Is digital audio intrinsically "broken"?

[Ron Party]

With all respect, Micro, I disagree. I think the bridge between the science and subjectivity is right in front of us, but it requires that those of us who believe in the science accept and honor preferences that don't align with the available science, and it requires those whose preferences don't align with science to accept and honor the science, while retaining the confidence to hold onto their preferences. It also requires that all of us look deeper than the surface, while being carefull not to sweat things too small to perceive. And to accomplish any of it, all of us, every one of us, have to understand how powerful bias is, and know that we are not immune.

Most of what blocks the bridge between science and subjectivity is ego.

Or perhaps you're talking about the bridge between engineering and perception? Same block, same problems. Much, much more interesting subject.

Tim

For the most part I agree with that which you wrote.

I think there are other blocks as well, including misunderstandings of what actually is a preference or what actually is the scientific method and the conclusions, if any, to be drawn from adherence to that method.

Be it ego, misunderstandings, generalizations, or whatever, intellectual honesty and humility are prerequisites.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, that doesn't leave any room for what we don't know. Let's take speakers. Do we know and agree on the same science? Or is that what you mean by "available" science?

By available science I mean just what it says, Amir: I accept that there are discoveries yet to be made. I suspect there are few, if any discoveries yet to be made, however, that will validate the wholesale denial of all science that challenges belief, that is so common in the hobby. And I believe that denial leaves the door open to blurring the line between perception and bias, between science and wishful thinking, and is actually more detrimental to the advancement of the field than unquestioned belief in the available science would be.

Unquestioned belief in the science we have does not preclude discovery. Refusing to question what we think we perceive, even when the science we have tells us it is highly unlikely, stops us dead in our tracks.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

For the most part I agree with that which you wrote.

I think there are other blocks as well, including misunderstandings of what actually is a preference or what actually is the scientific method and the conclusions, if any, to be drawn from adherence to that method.

Be it ego, misunderstandings, generalizations, or whatever, intellectual honesty and humility are prerequisites.

I absolutely agree with that, Ron. The biggest failure of the "objectivist" camp, and I've been guitly of it myself, is incomplete understanding of the methodology coupled with absolute conficence in the conclusions. And we make that mistake for the same reason subjectivists make theirs; it supports our point of view, so we don't really want to look further.

Tim

 

[mep]

Unquestioned belief in the science we have does not preclude discovery. Refusing to question what we think we perceive, even when the science we have tells us it is highly unlikely, stops us dead in our tracks.

Tim

Unquestioned belief in anything normally leads to bad things happening.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Unquestioned belief in anything normally leads to bad things happening.

Fair enough, though none of this is likely to lead to anything truly bad. While we may take it all very seriously, no one will get hurt if we decide something that's on the edge of inaudible is terribly important and put tremendous effort toward vanquishing it. More important things may be neglected, but I'll trust that none of you are failing to educate your children for fear of a smaller sound stage.

Tim

 

[fas42]

As micro pointed out, the human mechanism for perception is part of the "science", and if that is not fully taken into account then incorrect conclusions will drawn. As I have now mentioned on several occasions, there is clear "evidence" that human vision has a "step" in behaviour when presented with high quality imagery: below a certain degree of fidelity, the body "knows" it's fake and reacts in a low level way, but above that quality the person can't stop himself reacting as if what is being presented to him visually is the real thing, with possibly severe physical effects.

And the same thing appears to be the case with auditory experience: a key thing that Tim mentioned is sound defects on the "edge of inaudible". That in fact is crucial, the clues that the mind uses to dismiss the sound as being fake; if you remove them then the ear/brain "gives in" to the illusion, and "magic" happens. The failing of the objectivists is the not realising that auditory perception is not a steady continuum of behaviour neatly falling in step with measurable changes in audio quality.

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As micro pointed out, the human mechanism for perception is part of the "science", and if that is not fully taken into account then incorrect conclusions will drawn. As I have now mentioned on several occasions, there is clear "evidence" that human vision has a "step" in behaviour when presented with high quality imagery: below a certain degree of fidelity, the body "knows" it's fake and reacts in a low level way, but above that quality the person can't stop himself reacting as if what is being presented to him visually is the real thing, with possibly severe physical effects.

And the same thing appears to be the case with auditory experience: a key thing that Tim mentioned is sound defects on the "edge of inaudible". That in fact is crucial, the clues that the mind uses to dismiss the sound as being fake; if you remove them then the ear/brain "gives in" to the illusion, and "magic" happens. The failing of the objectivists is the not realising that auditory perception is not a steady continuum of behaviour neatly falling in step with measurable changes in audio quality.

Frank

Well, Frank, I'm thankful, at least, that you put both "evidence" and "magical" in quotes in that post. It provides badly-needed context. I'm not sure I know anyone - objectivist or otherwise - who believes that auditory perception falls in a neat continuum in step with measurable changes in audio quality. Most rational objectivists I know, in fact, believe that audio perception is the ultimate unpredictable wild card that can, on one hand, allow a multi-tracked studio recording to be perceived as a reasonable facsimile of a performance, and on the other, go so far off the grid that it makes people hear what is not there at all.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) Most rational objectivists I know, in fact, believe that audio perception is the ultimate unpredictable wild card that can, on one hand, allow a multi-tracked studio recording to be perceived as a reasonable facsimile of a performance, and on the other, go so far off the grid that it makes people hear what is not there at all.

Tim

Tim,

The wild card is not so much unpredictable as you believe ... But here statistics play a key role. Single facts are not important per se, but as an whole they gain great importance.

Masters of audio reproduction know how to play this card with success. And most of them do not want to recreate a facsimile of the performance, they choose to recreate a facsimile of the art that was created. Surely, approaching the facsimile of the performance can help and is valuable in many cases, but it is not all.

 

[fas42]

I use the word "magic" in the sense that the reproduction has that quality that transcends its lowly, "broken" origins. If one can react mentally and emotionally to the the playback as one would for live playing of music, then that's good enough for me. The vast majority of playback on ambitious setups, for the vast majority of time, doesn't do it: they just sound like expensive hifi systems, the curate's egg, fine if you play just the right recording at the right volume, but the illusion falls apart as soon as you go outside a relatively narrow comfort zone for them.

Getting back to "broken" theme from Amir's slant, the visual medium is quite easy to measure in the key area where people are aware of subtle differences, hence standards make a lot of sense and hold great sway. But in the audio world, that area of subtle variation that makes all the difference to people's perceptions falls right in the zone where measuring has to be very precise, the people doing such have to be totally on the ball, and take every external factor into consideration. So sloppiness and inexact science climb on board with great ease, and create the current "broken" situation ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Well, Frank, I'm thankful, at least, that you put both "evidence" and "magical" in quotes in that post. It provides badly-needed context.

Tim

Actually, I quoted the word "evidence" in the context of the equivalent in the video world, but it wasn't really necessary to do so. They had real data at the time in terms of how people's bodies were reacting in very physical and measurable ways to high quality imagery: a lot of money would have been made by people following the path of commercial exploitation, if it was all airy fairy nonsense about these reactions, but the development was ditched. A pretty good indicator usually ...

 

[Steve williams]

The vast majority of playback on ambitious setups, for the vast majority of time, doesn't do it: they just sound like expensive hifi systems,

That's a pretty bold statement IMO

 

[fas42]

That's a pretty bold statement IMO

It's coming from the angle of creating "convincing", rather than merely impressive sound. My experience to date is that ambitious systems can do a dramatically good job if the person who knows the system well puts on the recordings of his choice, the "demo" ones. "Lesser" tracks and albums quite often come up very badly, with frequently half the sound in some strange way got rid of! I've essentially given up on expecting high end setups to be able to handle a variety of recording qualities, "poorer" recordings so blatantly expose the weaknesses in the system that it is impossible to be able to "enjoy" the playback.

Unless the host is very generous with the red, that is ...

Frank

 

[Steve williams]

So you're saying that for a system to be a good one it has to sound good when a poorly recorded song is played

 

[fas42]

So you're saying that for a system to be a good one it has to sound good when a poorly recorded song is played

The recording won't sound as "good" as a very well recorded one, but it will be convincing! And that's the key difference: I have a number of very "good" jazz recordings, and they sound extremely impressive, the classic reach out and touch them sense about it. But I also have quite a number of very poorly recorded old blues albums, you can hear how primitive the recording technique was, but the sense, the feeling of the performer still comes through. I listen to the quality of the singer's voice, does it grab me in the same way as a real person's voice does, can I feel the emotion in his voice? I once listened to a Sinatra album on a half million dollar setup, straight after an extremely dynamic percussion workout; it felt like listening to a kitchen radio in comparison ...

Frank

 

[Ron Party]

Isn't *convincing* in the mind, body and soul of the beholder? How do we apply an objective litmus test to *convincing* such that it no longer is subject to personal evaluation but instead is false-ifiable?

 

[fas42]

Isn't *convincing* in the mind, body and soul of the beholder? How do we apply an objective litmus test to *convincing* such that it no longer is subject to personal evaluation but instead is false-ifiable?

A very good analogy is the discussion in the Accuracy thread, where the point at the moment is about hearing finger nails in the background of the playing. Now, one can choose to tune into that completely extraneous sound, and have it "ruin" your enjoyment of the music and performance, by allowing your mind to focus on that "distortion". And if the system is not working as well as it could, perhaps the sound of the fingernails will become so irritating that you stop listening to the track.

My point about a high performing system is that it "shifts" the sound of irrelevant elements in the playback to another plane, or area of sound, that makes it easy for the mind to disregard it. This could the clicks and pops in vinyl, the hiss in tape, the fingernails and mechanical actions of instruments, scraping of feet on ther floor, and finally, musically unrelated distortion created in the playback process itself ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

I might just add, that I have read many comments, of people's take on top notch R2R playback: the word "convincing" seems to ring very loudly throughout the content of the listener's reactions. So people who have experienced such playback don't seem to have any problem with the concept ...

Frank

 

[Ron Party]

Neither of your posts applies an objective standard. Rather you have walked further down the path of subjectivity by linking *convincing* with "enjoyment of the music and performance". Of course, no one in their right mind would make that the litmus test, lest we include, for example, portable AM transistor radios which roller skaters used to hold to their ears.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A very good analogy is the discussion in the Accuracy thread, where the point at the moment is about hearing finger nails in the background of the playing. Now, one can choose to tune into that completely extraneous sound, and have it "ruin" your enjoyment of the music and performance, by allowing your mind to focus on that "distortion".

This is an excellent example, Frank, a real artifact, one that is not created by a flaw in the system, but on the contrary, is revealed by the excellence of the system (and the recording, of course). And you're absolutely right, while I would prefer that the pianist had simply trimmed his nails before recording, I can focus my attention on the quality of the performance, the beauty of the music, the tonality of the piano. Or I can focus on the artifact. My perceptions can make the clicking of the nails insufferable or insignificant.

...And if the system is not working as well as it could, perhaps the sound of the fingernails will become so irritating that you stop listening to the track.

My point about a high performing system is that it "shifts" the sound of irrelevant elements in the playback to another plane, or area of sound, that makes it easy for the mind to disregard it. This could the clicks and pops in vinyl, the hiss in tape, the fingernails and mechanical actions of instruments, scraping of feet on ther floor, and finally, musically unrelated distortion created in the playback process itself ...

And this part is complete nonsense. The system is not intelligent. It has no ability to understand what is and is not relevant. The higher the performance of the system, the more it will reveal the clicking of the nails, because it is not a distortion, it is a part of the recording. What if the pianist deliberately left his nails untrimmed? What if he meant for the clicks to be a part of his performance? Will the high-performing system know what to do? Are you attributing aesthetic judgment to circuits and wires? It is your mind, Frank, and only your mind, that is shifting these clicks to the back of your consciousness. It is perception. It has nothing to do with your tweaks beyond their ability to help you believe.

Oh, I don't doubt that occasionally all your mucking around has created problems that later mucking around may have reversed. But other than the occasional dumb accident, it's all in your head and you just made that point better than I ever have.

Tim

 

[fas42]

The system is not intelligent. It has no ability to understand what is and is not relevant. The higher the performance of the system, the more it will reveal the clicking of the nails, because it is not a distortion, it is a part of the recording. What if the pianist deliberately left his nails untrimmed? What if he meant for the clicks to be a part of his performance? Will the high-performing system know what to do? Are you attributing aesthetic judgment to circuits and wires? It is your mind, Frank, and only your mind, that is shifting these clicks to the back of your consciousness.It is perception. It has nothing to do with your tweaks beyond their ability to help you believe.

Oh, I don't doubt that occasionally all your mucking around has created problems that later mucking around may have reversed. But other than the occasional dumb accident, it's all in your head and you just made that point better than I ever have.

Tim

And you are exactly right, Tim. What I have highlighted is precisely the point: the tweaks have brought the extraneous "distortion" in the recording more to the fore, yes, but they have reduced the distortions contributed by the playback system at the time of playing. And that contributes far more to allowing an effective illusion to be generated than you give credit for. My "answer" to this seeming inconsistency is that the type of distortion embedded in the recording is far less difficult for the ear/brain to process, than that typically added to the mix by CD players and amps. A lot of the damage is done in playback by power supplies being asked to work hard, in my experience, and that's something that is not an issue when recording, here the electronics are essentially having a nice, sleepy time; compared to a Krell belting the daylights of a household power supply.

So, yes, it's perception that allows the reproduction to register better on your mind, but first of all, ALL the detail of the recording has to be extracted, and secondly, this has to be done with no added, audible distortion.

Tim, you keep missing the point overall. I didn't decide that this thing about listening was possible, it just happened as a by-product of my fiddling. At the very time I was starting to get these results, I was also wandering into all the good hifi stores of the time with my test tracks, and had a listen on the "best" systems. To put it bluntly, most of them sounded like sh!t in the key areas that were important to me, so I knew I was onto something ...

Frank