Audiophile Sonic Terms Redux

[Carlos269]

The sound is not just about frequency , phase and amplitude.
If you read electronics engineering you know audio systems are not linear systems and non-linear systems are far more complex than linear systems. If you use fourier or laplace transform to show phase and amplitude of frequency it means you used simplified linear model of audio circuit.

the audio is more complex than you think in both objective and subjective analysis

Physics and Electrical Engineering is precisely where I’m coming from.

You pretend to know something the scientific community does not. What constitutes an audio waveform if it is not frequency, amplitude, and phase?

I’m curious to read your response. Hopefully is not a vague “is much more complex than that”. Share some specifics. Perhaps I will learn something new today.

For your information, whether the sound originates from a linear or from a non-linear circuit is irrelevant to the definition of the sound’s attributes and the FFT is impervious to its origin as it will perform exactly the same synthesis and decomposition in either case. In the context of testing for detecting and measuring changes created by substitutions, a known sinusoidal test signal is used to assess the impact to the spectral content and distribution.

 

[treitz3]

Reading differs from understanding. Understanding differs from the end result as to what hits your ears.

Tom

 

[Gregm]

The sound is not just about frequency , phase and amplitude.
If you read electronics engineering you know audio systems are not linear systems and non-linear systems are far more complex than linear systems. If you use fourier or laplace transform to show phase and amplitude of frequency it means you used simplified linear model of audio circuit.

the audio is more complex than you think in both objective and subjective analysis

Interesting viewpoint! Would you care to elaborate about sound?

As a side issue, comments by @Carlos269 and I referred to sound, not the linearity or non-linearity of systems...

 

[Amir]

Physics and Electrical Engineering is precisely where I’m coming from.

You pretend to know something the scientific community does not. What constitutes an audio waveform if it is not frequency, amplitude, and phase?

I’m curious to read your response. Hopefully is not a vague “is much more complex than that”. Share some specifics. Perhaps I will learn something new today.

For your information, whether the sound originates from a linear or from a non-linear circuit is irrelevant to the definition of the sound’s attributes and the FFT is impervious to its origin as it will perform exactly the same synthesis and decomposition in either case. In the context of testing for detecting and measuring changes created by substitutions, a known sinusoidal test signal is used to assess the impact to the spectral content and distribution.

what I know comes from academic science and for example you find it in Electromagnetic Books like "Cheng" .

we have 4 maxwell's equations :



this is the mathematic equations to model every thing in electronics. what you read in most papers are simplified model of these equations.
for example cable's dielectric material in most electronic papers is simplified by a constant number but in real world the dielectric coefficient is not constant and it is very complex in 3d space.
another example is no electronics devices/parts (like amplifiers or transistors) are linear , it means the frequency analysis of audio systems is just the simplified model of electronics not the 100% accurate model. non linear systems have distortion and sometimes it is very complex to have accurate model of them. if you see stereophile measurements or Majidimehr measurements they just measure simple parameters but in real world for measuring the complex non-linear systems you should measure many many parameters in different condition.

if you read THD war history and those barbaric objectivist idea about lowering THD by NFB to get good sound you will realize the Audio is more complex than they think.

Audio Systems are non-linear systems and human hearing system is also non-linear. the audio world is not as simple as just looking at frequency and phase.

The great Audio Designer Vladimir Lamm said : if you measurements are not aligned with your subjective perceptions then you measure wrong things.

 

[Amir]

Interesting viewpoint! Would you care to elaborate about sound?

As a side issue, comments by @Carlos269 and I referred to sound, not the linearity or non-linearity of systems...

Some smart designers like Vladimir Lamm have found some relation between "good sound" and the "objective model", those finding are secrets of Lamm company.

 

[Gregm]

View attachment 112467

what I know comes from academic science and for example you find it in Electromagnetic Books like "Cheng" .

we have 4 maxwell's equations :

View attachment 112468

this is the mathematic equations to model every thing in electronics. what you read in most papers are simplified model of these equations.
for example cable's dielectric material in most electronic papers is simplified by a constant number but in real world the dielectric coefficient is not constant and it is very complex in 3d space.
another example is no electronics devices/parts (like amplifiers or transistors) are linear , it means the frequency analysis of audio systems is just the simplified model of electronics not the 100% accurate model. non linear systems have distortion and sometimes it is very complex to have accurate model of them. if you see stereophile measurements or Majidimehr measurements they just measure simple parameters but in real world for measuring the complex non-linear systems you should measure many many parameters in different condition.

if you read THD war history and those barbaric objectivist idea about lowering THD by NFB to get good sound you will realize the Audio is more complex than they think.

Audio Systems are non-linear systems and human hearing system is also non-linear. the audio world is not as simple as just looking at frequency and phase.

The great Audio Designer Vladimir Lamm said : if you measurements are not aligned with your subjective perceptions then you measure wrong things.

With all due respect, old sport, we were not discussing objectivists, subjectivists, Mr Lamm's electronic engineering solutions, or otherwise.
We only mentioned the perceived impact of modulation (changes) in various bands of the audio spectrum.
For example, if you slightly boost the range around 5kHz, you will perceive more "presence", better definition. It's the way we hear things.

 

[microstrip]

View attachment 112467

what I know comes from academic science and for example you find it in Electromagnetic Books like "Cheng" .

we have 4 maxwell's equations :

View attachment 112468

this is the mathematic equations to model every thing in electronics. what you read in most papers are simplified model of these equations.
for example cable's dielectric material in most electronic papers is simplified by a constant number but in real world the dielectric coefficient is not constant and it is very complex in 3d space.
another example is no electronics devices/parts (like amplifiers or transistors) are linear , it means the frequency analysis of audio systems is just the simplified model of electronics not the 100% accurate model. non linear systems have distortion and sometimes it is very complex to have accurate model of them. if you see stereophile measurements or Majidimehr measurements they just measure simple parameters but in real world for measuring the complex non-linear systems you should measure many many parameters in different condition.

if you read THD war history and those barbaric objectivist idea about lowering THD by NFB to get good sound you will realize the Audio is more complex than they think.

Audio Systems are non-linear systems and human hearing system is also non-linear. the audio world is not as simple as just looking at frequency and phase.

The great Audio Designer Vladimir Lamm said : if you measurements are not aligned with your subjective perceptions then you measure wrong things.

This is a ridiculous approach. No electronics designer needs to incorporate Maxwell equations directly in his work - people knowing them have studied and developed ways to incorporate such knowledge in tools and science particular to applied subjects. And I suggest you keep Vladimir Lamm away from this thread - the sentence you refer about measurements has been said by others much before.

 

[microstrip]

Some smart designers like Vladimir Lamm have found some relation between "good sound" and the "objective model", those finding are secrets of Lamm company.

Vladimir Lamm studies helped him to find a model between his preference of stereo sound and an objective model, like many other designers. Currently all I need is finding someone who prefers the ML3 sound and wants to pay for it.

 

[PeterA]

Vladimir Lamm studies helped him to find a model between his preference of stereo sound and an objective model, like many other designers. Currently all I need is finding someone who prefers the ML3 sound and wants to pay for it.

I thought his studies were based on the preferences of many test subjects, not his own preferences.

 

[microstrip]

I thought his studies were based on the preferences of many test subjects, not his own preferences.

Well, we just can guess. Floyd Toole did a serious study, that was published, scrutinized and can be discussed - he created the sometimes called "Harman sound" that, as could be expected, many people prefer.

All we know from "rumors" around Valdimir Lamm is that he has developed a "model" on human hearing and it is the basis of the "Lamm sound". He was the only person speaking for the company and unique known researcher/designer, I consider this type of sound his preferred sound, that many audiophiles also prefer. But I am always happy to learn (and ask questions, BTW ).

 

[Carlos269]

View attachment 112467

what I know comes from academic science and for example you find it in Electromagnetic Books like "Cheng" .

we have 4 maxwell's equations :

View attachment 112468

this is the mathematic equations to model every thing in electronics. what you read in most papers are simplified model of these equations.
for example cable's dielectric material in most electronic papers is simplified by a constant number but in real world the dielectric coefficient is not constant and it is very complex in 3d space.
another example is no electronics devices/parts (like amplifiers or transistors) are linear , it means the frequency analysis of audio systems is just the simplified model of electronics not the 100% accurate model. non linear systems have distortion and sometimes it is very complex to have accurate model of them. if you see stereophile measurements or Majidimehr measurements they just measure simple parameters but in real world for measuring the complex non-linear systems you should measure many many parameters in different condition.

if you read THD war history and those barbaric objectivist idea about lowering THD by NFB to get good sound you will realize the Audio is more complex than they think.

Audio Systems are non-linear systems and human hearing system is also non-linear. the audio world is not as simple as just looking at frequency and phase.

The great Audio Designer Vladimir Lamm said : if you measurements are not aligned with your subjective perceptions then you measure wrong things.

Amir, I’m not sure if it got lost in the translation but Greg’s post and my replies were directed at the impact to tonal balance as a result of component substitutions. My assertion is that those changes in spectral content, density, and distribution could be detected and measured through Fast Fourier Analysis decomposition. I’m fully aware that to get accurate FFT the waveform has to be periodic and consistent, and that is why I suggested a sinusoidal test signal. It was not intended to be a real-time analyzer of music as FFT is not accurate in synthesis of transients, non-linear, and dynamic phenomena which are all characteristics of music and music playback.

Your comprehension of what is being discussed is not accurate and I stand by my statements that any changes in sound can be analyzed in the lab environment to not only detect the changes but to explain them in terms of spectral content and distribution.

Regarding the auditory system, yes it is complex but the scientific community has modeled it and have models that are extremely accurate. If you read the medical scientific journals you will see that most of it is very well understood.

 

[Rensselaer]

Karen originally posted a suggestion to look at the terms we use to describe what we hear. What followed is some, in my mind appropriate, references about this to consider. Personally, I am looking for whatever gives me that emotional connection to the music. So far I have not been able to discern a measurement (or series thereof) that would guarantee me of such. I believe that there exists aspects in music reproduction that give emotional connection to the music that are not measurable.

I think that long ago many reviewers (of mainstream journals) went with describing and recording only the measurable aspects of sound reproduction, for commercial reasons. Listing THD, plotting waterfall charts, etc. allows the reviewer to demonstrate that they are in fact reviewing characteristics for their money and the manufacturers are getting feedback as to what measurable characteristics they excel at (and which they should work on). The terms that Karen referred to are those used by the commercial side of this hobby (and by engineers on this forum it seems).

Because I have personally never been able to use any measurements (or any of the usual descriptor terms used by industry) to predict If a particular piece of equipment will give me any emotional connection to the music (even less predict the amount of emotional connection), I must argue again here that there are two sorts of audiophile's here, those who are looking for the ultimate emotive return on their investment and those who are looking for the ultimate in measured performance for their investment (or a third, neither of the above but just wanting to argue).

 

[Al M.]

Because I have personally never been able to use any measurements (or any of the usual descriptor terms used by industry) to predict If a particular piece of equipment will give me any emotional connection to the music (even less predict the amount of emotional connection), I must argue again here that there are two sorts of audiophile's here, those who are looking for the ultimate emotive return on their investment

I think this is practically all on this forum.

and those who are looking for the ultimate in measured performance for their investment

Who?

No, and don't reply with the old nonsense about analog vs. digital, please. That goes nowhere.

 

[Carlos269]

Because I have personally never been able to use any measurements (or any of the usual descriptor terms used by industry) to predict If a particular piece of equipment will give me any emotional connection to the music (even less predict the amount of emotional connection), I must argue again here that there are two sorts of audiophile's here, those who are looking for the ultimate emotive return on their investment and those who are looking for the ultimate in measured performance for their investment (or a third, neither of the above but just wanting to argue).

First of all, you are not alone in not being able to predict “If a particular piece of equipment will give me any emotional connection to the music (even less predict the amount of emotional connection)”. I’m not sure that anyone has ever made that claim of having those extraordinary powers. This gives rise to the trial and error approach that audiophiles undertake. But there is a smarter way, one in which you can dial in the sound to suit your preferences and tailor its presentation to your individual likings:

Remastering your system to sound exactly the way you want it to

What I’m asserting is that any perceived change in sound can be measured, with the proper tools.

As I transitioned from the Audiophile world to the mastering studio world two decades ago, it became apparent that the sound can be sculpted and shaped to meet our desired qualities.

Playing around with a high quality parametric equalizer or even a graphic equalizer is very transformative as it shows you how changes to different frequency ranges impact sound and our perception of the various audiophile attributes and qualities that we look for in high end audio playback systems. If then you consider that equalizers are just basic fundamental tools in a world of more advanced and sophisticated convolution tools available to the mastering engineers then you realize the power at hand and the limitless possibilities.

As I postulate my theorem, since these changes in sound qualities are based on tonal or spectral content, they can be measured, and if they can be measured then they can be understood and replicated.

There are two types of audiophiles: 1) those that follow the dogmatic purist approach and 2) those who seek to understand how it all works and what we can do to control the outcome.

 

[Rensselaer]

Who?

No, and don't reply with the old nonsense about analog vs. digital, please. That goes nowhere.

Anyone who upgrades based upon stats like “lowest recorded jitter of an DAC tested” would qualify. Why are you so threatened? Have you chased measurements with your money?

 

[Al M.]

Anyone who upgrades based upon stats like “lowest recorded jitter of an DAC tested” would qualify. Why are you so threatened? Have you chased measurements with your money?

Threatened? Huh?

No I do not chase measurements with money. As I suspected, this goes nowhere.

 

[microstrip]

Karen originally posted a suggestion to look at the terms we use to describe what we hear. What followed is some, in my mind appropriate, references about this to consider. Personally, I am looking for whatever gives me that emotional connection to the music. So far I have not been able to discern a measurement (or series thereof) that would guarantee me of such. I believe that there exists aspects in music reproduction that give emotional connection to the music that are not measurable.

Well, most audiophiles claim the same. "I am looking for whatever gives me that emotional connection to the music." is claimed ad nauseam by audiophiles, designers, manufacturers and dealers. However some people do more than that - they look at systematic aspects that can be correlated with our musical enjoyment and even objective data that properly correlates with it. Surely knowledgeable people know that it is not possible to do it to specific individual preferences in stereo, such as yours. BTW, everything can be measured, but at a price.

I think that long ago many reviewers (of mainstream journals) went with describing and recording only the measurable aspects of sound reproduction, for commercial reasons. Listing THD, plotting waterfall charts, etc. allows the reviewer to demonstrate that they are in fact reviewing characteristics for their money and the manufacturers are getting feedback as to what measurable characteristics they excel at (and which they should work on).

Again what is the point in referring to the 70's and 80's in 2023? Designers and manufacturers use measurements in ways you do not even imagine.

The terms that Karen referred to are those used by the commercial side of this hobby (and by engineers on this forum it seems).

It would be great if people could read Karen posts in the context of her audio career, audio system and entourage, not just quote isolated random comments and ideas from her posts. Look at the systems and reviewers she praises, as well as listen to her achievements - the Transparent Audio cables. They will help you to understand her comments.

Because I have personally never been able to use any measurements (or any of the usual descriptor terms used by industry) to predict If a particular piece of equipment will give me any emotional connection to the music (even less predict the amount of emotional connection), I must argue again here that there are two sorts of audiophile's here, those who are looking for the ultimate emotive return on their investment and those who are looking for the ultimate in measured performance for their investment (or a third, neither of the above but just wanting to argue).

You are trying a false and artificial dichotomy of the audiophiles based on your particular inability to use measurements in the proper way and perhaps sinful reading of the ASR forum.


Divide to rule is usual and understood in politics, but does not help proper stereo audio discussion - is this discussion what you call "argue"?

 

[Amir]

Amir, I’m not sure if it got lost in the translation but Greg’s post and my replies were directed at the impact to tonal balance as a result of component substitutions. My assertion is that those changes in spectral content, density, and distribution could be detected and measured through Fast Fourier Analysis decomposition. I’m fully aware that to get accurate FFT the waveform has to be periodic and consistent, and that is why I suggested a sinusoidal test signal. It was not intended to be a real-time analyzer of music as FFT is not accurate in synthesis of transients, non-linear, and dynamic phenomena which are all characteristics of music and music playback.

Your comprehension of what is being discussed is not accurate and I stand by my statements that any changes in sound can be analyzed in the lab environment to not only detect the changes but to explain them in terms of spectral content and distribution.

Regarding the auditory system, yes it is complex but the scientific community has modeled it and have models that are extremely accurate. If you read the medical scientific journals you will see that most of it is very well understood.

I should go back and read the subject again but what I wrote (if not related to topic) is not wrong.

Any signal could be transform to fourier analysis and you can see the frequency spectrum of signal so this is not against my post .
what I said was about audio system analysis by fourier transform.


The hearing system is just a signal processor to deliver the music to brain and the brain processing is so much complex.
Do you think our hearing system is fully modeled by science?

 

[Rensselaer]

Well, most audiophiles claim the same. "I am looking for whatever gives me that emotional connection to the music." is claimed ad nauseam by audiophiles, designers, manufacturers and dealers. However some people do more than that - they look at systematic aspects that can be correlated with our musical enjoyment and even objective data that properly correlates with it. Surely knowledgeable people know that it is not possible to do it to specific individual preferences in stereo, such as yours. BTW, everything can be measured, but at a price.



Again what is the point in referring to the 70's and 80's in 2023? Designers and manufacturers use measurements in ways you do not even imagine.



It would be great if people could read Karen posts in the context of her audio career, audio system and entourage, not just quote isolated random comments and ideas from her posts. Look at the systems and reviewers she praises, as well as listen to her achievements - the Transparent Audio cables. They will help you to understand her comments.



You are trying a false and artificial dichotomy of the audiophiles based on your particular inability to use measurements in the proper way and perhaps sinful reading of the ASR forum.


Divide to rule is usual and understood in politics, but does not help proper stereo audio discussion - is this discussion what you call "argue"?

Let me clarify it for you then. I was trying to not write or quote too much, but… I am in 100% agreement with Andy Moor’s thoughts as expressed in the Jeff Day site, entitled “Meditations on High Fidelity…” as referenced earlier in this thread:

“Every solder joint, every plug, socket and switch, every resistor and capacitor alters signal, they blunt dynamics and reduce resolution and presence”. “Large complex systems kill dynamics”.

use only what you must and use parts proven to sound better than other parts of the same measurements, example, he used NOS Brimar and Mullard valves instead of Sovtek (of the same rating) because they sound better. He wired them in triode configuration because “…no need for multiple gain stages”. He said that solid state rectification, transistors, metal film resistors and too much silver dries out the sound.

He uses an open baffle speaker cabinet as he says a closed cabinet allows energy to bounce back and affect/smear the sound.

All of his points I have learned through experience are valid yet I can not recall a single review that measured these criteria. He said metal film resistors can dry the sound out, so what is the measured difference between a 0.25 watt, 500micro-ohm, 500 volt metal film resistor and a 0.25 watt, 500 mico-ohm, 500 volt carbon composite resistor? A metal oxide resistor? A wire-wound resistor?

 

[Amir]

This is a ridiculous approach. No electronics designer needs to incorporate Maxwell equations directly in his work - people knowing them have studied and developed ways to incorporate such knowledge in tools and science particular to applied subjects. And I suggest you keep Vladimir Lamm away from this thread - the sentence you refer about measurements has been said by others much before.

I did not say all audio designers should go for super complex modeling of audio systems by maxwell's equation, you did not get my point.
I told the real behaviour of an audio system is not so simple and you can not analyse it just only by simple measurements.

Veladimir Lamm wrote some articles about his ideas.