are done with a natural miking technique which captures the ambience of the venue & the sound of the voices/instruments as we would hear at the venue live? Are we not more inclined to encounter closely spot miked recordings - you know from almost inside a piano body, etc? How many times have you listened to a piano from where these spot mikes are placed?

How many live events are miked & use a PA, anyway - so we are listening to a live feed rather than live instruments. It all gets somewhat confusing when you go down this road, no?

How much is natural & how much is illusion?

 

[853guy]

Curious, the post to me reads like hundreds I have read. And amounts to little more than believing in the magic of hearing with full faith no regimented test signals can do justice to it. Not wise at all IMO.

I don’t believe in magic at all. I believe in the human being.

And I marvel that as early as 3100 BCE we were depicting the collective musical experience on the walls of temples and tombs. I marvel at our species ability to take copper and tin and beat bronze into flat discs to make cymbals ang gongs. I marvel that 4500 years ago we took dried animal innards, twisted them into strings, suspended them between a frame and a large cedar box in which the individual strings could be tuned to achieve differentation of pitch and the resonance would be amplified by the base. I marvel that nearly 4000 years ago we inscribed notation in Cuneiform into clay tablets in order to communicate the tuning intervals, scale and musical mode.

This was all thousands of years before Lee De Forest’s short-lived Phonofilm was succeded by Western Electric’s $3 million investment into Vitaphone to sync music to motion pictures. I marvel at that too.

And I continue to marvel at our attempts to improve both the recording and playback chain, through innovation, R&D, and the development of measurement techniques to quantify those improvements. Our oldest commercially-viable format (vinyl) continues to benefit from those developments.

But all of the above - historically and scientifically validated - is contingent on and would be impossible without the human hearing mechanism which has been in development for far, far longer, coupled with our pre-historical desire to individually and collectively experience the way in which music manipulates our physiology. I remain in awe of it.

I don't know what to tell you guys that hasn't already been said here many times before, but I hear live, unamplified music far more than most. I hear it every day, in my room, in my lap, in rehearsal spaces, in my life. I've listened to it daily for more than four decades. I know exactly what live mandolins, cellos, violins, drum kits, acoustic guitars, stand-up basses, male and female voices, etc. sound like live. And what I hear lines up pretty well with what can be measured. I've come to the conclusion that flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next, particularly when that drum kit kicks in. You can disagree, of course. Enjoy. But if what you enjoy is formats and systems that do anything more to achieve "natural" than reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible within their design and financial limitations, disagree is what we'll do. I didn't come to this as a scientific objectivist hearing what he saw in a graph. I came to it as a musician looking for what he hears when instruments play live in a room. The objectivism followed that.

I hope this isn’t a competition, Tim, because I’ve played music for almost as long, on several different instruments, became a session drummer, before a lateral move into engineering and producing. It was short-lived but the experience of being on both sides of the glass was incredibly instructive. Just yesterday I sat and played a beaten up acoustic with nylon strings before my 8 year-old and I composed a 59 second song in Garage Band where he sung and he called What You Do, through those lyrics were absent from the actual song. I’d like to say I know what unamplified instruments sound like too.

But I still have a problem with you saying that you hear live lines up pretty well with what can be measured. The sound of musical instruments played with variations in time, amplitude and pitch is not what’s being measured, as I said in my previous post.

Also problematic for me is your continued use of the word “faithful”. “Faithful” can’t be quantified, because it’s a relational descriptor. So all you’re doing is matching a sound in your head (live unamplified music) with another sound in your head (what you get from your reproduction chain), in essence, using the human hearing mechanism and process to internally compare two different realities of which you remain the sole arbiter.

Same here! We all are. Measurements are measurements, stats are stats and the experience of listening to music is neither of those things.

The difference between you and me is that my preferences have evolved from “flat, smooth FR, low noise and low distortion are on first and dynamic range comes in next” to time, dynamics and frequency (a distant third) in that order. A component that makes Elvin Jones sound like Dave Weckl can’t be claimed to be “accurate” no matter how smooth the FR plot may be.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Yes Keith, something has changed w/gear that sounds better. My happiness rating, relaxation quotient, serene mood, positivity. Any neurophysiologist will be able to gauge this, blood tests showing flooding of endorphins, blood supply increases to parts of the brain. Etc etc. So yes, this hobby is truly objective.