The explorations into the cognitive science of the perception and interpretation of musical sounds goes way deeper than analyzing which areas of your brain light up during PET scans. There are computational models and modeling based on biological computations to asses and analyze musical psychology in a computational environment, with well stablished formulas and theories to predict with very exacting precision. It is a fascinating world, worlds apart from the clinical environment.
DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
The explorations into the cognitive science of the perception and interpretation of musical sounds goes way deeper than analyzing which areas of your brain light up during PET scans. There are computational models and modeling based on biological computations to asses and analyze musical psychology in a computational environment, with well stablished formulas and theories to predict with very exacting precision. It is a fascinating world, worlds apart from the clinical environment.
While this is all true, humans do share certain perceptual rules- the higher ordered harmonics are used to sense sound pressure (and so if any type of higer ordered distortion including aliasing is present, it will stand out even if in very slight amounts), the ear assigns a tonality to all forms of distortion (hence many audiophile terms like brightness, warmth and so on) and the presence of lower ordered harmonics can mask the presence of the higher orders if the lower orders have enough amplitude. This is by no means a complete list...
So while preference is a thing, it can also be argued that the format that produces less higher ordered distortion content is probably the 'better' format as the distortions will be more innocuous.
From a review I did for The Audio Beat on the Lamm M1.2
"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir [Lamm] will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."
The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book What to Listen for in Music, American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music."
If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses."
"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir [Lamm] will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."
The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book What to Listen for in Music, American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music."
If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses."
I entered this thread when it was claimed that "measurements", of those aspects that could be measured, in music reproduction could somehow prove which system is going to be enjoyed most by the listener.
My thoughts on that matter are that there is no evidence that all of those measurements (of things that can be measured) can determine which music playback system is going to be most enjoyable to all people. In fact, my thoughts are expressed most accurately (and correctly) by tima in his entry above ( at 0700).
I disagree when you argue that measurements of "measurable" aspects will somehow accurately predict real biological responses "with very exacting precision", by using non-biological "computational models" that "analyse musical psychology in a computational environment" because such is, by definition, predicting outcome in models designed to explain the measurements, not measuring actual biological responses.
Let me remind you of a somewhat arrogant and challenging statement that I have seen repeated on your entries, I think it says; "Greatest fool of all is the one who fools himself"
I’m not sure when this turned personal for you, but I would encourage you to quit the personal attacks while you can. My background is in both science and engineering and judging from your comprehension of what I have written on this thread, I suspect that yours isn’t. I value my time and do not wish to waste it educating trolls.
I begrudgingly concede ^preference[subjective or ptherwise] is a thing." It is however too often used as an escape hatch where argument is lacking..
***
Logically if digital captured music better than analog tape or vice versa then why introduce another conversion with its' inevitable addition of distortoon?
***
Logically if digital captured music better than analog tape or vice versa then why introduce another conversion with its' inevitable addition of distortoon?
I would like to correct something in my last statement, my position on whether "measurements" will determine what sounds best to all people was better stated by Vladimir Lamm and Aaron Copland as quoted (and expanded by) tima (above). It is something intuitive that happens as soon as we start listening, either it reaches us on an emotional level or it doesn't. For me, digital sourced music never has, but although highly unlikely, it could be just me who feels this way.
Carlos269, You are correct, my background is not in engineering, it is in philosophy and the medical sciences. I suspect that is why you and I perceive the world in different ways. I would guess that you prefer digital to analogue music playback over pure analogue, and suspect that as an engineer you attribute such to "better measurements".
In regards to your last entry, I do not wish to be educated by you, nor do I consider myself a troll for pointing out that your always-present aphorism "Greatest fool of all is the one who fools himself", still attached to all your postings, can be interpreted as saying "Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool" which is in fact challenging and arrogant. If not the reason you include it then I apologise. Please tell us why you include it.
Sorry, Carlos, while I have agreed on several points with you here, you are wrong on the neuroscience one, and Rensselaer is right. You are ascribing too much to scientific knowledge which is still very much lacking in that field on a fundamental explanatory level. You stated above:
"There are computational models and modeling based on biological computations to asses and analyze musical psychology in a computational environment, with well stablished formulas and theories to predict with very exacting precision."
This is a quite naive view and a gross overestimation of scientific knowledge and certainty in that field. I say this as a scientist myself.
It is not just you who feels this way, but I and many, many others (probably the majority) don't.
To me digital was emotionally involving since a relatively early stage, and is even more so now. I do enjoy the analog in friends' systems very much, but I will never have a vinyl rig myself and feel absolutely no musical-emotional need to have one.
In general I can see why some like you can never get into digital, depending on their personal tastes and aural sensibilities, the sound of the analog systems they have and are used to, and the particular experiences with digital in the past.
Yet I am not affected by this issue myself. I love the emotional involvement from my digital rig, and I am constantly drawn into the music.
Indeed, every person is different.
This is the kind of false dichotomy that gets really tiresome.
I'd also opine that if you've never heard emotionally engaging music through digital playback, you are either basing your view on early digital, have not ever heard a decent digital set up, or are so invested in the "digital bad/analog good" world view as to create a perceptual/prejudicial wall that can't be crossed.
You will of course forgive us. But those of us who suffered through the digital wars battled against the notion that digital was always perfect and the criticism was just the product of delusional audiophiles.
Frequently I run across the occasional video claiming just that. I will overlook the cultists who claim redbook is perfect and all dacs sound the same. The best digital software and hardware of late is becoming increasingly difficult to criticize. You can't improve unless you admit your faults
Frequently I run across the occasional video claiming just that. I will overlook the cultists who claim redbook is perfect and all dacs sound the same. The best digital software and hardware of late is becoming increasingly difficult to criticize. You can't improve unless you admit your faults
Last edited:
If he copied and pasted what you have on your WBF signature, I really do not understand your strong reaction.
How do you design and manufacture electronics without measurement? What is the basis for achieving one’s goal and the proper operation of the electronics from a designer’s and manufacturer’s perspective?
I’m sorry that as a scientist you don’t feel that science is not that advanced. Sure there is a long ways to go, but what is understood now is also vast. Lamm uses Psychoacoustics principles in the design of their electronics and I’m sure that many others do as well, even if they don’t realize it, through the voicing of their products.
One of my degrees is in Physics and I shudder to think what would be of theoretical Physicists who lack the conviction to believe in their theories and postulates.
We will have to disagree. To me the field of audio is a relative simple one without too many mysteries. Perhaps I have been around the block more than most, have reached the top of the hill and seen the vast landscape of this hobby, as evident by my many stereo systems and understanding the mastering world, where you can pretty much achieve any desired effect and audiophile attribute that you can wish for. This is simply not rocket science or neuroscience, quiet simple and most of the petty arguments are rather simple to the experienced and knowledgeable.
Enjoy your weekend, I’m going back to listen to my music and enjoy the day out by the pool with my wife. Let me know and clue me in when some of these most unsolved mysteries of life are finally comprehended and you have seen the light.
That was hardly my point, and you should know that by now.
Yes, but voicing is by ear, only partially by measurements. Psychoacoustics is still in its infancy, as science.
I have deep respect for the work of physicists on the standard model of physics, with the latest brilliant confirmation by discovering the Higgs boson in the Large Hadron Collider.
But don't get me started on string theory, espoused by many theoretical physicists. It's a pathetic joke.
Biology is much more ambiguous than physics. As a biochemist I know that all too well. Your view of science is pretty naive, if you think it's all simple. Not everything is straightforward, clear cut measurements.
I am assuming that you are addressing stereo audio and my post only addresses it. Although stereo is relatively simple and well understood, IMHO the high-end stereo managed to make it non scientific and essentially empirical. Audiophiles want sound reproduction that pleases their preference, that most times needs manipulation of the signal of the recording, enhancement of some recording properties and even removing some details.
BTW, if you know about a digital processor that can make my favorite recordings files played in the XLF's sound like they sounded in the WAMM I am a buyer!
What attribute of the WAMM’s playback presentation would you like to enhance on the playback presentation with your XLF’s? Let me know and I will let your know what mastering processor will make that happen.
Last edited:
I would be interested in any digital processing that that can duplicate the real thing.
Too vague to help you there. Mastering tools, both analog and digital, are typically surgical and focused or specialized in certain attributes and are not an all-encompassing magic wand. Take a look at my two mastering systems so that you can see what I’m talking about or take a tour of the mastering suites at Sterling Sounds Mastering Studios. You would be surprised by how profound the mastering tools are.
Last edited:
