Creating a Audio Dartboard

[MylesBAstor]

I was sitting here thinking about some the ridiculousness of the DBT/measurements group and their proponents total lack of comprehension about music. Musical emotion can't be broken down into 0s and 1s or lots of waves or Fourier transforms floating around an oscilloscope or statistical tests. Let's face it. The human ear is the best test instrument ever placed on this Earth. And for those who say it's unreliable, is the ear any more unreliable than our eyes? Certainly our eyes can be fooled. What riles me up even further are those who trust their vision but don't trust their ears!

Hell, when was the last time you ever heard of a musician buying a violin or piano based on its measurements? When have you ever heard a musician say all instruments sound alike? Try never. I've shopped with several musicians looking at the best pianos and they use the exact same terms (maybe just a little different jargon) to describe the sound of the pianos they're auditioning. Look the piano measures flat. Look, the parts used in building the instrument don't matter. ROFLMAO (and to boot, those who have measured masterpieces like Strads, still are at a loss to explain what gives the instrument its beautiful tone.) Utter nonsense.

 

[naturephoto1]

I was sitting here thinking about some the ridiculousness of the DBT/measurements group and their proponents total lack of comprehension about music. Musical emotion can't be broken down into 0s and 1s or lots of waves or Fourier transforms floating around an oscilloscope or statistical tests. Let's face it. The human ear is the best test instrument ever placed on this Earth. And for those who say it's unreliable, is the ear any more unreliable than our eyes? Certainly our eyes can be fooled. What riles me up even further are those who trust their vision but don't trust their ears!

Hell, when was the last time you ever heard of a musician buying a violin or piano based on its measurements? When have you ever heard a musician say all instruments sound alike? Try never. I've shopped with several musicians looking at the best pianos and they use the exact same terms (maybe just a little different jargon) to describe the sound of the pianos they're auditioning. Look the piano measures flat. Look, the parts used in building the instrument don't matter. ROFLMAO (and to boot, those who have measured masterpieces like Strads, still are at a loss to explain what gives the instrument its beautiful tone.) Utter nonsense.

Myles,

Well said.

Rich

 

[Bruce B]

You know the biggest thing that pisses me off at the moment?

People that now have access to spectral analysis and such and deem anything less than 24/88.2 not worthy of even listening to.

I've even had people diss my mastering because they could "hear" the JPS Labs cable. At the time, the analog chain distance was too long for the JPS labs cables I was using and I had to use a custom pair of Mogami Gold cables. I couldn't bear to embarrass them in front of their peers.

Some of the best best music I have ever heard was at 24/44.1 People were praising SACD's until they found out labels were putting 24/44.1 material on them. Now they are saying they "thought" something was wrong with that SACD, file.. (insert media).

PEOPLE.... LISTEN WITH YOUR EARS... NOT YOUR EYES!!!!!

 

[FrantzM]

Myles

based on your post .. People should listen to music on their iPod ... with the regular Apple buds ....

Frantz

 

[MylesBAstor]

You know the biggest thing that pisses me off at the moment?

People that now have access to spectral analysis and such and deem anything less than 24/88.2 not worthy of even listening to.

I've even had people diss my mastering because they could "hear" the JPS Labs cable. At the time, the analog chain distance was too long for the JPS labs cables I was using and I had to use a custom pair of Mogami Gold cables. I couldn't bear to embarrass them in front of their peers.

Some of the best best music I have ever heard was at 24/44.1 People were praising SACD's until they found out labels were putting 24/44.1 material on them. Now they are saying they "thought" something was wrong with that SACD, file.. (insert media).

PEOPLE.... LISTEN WITH YOUR EARS... NOT YOUR EYES!!!!!

Bruce,

I find your comments spot on! How many times do you hear people automatically assume SACD sounds the best? You know, there can be crappy SACD just as well as normal red book digital!

I'd be interested in your experience but Steve Hoffman a while back wrote on his forum that to his ears, the vinyl remastering was the closest to the actual master tape, followed by the 24/88 and brought up in the rear by the SACD.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles

based on your post .. People should listen to music on their iPod ... with the regular Apple buds ....

Frantz

Having listened to music for close to 2 years for all intents and purposes to a Walkman (2001-2003), there is something to be said for that.

I think, however, it's in part the degree to which one is moved. I certainly can "groove" to the music even today on my iPod while working out at the gym. But the big difference is that I'm also stepping back and not being a critical about sound; I'm just purely enjoying the music! And in the end, enjoying the music is what counts! (and sadly that's what people think most audiophiles are - someone who can listen to crappy performances recorded in great sound otherwise known as the JGH paradox )

 

[vinylphilemag]

Myles, I agree with you 100% on this one! I listen with my ears, not my oscilloscope...

In an ideal world, yes, everything we hear should be measureable. But we're not there yet, and I submit that we may not even know everything that needs to be measured, let alone how to do so.

 

[naturephoto1]

Myles, I agree with you 100% on this one! I listen with my ears, not my oscilloscope...

In an ideal world, yes, everything we hear should be measureable. But we're not there yet, and I submit that we may not even know everything that needs to be measured, let alone how to do so.

Hi Rich,

+100.

You and I have been having this same conversation and discussion with others elsewhere on-line for some time and you know that I agree with you whole heartily on this issue.

Rich

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles, I agree with you 100% on this one! I listen with my ears, not my oscilloscope...

In an ideal world, yes, everything we hear should be measureable. But we're not there yet, and I submit that we may not even know everything that needs to be measured, let alone how to do so.

Having come from a science background, I too feel the need to introduce reductionism into the picture to help explain everything. But one problem with the reductionist approach is that it just can't take into account unpredictable synergies that might occur. It's like when I teach anatomy and tell the students its more than just memorizing the muscles; anatomy or what is better termed integrated structural anatomy, is how the calf affects the muscles on the brow of the head, etc.

 

[Bruce B]

I'd be interested in your experience but Steve Hoffman a while back wrote on his forum that to his ears, the vinyl remastering was the closest to the actual master tape, followed by the 24/88 and brought up in the rear by the SACD.

Interesting, didn't the latest Nat King Cole go SACD by him?

It's all in the performance. Unfortunately I can't cut vinyl here, but I can certainly play it. The closest I've heard from the master tapes off my Studers is DSD128fs followed closely by DXD at 32/352.8khz, depending on the performance. Too bad neither of these formats is a viable solution for Joe Blow off the street.

Another good thing that I'm doing is that David Chesky told us to keep all these DSD files we've been transferring so that maybe in the future when internet bandwidth and HDD become faster/cheaper they can offer these at their native resolutions! We'll see.

My friend Mike has several performances in SACD, 45LP and Redbook and it's a crap shoot on what version sounds the best.


Regards,

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Sure, Myles. OTOH, the piano is producing the music and contributing (with the performer and room) all the parameters necessary for your complete appreciation. The audio equipment is REproducing the music. It should not contribute (or delete) anything.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Sure, Myles. OTOH, the piano is producing the music and contributing (with the performer and room) all the parameters necessary for your complete appreciation. The audio equipment is REproducing the music. It should not contribute (or delete) anything.

Maybe it has to do with suspending disbelief like in movies?

 

[FrantzM]

Sure, Myles. OTOH, the piano is producing the music and contributing (with the performer and room) all the parameters necessary for your complete appreciation. The audio equipment is REproducing the music. It should not contribute (or delete) anything.

EXACTLY !!!

Let us step back for a second and go with what is more immediate: Are you suggesting that we should go back to the Wax cylinder? The better the reproduction chain the more music is brought to our ears.. Shouldn't that be the goal? Isn't it the goal? To make the capture and reproduction of the event better we must use technology ...err .. science .. Those are Oscilloscopes, those are the Voltmeters .. Those are the equations .. Without these you would not have had the tubes you so love or the Pick-up cartridges or the Turntable you , would be the first to admit have gotten better ... You don't just hear the rumble .. you measure and the lower it is (all things being equal) the better the TT. How do you set the bias of a Tube? By ear only reliably, all the time ? How do you know what resistor to use ? Through the applications of equations and since these resistors vary quite a bit from their nominal values ...Shouldn't that be measured? When you are matching tubes don't you measure these? What do you think crossover points are if not the solutions of some abstract mathematical functions ... Crossover themselves are physical representations of differential equations, you more than a lot of people here, know that
If you are about producing music then all things are good .. Jimmy Hendrix made beautiful music out of the screech of an over-driven tube amplifier is that what we should do .. Overdrive the amp and declare that what we hear is good .. that what our ears tell us is nice , when a violin that the violinist intend to be piercing is now soft and fuzzy because the amp is producing tremendous amount of seconds harmonics ?
So our ears can't be fooled? So Musicians don't use technological tools to tune their instruments? I have seen musician use both a Tuning Fork AND a thermometer (!) to tune their instruments .. They don't see any disconnect they use science and technology to produce music.
DBT is but one tool, it can be used t make our equipment better. That does not mean it explains everything but it DOES explain some ... It helps debunk quite a few myths ... Many things don't contribute in ANY way to the sound and if when you see it you hear and you don't see it you can't .. Let us allow ourselves an honest pause...
The amplifiers that we all like, you really think their designer did not use and oscilloscope or a meter or a stable signal generator or a precise Distortion meter or other meter sometimes of the highest precision and yes .. They listen , that is where the art comes the great designer balances the various constraints and pull out a great component but measure they do .. Measure AND listen the best do ... There is no disconnect ... You don't need an oscilloscope to feel the emotion of the music but you can bet one had to be used to bring the music to you. And if that reproduction can bring you close to the original even you can bet the House that science in the form of an oscilloscope or a bunch of "1" and "0) were used somewhere along the way .. unless you are listening to a wax cylinder ...

Frantz

 

[Gregadd]

I cannot think of one instance where DBT has improved anything in audio! That is because to my knowledge it has only been used to gore the other guys ox. Neither side ever accepts the results.They continue on the same course. The side that fails claims the test is flawed. If someone is actually able to correctly pick the sample he or she is deemed some freak of nature.

 

[amirm]

I cannot think of one instance where DBT has improved anything in audio!

Oh, let's not go overboard . DBT has improved a ton of audio. Good examples are anything Harman group produces (Revel, JBL, etc.) and practically every audio compression system.

Now to be fair, there is a mix of subjective and objective blind testing used in all of above but there is a solid place for blind testing and instrumentation. Yes, if you stand in the middle of the road you can get hit by both sides . But that is where I stand on such things. I have seen merits of both....

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Oh, let's not go overboard . DBT has improved a ton of audio. Good examples are anything Harman group produces (Revel, JBL, etc.) and practically every audio compression system.

Now to be fair, there is a mix of subjective and objective blind testing used in all of above but there is a solid place for blind testing and instrumentation. Yes, if you stand in the middle of the road you can get hit by both sides . But that is where I stand on such things. I have seen merits of both....

Yup. I am straddling the white line, too. It is because the reproduction system has a simply defined (although difficult to accomplish) task that measurements are most applicable and, theoretically, capable of defining the system's performance. However, development of the right measurement tools is an ongoing effort and still incomplete. In addition, there are issues of personal preference to further confuse the matter.

 

[JackD201]

Maybe it has to do with suspending disbelief like in movies?

That's always been my thinking Myles. Anything "reproduced" in my opinion is all about suspension of disbelief. It doesn't matter if the goal is like Kal's which focuses being true to the source material or like Tom's which seeks to recreate the event or many great producers and engineers whose focus is in preserving the artistic intent of the composer and performers. Whichever of the extremes, I believe it is a matter of how closely the user, with the aid of his equipment, can put himself in that position of suspended disbelief for extended periods of time without being distracted from the "story" by introducing discontinuities and maybe some goofy special effects. Not surprising then that the subject of a favorite drink always pops up in tweak discussions? Because sometimes a stiff drink really does help!

Here's where subjectivity comes in as far as I am concerned. Some of us are more sensitive to tone, some dynamics, some phase. The tendency is for the individual to choose and tune equipment that plays to his or her hot buttons. I find absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. If that is what allows the listener to connect better with the music hence maintaining the illusion, why not?

What I do find wrong is if one goes too far overboard and instruments and voices border on being unrecognizable. Extreme examples like no longer being able to tell between acoustic bass and electric bass or a nylon stringed guitar and a steel stringed one because personally this type of over-coloring affects the music itself by distorting the musical sub contexts of the pieces and not just the sound per se.

Seeing as all human's hot buttons are different and even perhaps as unique as finger prints, I find it difficult to see how DBTs whose results are based on a sample population's means and their deviations can address qualitative issues for the individual. I've said it before, it can tell a manufacturer many useful things about his product. Full measuring and testing likewise benefits the manufacturers in helping them attain their design targets and meet their quality control standards. It doesn't mean however that all these will assure satisfaction for every single prospective customer. If it did, we'd all be listening to the same systems in the same rooms.

Let us step back for a second and go with what is more immediate: Are you suggesting that we should go back to the Wax cylinder? <sic> .. unless you are listening to a wax cylinder ...

Frantz

Funny you should mention the Phonograph Frantz. I did a lecture on the history of recorded music and research said that the wax cylinders were superior in sound quality to the Gramophone. It lost because of Edison's reluctance to license out his technology earlier and because the cylinders were more difficult and expensive to produce and store. Sounds a lot like the Betamax vs VHS battle and the LP vs Compact Cassette vs. CD battles. The lesson I learned is that the better format doesn't always win. We're seeing the exact same thing again with CDs vs MP3.

 

[Steve williams]

In terms of fooling our senses raises the age old audiophile question as to who listens with lights off vs lights on?

For me the illusion is always maximized listening with lights off.

I remember listening several years ago with a young man wearing glasses. While listening he removed his glasses. When I asked why, he commented that he could hear sound reflections off the frames of his glasses.

 

[FrantzM]

HI

I apologize !! I wanted to delete my OWN post for completion not Jack's .. Please accept my apologies poeple.. Steve Can you quickly restor his post and Jack, again sorry that wasn't the itent at all. Will reply to your post soon as a matter of fact ..

Frantz

 

[Steve williams]

Done