Do you really trust your ears?

[Phelonious Ponk]

Phelonius, I know we can start a whole new thread on judging experiences. But let's say you are lying on a beach of the Arkansas river, and it is sublime for a moment - and then quickly switch to a moment on the beach at the French Riviera. Those specific experiences may be comparable. But I would argue that if you look at your Arkansas vacation vs. your European vacation in whole, you may come to a different conclusion. I will start a thread on this in the sometime future when I catch up on my other reading here.

Absolutely. If I'm lying on a beach in Arkansas, with the sun shining down on my closed eyes, and I suddenly switch to the French Riviera, with the same temperature, the same humidity, the same wind speed, barometric pressure, etc...it will be exactly the same experience. If I open my eyes and realize I'm not longer on the river in Arkansas but on the beach in the South of France, I will, no doubt, convince myself that it is much, much better.

It was an interesting analogy but it works for the content, the music, not so much for the reproduction.

Tim

 

[c1ferrari]

Hi Caesar,

I do trust my ears, but it is not enough...I want to train myself to become a skilled listener, so I can communicate what I experience using standards as a point of departure.

 

[garylkoh]

Sam, I think the problem is that no one has managed to define listening "standards".

There are measurement standards - FR +/- some little dB for loudspeakers, THD less than some minuscule percentage. However, no one has managed to define what these sound like. In the other thread, JA pointed to his series of articles on measuring loudspeakers. In part 1, he lists some vocabulary used to describe subjective loudspeaker performance, but only manages to correlate some to objective measurements. So, even there it is not exhaustive, and subject to interpretation and argument.

 

[c1ferrari]

Hi, Gary!

Thank you for considering my post For clarification, I would like to recognize phenomena variously described as "suckout" or excessive "energy", for example, by relating relevant frequency. Hopefully, aural sensitivity to amplitude will ensue.

I find Sean's / Harman's "How to Listen" very exciting. This is the sort of "standard" to which I hope to approach competence! I'm on Level 7 of ID'ing peaks in one of the Band ID exercises...I think Amir queried the number of bands on a different thread.

The objective, of course, is increased communication vis-a-vis a common origin and point of reference. I hope I wasn't too pedantic

 

[tonmeister2008]

Sam, I think the problem is that no one has managed to define listening "standards".

There are measurement standards - FR +/- some little dB for loudspeakers, THD less than some minuscule percentage. However, no one has managed to define what these sound like. In the other thread, JA pointed to his series of articles on measuring loudspeakers. In part 1, he lists some vocabulary used to describe subjective loudspeaker performance, but only manages to correlate some to objective measurements. So, even there it is not exhaustive, and subject to interpretation and argument.

But there are defined listening test standards, for example:

ITU-R BS 1116 (high quality audio codecs) see http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I/e.

ITU-R BS 1534 a.k.a. MUSHRA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-R_BS.1534-1).

IEC Standard IEC 60268-13: Sound system equipment. Part 13: Listening tests on loudspeakers (see http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/Artnum_PK/22890).

If you look at the PhD research of Wolfgang Klippel you will find that he has developed a psychoacoustic model that accurately predicts the perceived attributes of loudspeaker sound quality based on a combination of anechoic (on-axis) and in-room (sound power) measurements. (see http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5765).

While I agree that THD is a pretty useless indicator of sound quality, and more work is needed to find more relevant psychoacoustic measurements of nonlinear distortion, the science of correlating subjective vs. objective linear measurements of loudspeakers is pretty mature.

 

[c1ferrari]

Hi Sean,

Thanks for the references...I'll peruse them.

 

[garylkoh]

Thanks, Sean. There are listening standards for basic sound quality, distortion, stereo image, etc. In the systems of the majority of forum members, we are likely to have already gone beyond these basic standards. May be I'm wrong - but the speakers used by many of the forum members - Revel, Martin Logan, Magico, Wilson, Rockport just to name a few should already reach these standards.

Klippel sells loudspeaker measurement software and hardware, and conducts workshops on loudspeaker design, measurement and testing. They have a nice "Audibility of Distortion"
http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/lt/default.html

But my point is that in JA's articles, he has managed to correlate some subjective standards to objective measurements, but there are very many more that there is no correlation to anything we know how to measure.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/99/index.html

 

[NorthStar]

Say what?

The title of this thread is an interesting one!

In Audio, what should we use first to measure the degree of emotional connection to the Music?
a) Our ears?
b) Our heart & soul?
c) Our gear including the loudspeakers and the room?
d) Scientific measurements?
e) Some, all or none of the above?

...And then, there are many other factors that enter the equation...
Like for example; Live versus reproduced music! ...The performers, the artists, the musicians, the contact, the venues, the time, the space, the disposition, the internal and external sense of enlightenment, the aura, ...

 

[microstrip]

(...) While I agree that THD is a pretty useless indicator of sound quality, and more work is needed to find more relevant psychoacoustic measurements of nonlinear distortion, the science of correlating subjective vs. objective linear measurements of loudspeakers is pretty mature.

I appreciate your last comment. I really believe that manufacturers have now a much better knowledge of how to correlate the measurements they get from their state of the art current instruments with subjective data. However, IMHO, unhappily consumers still can not take any profit of these advances for personnel evaluation or selection of their equipment, other then rejecting a few flawed designs, as this information is not easily available.

BTW, looking for information about the work of Wolfgang Klippel I found this subject in one of his recent seminars summary :

"Which loudspeaker nonlinearities are good and which are bad?"

Do you have any idea what he is addressing?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Long-term learning may certainly be a factor that influences your preference in the case of loudspeakers, for example. But I would argue it is less of a factor for a trained and experienced listener.

I'm not so sure long term exposure matters with AB/X tests where the audible differences are near or below absolute threshold, and all of the nuisance variables (e.g. listener training, program material, playback environment) are well controlled and sensitive measuring to the variable under test. Fatigue is only one of the nuisance variables, and it can be controlled as well. You can stop the test if the subject is fatigued, and let them resume the test when they feel rested. The research I've seen indicates that for loudspeaker evaluations using trained listeners, fatigue is not a factor until you get beyond 30-40 minutes.

The problem is that so few listening evaluations are properly controlled, so there is justification to doubt the meaning and validity of the results and conclusions.

i think that specifically with loudspeakers, short time periods are more valid, particularly when you are comparing one model to a different model, or one brand to a different brand. loudspeakers vary considerably more than amps or source gear....and typically involve preference/flavor as opposed to which is better. what would take time auditioning loudspeakers would be set-up and system context. loudspeakers are absolutely context sensitive so generalizations are difficult without experimentation.

if you are doing loudspeaker design, and testing for small design changes, i can see that expereinced listeners trained to know the design goals and familiar with past efforts would be particularly valuable. OTOH how important those things would be in comparing brands is debatable. it would depend on the tastes of the listener. i would think having a reference system that is linear and full range with familiar music would give any listener a reference to go out and judge for themselves whether the target speaker measures up.

maybe if the 'house sound' of the trained listeners was the target for purchase then it would be essential. but to me the sound of music is a better thing to be trained for.

on source gear, amps, preamps, and even media; it takes more time to really judge. and it requires a system that is familiar. quick A/B's have no value to me with this type of investigation unless there are obvious problems or obvious lack of performance.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

This may seem OT. In many of these debates lost seems to be the value of the training the Audiophiles go through to arrive at their "preference". While many audiophiles may not go to some formal training to listen they are trained... or they become trained listeners during the course of their audiophile lives and/or activities. I am almost certain that no one who frequent this forum would prefer Bose over anything .. No! So the preferences are formed in the context of comparison with a known source, somehow ...

I understand that these preferences are highly individual but they have to have a common thread ... The Audio band being so wide and so imperfectly reproduced by our transducers, it is clear we will prefer some over others ... but there is a common ground. This common ground, this "baseline" if you will IMO can and should be scientifically approached as well as more pragmatic (and ultimately more fun ) approaches And in there the removal of non-auditive or auditory-related biases is important ...
I was reminded of this by hearing this morning a kid playing a drum set.. He just got a set of drums from his father and has been playing it non-stop there is NO mistaking a Live set of drums; a live ANYTHING ... No golden ear needed .. We still have a lot of work in front of us before we get there ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi

This may seem OT. In many of these debates lost seems to be the value of the training the Audiophiles go through to arrive at their "preference". While many audiophiles may not go to some formal training to listen they are trained... or they become trained listeners during the course of their audiophile lives and/or activities. I am almost certain that no one who frequent this forum would prefer Bose over anything .. No! So the preferences are formed in the context of comparison with a known source, somehow ...

I understand that these preferences are highly individual but they have to have a common thread ... The Audio band being so wide and so imperfectly reproduced by our transducers, it is clear we will prefer some over others ... but there is a common ground. This common ground, this "baseline" if you will IMO can and should be scientifically approached as well as more pragmatic (and ultimately more fun ) approaches And in there the removal of non-auditive or auditory-related biases is important ...
I was reminded of this by hearing this morning a kid playing a drum set.. He just got a set of drums from his father and has been playing it non-stop there is NO mistaking a Live set of drums; a live ANYTHING ... No golden ear needed .. We still have a lot of work in front of us before we get there ...

Yep, and anyone who wants smooth and musical may not really be looking for "live." There is nothing even remotely smooth about a crash cymbal going off 10 feet from your head. It's damned intrusive. It is what a lot of audiophiles would call harsh. It is a thing of great beauty.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Yep, and anyone who wants smooth and musical may not really be looking for "live." There is nothing even remotely smooth about a crash cymbal going off 10 feet from your head. It's damned intrusive. It is what a lot of audiophiles would call harsh. It is a thing of great beauty.

Tim

I really have to wander how many on this forum are listening on a regular basis to 'live' music?
I agree that the sound of crash cymbal going off 10' from your head is "damned intrusive" and IMO memorable! The reason I trust my ears is that I know what I like based on what to me sounds like the closest thing to the sound of 'live' un-amplified instruments in a real space. If you haven't heard recently what the real instrument sounds like , perhaps your memory becomes a little less reliable.
IMHO, even the sound of a 'live' electric guitar amplified through an amp has a specific sound. As a player, I can delineate the sound of a Gibson Les Paul with hum-buckers vs . a Tele with single coils or a Strat with hot pups vs. a '57 Tele etc. Even the difference in the amp sounds is noticeable...a Tweed amp vs. a rectifier or a 4 12" stack etc.
I truly believe for my ears, to listen to the real thing first and then to the system or piece under consideration, is important if I want to get an arbiter of the piece in question.

 

[mep]

Yep, and anyone who wants smooth and musical may not really be looking for "live." There is nothing even remotely smooth about a crash cymbal going off 10 feet from your head. It's damned intrusive. It is what a lot of audiophiles would call harsh. It is a thing of great beauty.

Tim

I would never say the sound of any cymbal being hit by a drummer was harsh. I have been next to many a drum kit over the years and I love the sound of a drum set being played by a good drummer. It is a thing of beauty. And like Frantz said, stand next to a drummer playing live and you realize how far we are from duplicating that at home over cones, domes, ribbons, planars, etc. We aren't there people. We have a damn good illusion of it though. Just don't kid yourself and say you have it all. You don't.

 

[DaveyF]

I would never say the sound of any cymbal being hit by a drummer was harsh. I have been next to many a drum kit over the years and I love the sound of a drum set being played by a good drummer. It is a thing of beauty. And like Frantz said, stand next to a drummer playing live and you realize how far we are from duplicating that at home over cones, domes, ribbons, planars, etc. We aren't there people. We have a damn good illusion of it though. Just don't kid yourself and say you have it all. You don't.

mep, I totally agree with your post, well put

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

mep, I totally agree with your post, well put

It was well-put. My comment about "harsh" was only meant relative to many audiophile systems I've heard that dip the upper midrange or roll off the highs to create a smooth, euphonic sound. It's easy to listen to, but it's not real. A crash, cymbal, an unmuted trumpet, the bridge pickup of a Telecaster through a Twin Reverb...these are not smooth, warm, or euphonic in life. They are jarring. They are intrusive. They are truly musical.

Tim

 

[fas42]

It was well-put. My comment about "harsh" was only meant relative to many audiophile systems I've heard that dip the upper midrange or roll off the highs to create a smooth, euphonic sound. It's easy to listen to, but it's not real. A crash, cymbal, an unmuted trumpet, the bridge pickup of a Telecaster through a Twin Reverb...these are not smooth, warm, or euphonic in life. They are jarring. They are intrusive. They are truly musical.

Tim

Amen. And don't worry, Tim, I won't interrupt the flow, in spite of Frantz's provocative ending pronouncement ...

Frank

 

[rblnr]

It was well-put. My comment about "harsh" was only meant relative to many audiophile systems I've heard that dip the upper midrange or roll off the highs to create a smooth, euphonic sound. It's easy to listen to, but it's not real. A crash, cymbal, an unmuted trumpet, the bridge pickup of a Telecaster through a Twin Reverb...these are not smooth, warm, or euphonic in life. They are jarring. They are intrusive. They are truly musical.

Tim

Big Yep to all the yeps. Have had this conversation with a lot of audiophiles over the years -- the value put on 'smooth' is often totally misguided IMO. Can = boring and wrong. Cymbals as noted. Ever hear Neil Young's guitar when he's pissed off?

Have a DAC now that people love and it clearly rolls off highs. Not my thing.

 

[muralman1]

It was well-put. My comment about "harsh" was only meant relative to many audiophile systems I've heard that dip the upper midrange or roll off the highs to create a smooth, euphonic sound. It's easy to listen to, but it's not real. A crash, cymbal, an unmuted trumpet, the bridge pickup of a Telecaster through a Twin Reverb...these are not smooth, warm, or euphonic in life. They are jarring. They are intrusive. They are truly musical.

Tim

I agree, rolling off the highs is a chicken way to solve the digital nasties. I know some very expensive systems that sound warm and friendly all the time. My engineer friend told me the, "Highs are the hardest thing to get right." When you get them right, your system should not shy away from the more piercing instruments.

 

[microstrip]

I was reminded of this by hearing this morning a kid playing a drum set.. He just got a set of drums from his father and has been playing it non-stop there is NO mistaking a Live set of drums; a live ANYTHING ... No golden ear needed .. We still have a lot of work in front of us before we get there ...

Tim,
After reading your comment I would like to add some words.

In my case, the objective of high-end audio is not emulating the exact life sound in my room. Most of the time I do not want to have exactly the same sound pressure as in a live event - but I want to have as many as possible positive clues of a live event that allow me to perceive it as a live event. Better still - to get a similar pleasure I got from a life event, added to fact that I am listening in my system at my room.

The ideal sound level for reproducing a recording depends in some part on the way the engineers recorded it, on the equipment and the listening room acoustics, but also on listener preference.

Reproducing a set of drums is enjoyable for some people and is a nice challenge for a show demonstration or a test. I own and enjoy the Bill Elgart recordings by Mark Levinson, as well as the Shefield direct cut LP Drum record and the Burmester drum track of test CD III . My current speakers (Sound lab A1 Pxs) do not have the bass and dynamic capabilities of a pair of Wilson Maxx's I have hosted for a few months, but I consider they are more life like in the reproduction of the recordings I listen 95% of the time.

Just to summarize - I do not consider that reproducing a set of drums at life like sound levels as an objective of sound reproduction. Others will think differently.