Blackness / Black Background

[Tango]

It is 41 Celsius here in Bangkok. I am cranking my two Mitsubishi air conditioners while playing music. Yes there is noticeable background noise. But really you guys really get bother by some room noise this much? I think when a system has a lot of energy, lively transparent sound, the music just pops resembling live anyway. I find a good opened hat live saxophone outdoor on the Metro station makes me stop and listen every time I hear one. Personally I dont think you need the super low noise deep dark space quiet to get your stereo to sound reminiscent to real.

 

[stehno]

It is 41 Celsius here in Bangkok. I am cranking my two Mitsubishi air conditioners while playing music. Yes there is noticeable background noise. But really you guys really get bother by some room noise this much? I think when a system has a lot of energy, lively transparent sound, the music just pops resembling live anyway. I find a good opened hat live saxophone outdoor on the Metro station makes me stop and listen every time I hear one. Personally I dont think you need the super low noise deep dark space quiet to get your stereo to sound reminiscent to real.

It's 54 degrees Fahrenheit here in Salem and I can't disagree with you. However, room noise is not the subject here but rather a playback system's ability or inability to make audible the volumes of ambient info of the live performance based upon how high or low a given playback system's noise floor is. Which in turn determines the amount of low-level detail including the live performance's ambient info remains audible at the speaker.

In other words, blackness or black background coming from the speakers (not the room) during a playback performance isn't such a good thing, especially when perhaps even some of the most inferior-engineered recording contain volumes of this ambient info.

Hope this helps.

 

[Tango]

However, room noise is not the subject here but rather a playback system's ability or inability to make audible the volumes of ambient info of the live performance based upon how high or low a given playback system's noise floor is. Which in turn determines the amount of low-level detail including the live performance's ambient info remains audible at the speaker.

In other words, blackness or black background coming from the speakers (not the room) during a playback performance isn't such a good thing, especially when perhaps even some of the most inferior-engineered recording contain volumes of this ambient info.

Hope this helps.

Apologize. I must have been confused this thread with the other one.

Thanks for enlightening me to this area of ambient info retrieval.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Lol , here in brussels its 11 degrees / early morning .
Main reason i will have a custom designed noise isolated room is 2 fold .
Keep all noise out , lower the noisefloor and improve the systems dynamic contrast (call it blackness whatever )accordingly.
Second, prevent noise from leaving the room .
Having to worry that you annoy other persons with the sound causes listening stress .
This would be my main reasons , im not even talking acoustic treatment

 

[cjfrbw]

Black background is a visual analog. I tend to interpret it as a scale of contrasts and gray scales applied to music. An OLED tv has extreme blacks, which allows more vivid and subtle color perception across a wider spectrum. I would assume in music, tone colors would be perceived more vividly across a greater scale of gradations from an aural 'black background'.

I am surprised that critics that like analog would ever use such a term as black background. Vinyl and tape certainly don't have noise free backgrounds, but they are capable of extreme tone and tonal diversity once the signal rises above the noise floor. I do have a sense of 'blackness' more from some kinds of amplifiers in the way the sound emerges, with some emerging from a kind of darkness, while others are lit up. I don't find one preferable to the other just on that basis.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Tapes can be very quit though , ive got tapes that are on the same level as CD .
Most of them are not , lets call it an increased ambience feeling lol.
It doesnt matter to me if the recorded music is fine .
If it has a bit of noise and the recording is crap , thats it .
I ve got also piano mastertapes which produce some ambient noise when they start rolling , but then that piano comes out of nowhere with such dynamic force and clarity that all the noise is easily forgiven.
So it all depends afaic.

 

[Blackmorec]

Walk into a deserted concert hall, close your eyes and listen. Take some time in the wilderness, close your eyes and listen. Both are silent, both are dark, but they have a presence, a texture......its called a ‘velvety’ blackness because the blackness has texture. When there’s profound silence, you hear stuff you would normally never hear. Its those sounds that make the silence so magical, even if it happens to be the sound of blood circulating through your ears. Its something you sense more than hear. When there’s noise on your system this ‘feeling‘ is diminished or masked completely. The ‘blackness’ is something that is required to let you hear the very finest of detail.....its not about silence....its about being able to hear the quietest sounds against a silent background.
When the note of a concert grand piano blooms then decays, its the venue’s ambience blooming and decaying that gives the sound true dimensionality and realism. When the ambient decay is masked, hidden or remains unresolved because of noise, the reality of a real piano playing in a real venue is also lost. When your stereo is truly resolving, it will resolve this very fine detail in the presence of other sounds....its the spacial resolution and lack of noise that lets you hear one instrument‘s decay into silence while other instruments are still playing.

Single instrument recordings are very popular for audiophile demos because they are able to demonstrate this ‘decay into silence’ i.e the instrument’s complete dynamic. But in the presence of other instruments, any lack of resolution or noise will mask this detail and rob the sound of realism. Your system is truly working well when you can hear the full dynamics of one instrument and its performance venue in the presence of others.
Inky blackness is nothing. Switch your system off or don't press play and you’ll get all the inky blackness you want. What you’re really after is an ability to resolve the smallest, weakest sound waves and you’ll only resolve those when the background is still and undisturbed.

 

[cjfrbw]

I suppose that's where the eye of the beholder comes in. Does black background mean dynamic range and signal to noise ratio of the primary signal? Black means absence of color, so does it mean ability to perceive tonal contrasts and speed of tonal shifts? Maybe it's just one of those audiophile conceits that means everything and means nothing but is provocative as a descriptive term.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I dont know , but as you mentioned it i do like OLED screens

 

[Al M.]

Walk into a deserted concert hall, close your eyes and listen. Take some time in the wilderness, close your eyes and listen. Both are silent, both are dark, but they have a presence, a texture......its called a ‘velvety’ blackness because the blackness has texture. When there’s profound silence, you hear stuff you would normally never hear. Its those sounds that make the silence so magical, even if it happens to be the sound of blood circulating through your ears. Its something you sense more than hear. When there’s noise on your system this ‘feeling‘ is diminished or masked completely. The ‘blackness’ is something that is required to let you hear the very finest of detail.....its not about silence....its about being able to hear the quietest sounds against a silent background.
When the note of a concert grand piano blooms then decays, its the venue’s ambience blooming and decaying that gives the sound true dimensionality and realism. When the ambient decay is masked, hidden or remains unresolved because of noise, the reality of a real piano playing in a real venue is also lost. When your stereo is truly resolving, it will resolve this very fine detail in the presence of other sounds....its the spacial resolution and lack of noise that lets you hear one instrument‘s decay into silence while other instruments are still playing.

Single instrument recordings are very popular for audiophile demos because they are able to demonstrate this ‘decay into silence’ i.e the instrument’s complete dynamic. But in the presence of other instruments, any lack of resolution or noise will mask this detail and rob the sound of realism. Your system is truly working well when you can hear the full dynamics of one instrument and its performance venue in the presence of others.
Inky blackness is nothing. Switch your system off or don't press play and you’ll get all the inky blackness you want. What you’re really after is an ability to resolve the smallest, weakest sound waves and you’ll only resolve those when the background is still and undisturbed.

I agree with what you are saying, except one thing: black. There is no way that the background in a deserted concert hall or the silence in wilderness is "black". If you call it "velvety black" doesn't matter to me. A "black" silence is not what I associate with anything natural.

 

[Al M.]

Maybe it's just one of those audiophile conceits that means everything and means nothing but is provocative as a descriptive term.

That seems to be the case.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I agree with what you are saying, except one thing: black. There is no way that the background in a deserted concert hall or the silence in wilderness is "black". If you call it "velvety black" doesn't matter to me. A "black" silence is not what I associate with anything natural.

Depends where you are in nature .

I ve been to the south algerian sahara.
Hundreds of miles away from any civilisation , no cell phone reach no electricity no cars no roads no music nothing only sanddunes and rockformations .
It is dead quit and majestic, nothing but the universe i love it .
SIMPLE.

 

[tima]

I suppose that's where the eye of the beholder comes in. Does black background mean dynamic range and signal to noise ratio of the primary signal? Black means absence of color, so does it mean ability to perceive tonal contrasts and speed of tonal shifts? Maybe it's just one of those audiophile conceits that means everything and means nothing but is provocative as a descriptive term.

When I read or write audiophile adjectives used to describe gear and music, I like to consider the antonym of whatever word is used. Sometimes that can lead me to reconsider word choice. Being unsure if a color (non-color?) has an antonym, I checked a few thesauruses and sure enough 'white' is listed as an antonym of black.

Can an aural background be white? Never heard that description. Is it even a valid usage among visual adjectives used to describe sound? "...notes exploded from a velvty white background" Nah - or I don't know what that means. Could it mean something like 'noiseful'? That seems to be forcing black to make sense.

People are proposing explanations of the black usage. (Detail rich, low noise, etc.) Maybe those are more apt. On the surface, mapping color words onto sounds to describe what we hear doesn't work too well if we dig too deep into what is intended. Does it? Our vocabulary seems rich with visual description words but much less so with sound. Fwiw, 'black background' doesn't appear in J.Gordon Holt's Audio Glossary.

'Dark' is another visual adjective I have a difficult time grasping when used for describing audio equipment. "That preamp sounds darker than the other preamp." The antonym test ('lighter') maybe makes a little more sense, but I'm not sure. 'Lighter' contrasts better with 'weighty' than 'darker'. No doubt an attempt to describe something, we struggle onward to communicate.

 

[Blackmorec]

Look up into the heavens....the darker it is, the more light you see. The principal is similar.

 

[sbnx]

I think of two types of noise floor -- Electronic and acoustic. I think most would agree that lowering these noise floors will help you hear more micro detail of what is on the recording. But does this come at a cost? perhaps a little more noise gives a more live "you are there" sensation. Certain types of acoustic noise aka reflections can add to a sense of spaciousness and it is well documented that once you lower this type of noise below about 30dB below the main signal then that sense of spaciousness goes away. I have experienced this personally. For electrical noise I know that when I lowered the AC mains noise using Shunyata Triton/Typhon I got a bigger soundstage and what I guess most would call a "blacker" background.

I found this interesting and you might too. There was a study from the University of Basel last year that claims that low levels of white noise actually help people hear pure tones much better.

Here is a quote and the link to the paper. "White noise is not the same as other noise -- and even a quiet environment does not have the same effect as white noise. With a background of continuous white noise, hearing pure sounds becomes even more precise, as researchers have shown. Their findings could be applied to the further development of cochlear implants."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191112142926.htm

Enjoy,
Todd

 

[Empirical Audio]

I believe that some ultrasonic noise may actually improve audio perception. This is why these tiny acoustic resonators and ultrasonic emitters in the room actually improve the spaciality of the presentation, at least what your brain perceives. This effect may be a result of the fact that the current types of speakers integrate tightly into the room itself, and need the room to operate efficiently. These resonators and emitters may fool the brain into thinking that even though the room is coupled to the speakers, the finite extents of the room are perceived differently because of the ultrasonic devices. The speaker-room integration is working for the music, but the brain is fooled because the walls are "broken-up" by the ultrasonics, making it difficult for the brain to locate them. In effect, this makes the walls seem to disappear.

Anechoic chambers are not that great for stereo playback either. It seems to need some "live" surfaces and reflections in order to be interesting. These of course are contrived and not part of the original recording because of the varied delays and directionality involved. Maybe a different recording technique or playback system (particularly speakers) is required in order to use an anechoic chamber. Seems like it should be the optimum playback venue. The speakers back-wave would be absorbed however, and the speaker would get no help from the room for bass reinforcement, so a much different kind of speaker would be required.

It's probably that speakers are not ideal radiators, so the room reflective surfaces in effect become part of the speaker. The room itself becomes part of the speaker. Seems like a computer analysis could define the perfect speaker/placement that integrates with the room 100%, so the room becomes the speaker. The problem with this of course is that the room venue and the recording venue are never the same dimensions.

Given all of these challenges, it seems that the optimum current solution is to integrate the speaker optimally into the room and then use these ultrasonic devices to eliminate the walls acoustically. Then no matter what the dimensions of the recording venue, the presentation will reproduce that.

 

[stehno]

Interesting and very diversified comments. Seems like I may have opened a can of worms. Since I initiated the thread, I'd like to try to clarify what I was and am thinking cuz so far we all seem a bit all over the map. But that's good because I think it causes us to think things through a bit more thoroughly as all too often we think we're all on the same page when clearly we are not. And I certainly had my presumptions when I opened the thread. Anyway, this was my perspective.

As I think TimA or Roger Skoff said, black is indicative of a lack of information and how true. Also, sbns pointed out there are 2 types of noise floor - electronic and acoustic.

But thinking this thru a bit I count at least 7 types of noise floors at issue.

1. Electronic - equipment induced when powered on with no music signal processing. Think audible noise.
2. Electronic - equipment induced when powered on with music signal processing. Think inaudible noise.
3. Acoustic - soundstage induced with point source being music and reverberant info induced by the music. (Since this sound is the end-game, it's not really a noise floor, yet further consideration of noises floors and I'm convinced this is indeed a valid noise floor. But a good valid noise floor.)
4. Acoustic - recording hall induced e.g. A/C, bodily functions, doors shutting, etc.
5. Acoustic - listening room induced e.g. reflections, suck outs, etc.
6. Recording medium - Engineering induced e.g. tape hiss, etc.
7. Recording medium format - Mechanical friction e.g. a vinyl clicks, tics, pops, noisy transport, etc.

Whew! Hopefully that covers the brunt of noise floor types but there could be more.

As per my OP, all too often I read a comment posted by another after their upgrade claiming greater black and often times followed up with another comment like "how startling it is to hear a trumpet rise up out of that stark BLACK." or something like that.

A note about #1 Electronics - Noise floor impacted when equipment turned on and no music signal processing. Think audible noise. Though I considered this possibility at the outset, I dismissed this type primarily because even though some may have noisy components hopefully this only equates to something minor similar to tape hiss in the recording or perhaps the pops and ticks of vinyl and should be easily overlooked, especially if a constant.

Based on all the above, my only remaining focus includes:

#2 Electronics- Noise floor impacted when when powered on with music signal processing. This being my primary focus because here we all encounter electronics induced distortions from small to great. Hopefully nobody would argue that a raised noise floor caused by electronic-induced distortions (both audible and inaudible) raises the playback system's noise floor. And the more raised a noise floor the more music remains inaudible at the speaker. Here is where I suspect some-to-many encounter the black background remembering that black is indicative of no information. IMO, music retrieved and processed but inaudible at the speaker is the same as no information.

#3 - Acoustic - Noise floor impacted by the music presentation and any/all reverberant info of the music presentation upon the soundstage and recording hall. This is a can of worms but my perspective is that the bulk of music and its ambient info is indeed captured at the recording mic's and embedded in even some of the worst engineered recordings. There are two reasons why I think this a noise floor:

• During a live performance the music will frequently overshadow other sounds unrelated to the music. Hence, it is a noise floor.
• During playback and depending on how resolving the playback system is, the music will often times overshadow room acoustic anomalies even to the point where the room becomes nonessential. For the simple reason that in a truly resolving system the volume of music and volumes of the music's ambient info becomes a clear winner in this dog fight with the room. IOW, it's so overwhelming these two are no longer competing for our ears' attention. Hence, it is a noise floor.

In my mind I've deduced that 1 and 4 thru 7 are off the table. Also, some have mentioned sounds within the recording hall before the music presentation starts and after it stops or even an empty recording hall. Who cares? This has nothing to do with live music performances nor playback music performances. So this too is off the table.

All that said, when I read where somebody executed an upgrade and that action increased levels of blackness or increased a black background I was only thinking of #2 electronics-induced distortions while music was being processed. The fact that some of those people go on to say something like, "it's startling to hear a trumpet rise up out of this increased blackness" helps substantiate my thought that music must be playing and not just idle. This also leads me to think they've got a long way to go if music notes are rising up out of blackness.

Lastly, in this context, Blackmorec gave a nice illustration of "the darker the sky the more light you see". That is, assuming the electronics induced distortions have been absolutely minimized (blackness), thus greatly lowering the playback system's noise floor, then we hear far more of the music (light). This includes the volumes and volumes of ambient info where the live music is interacting with the soundstage boundaries and acoustics and embedded in the recording.

Thoughts?

 

[Al M.]

Interesting observations, Stehno. One comment at #3.

You said:
"in a truly resolving system the volume of music and volumes of the music's ambient info becomes a clear winner in this dog fight with the room."

Yet there are instances where the room becomes more of a problem regarding ambient info, the higher the resolution of the system.

I mentioned above that when I upgraded my previous tube amps with external BorderPatrol power supplies I could hear so much more spatial depth (which depends on ambient info), due to a lowered noise floor. Yet often the depth was too much, it was exaggerated. Unwanted room reflections amplified the apparent depth info to the extent that I could get upfront imaging only with spatially very dry presentations. All the other imaging was too recessed, and it became really frustrating. It took me a long time to get the room acoustics right, where I still have great absolute depth, but layering of and between recordings is more natural. At the same time greater differences are achieved between recordings, making the system more transparent to them. It's not just anymore indiscriminate depth, depth, depth.

With the previously lower spatial resolution I did not have these room problems.

 

[stehno]

Interesting observations, Stehno. One comment at #3.

You said:
"in a truly resolving system the volume of music and volumes of the music's ambient info becomes a clear winner in this dog fight with the room." Yet there are instances where the room becomes more of a problem regarding ambient info, the higher the resolution of the system.

Acknowledging first that we may be using same words but with slightly different defintions but taking your comments on its face and based on my limited experience I don't see how that's possible so I'd have to venture that's impossible. But of course I've no idea what kind of room anomalies you may endure (not that it should matter) and I've no idea what your idea of a higher resolution system might be. At face value anyway.

I mentioned above that when I upgraded my previous tube amps with external BorderPatrol power supplies I could hear so much more spatial depth (which depends on ambient info), due to a lowered noise floor. Yet often the depth was too much, it was exaggerated.

Again, taken on it's face and assuming we're using similar word defintions, I'd have to venture that it's not possible to have exaggerated depth. At least with genuine improvements and there's always a question mark there for all of us. For example. It's not all that unusual for somebody to upgrade a component or cable and say it was too detailed so I sold it. How is it possible for a product to be too detailed? At a live concert, there's no such thing as 101% detail. Only 100% from whatever listening perspective you may be. Sure, there's always the potential for a product mfg'er to zip up his product to sound more detailed (I remember a speaker mfg'er doing that with their tweeters) but that seems pretty rare these days.

From what I always gathered when somebody would exclaim a product too detailed, I just assumed it was potentially more resolving and therefore, exposing more distortions along with more music. Since a component generally does not discriminate between distortions and music we get more of both. Where most see this as ugly, I would think it an opportunity to investigate and further improve because obviously the previous component was masking the distortion.

So from my perspective, I'd probably ask a few questions like, what's your idea of depth? Do you prefer nearfield listening? Did the potential exist for some odd mismatch between the power supplies and amps cuz funky things can happen? Funky things happen if you wire a speaker out of phase too but I'm that wasn't an issue. At what point is it too much depth for you? Or for me? What was the health of the tubes? Etc.

About 7 or 8 years ago I installed some products in a distant associate's house who had an otherwsie very nice middle-of-the-road system. We let it sit for a couple of months and then he informed me he could hear no difference. So I visited him to have a listen and retrieve the products. IMO, his system sounded far more musical than previously. Now his 2nd story listening room was maybe 20' x 28' and what I consider spatious and he had a nice pair of Avalon speakers with obviously plenty of room to breath. But the really incredible thing was the sound stage which for the most part was in his frickin' front yard. And I'm not talking just on the other side of the window but well into the front yard like maybe 10-15 feet. I'd never heard anything like it before or since. Just incredible. What was even more incredible was here I was having a wet dream experience and he couldn't hear a bloomin' thing. I knew he lacked listening skills but I was dumbfounded he could not hear this depth of soundstage. Anyway, we set up his old system and had a listen and flat as a pancake the soundstage collapsed to right between the speakers and he still could not hear a difference.

Was that front yard soundstage exaggerated? I dunno. Maybe all the planets just happened to be in alignment. I'd kill for that soundstage depth. That was also 7 - 8 years ago and I like to think my listening skills matured much since then. Shoot, in the end maybe my associate had the ability to discern / interpret what he heard and I didn't. But the point being is there exists a number of variables including listening skilll levels and perspectives to consider when faced with such a situation and many times we just can't explain it. But taken on its face and assuming everything you installed was genuine and matching, I just don't see how it's possible to have too much depth.

Unwanted room reflections amplified the apparent depth info to the extent that I could get upfront imaging only with spatially very dry presentations. All the other imaging was too recessed, and it became really frustrating. It took me a long time to get the room acoustics right, where I still have great absolute depth, but layering of and between recordings is more natural.

If (and it is so) a much raised noise floor mean more music processed remains inaudible at the speaker because it falls below the raised noise floor that implies we're hearing less of the music and ESPECIALLY much less of the performance's ambient info. This is where the direct competition with the room comes in. IMO, a performance's ambient info is the lowest of low-level info and the first to become inaudible. And to me that implies I'm hearing much less of the concert hall's ambient info and therefore I'm gonna' potentially hear much more of the room acoustics' anomalies. BTW, apart from having a "reasonable" room, I put almost zero stock in rooms, their anomalies, and associated treatments. Hopefully, it's because my listening perspective has already been transported to the concert - even if it's by the restrooms.

At the same time greater differences are achieved between recordings, making the system more transparent to them. It's not just anymore indiscriminate depth, depth, depth.

With the previously lower spatial resolution I did not have these room problems.

BTW, you should also consider the contributions of your active gain stage / pre-amp. I once had an extreme situation with a new amp where it seemed every single initial attack of a music note was 2 ft in front of my face while the decay was well behind the speakers. Talk about unmusical. It was like my ears were running up on the soundstage for inital attacks and then runniing back to the audience for the ensuing decay. Nothing musical there. Figured it out, returned the product, guessed and stumbled across the perfect fix where it seems all the music is now upon the soundstage for the first time ever and my ears firmly planted in the audience. I learned much from that experience but that's another story.

Anyway, that's my limited perspective.

 

[Al M.]

BTW, apart from having a "reasonable" room, I put almost zero stock in rooms, their anomalies, and associated treatments.

That explains your bewilderment with my post. You are apparently not aware of the profound degree to which room acoustics can affect sound.

I agree with you, there cannot be "too much" detail. But spatial ambience is not the usual detail. -- In the context of my post, resolution was about spatial resolution.

First let me say that the specific problems in my room were evident to a larger degree than they might be elsewhere because of the relatively large distance from speaker drivers to front wall (wall behind speakers), which is 7 feet. Many systems have the speaker drivers only 2 to 3 feet from the front wall. If I move the speakers closer to the front wall, the soundstage becomes flatter. In connection with the speaker distance to the front wall, a too lively scoustic in the front end of the room (from speaker drivers to front wall) gave rise to problems.

There was a speaker and room setup manual by Thiel on the web (link deleted; I wish I had copied the file somewhere) that pointed out that many audiophile systems have a too recessed soundstage. The cause, they said, was a too lively front end of the room. This is confirmed by my experience.

To an acoustician, with whom I talked about other things, I mentioned in passing that I had a large absorbing panel 2 feet away from my front wall, and that I had put it there in order to bring images more forward. He understood immediately, it was not even a discussion.

In any case, I solved the problem with my room acoustics by making the front end more dead, while keeping the back end lively. Now I get natural imaging and the largest difference in spatial portrayal between recordings, making the reproduction transparent to the differences.

And no, there is nothing wrong with my electronics. Your suggestion came out of a lack of experience with room acoustics and the dramatic effect they can have on the sound.