It’s All a Preference

[Gregadd]

How is that? I have sat through two sessions with "general public" sitting through the same tests and with similar percentages agreeing with the research.

I have spent the summer trying to teach my self statiistics. I have a long way to go.

For the most part in order for a small sample of a population to predict the behaviour of the population at large this must be true:

The confidence interval calculations assume you have a genuine random sample of the relevant population. If your sample is not truly random, you cannot rely on the intervals

It may well be that Seans study selected a random group 286 of participants. So far I have absolutely no information on what the relavent population is or how the test group was selcted.

I hope I am on the right track and you can help me.

 

[cjfrbw]

Yeah and good swig or joint makes that illusion all the more real!

Is there such a thing as an "objectivist recreational drug user"?

Funny, critics never cite whether they are imbibing, toking, or snorting when they take listening impressions for reviews.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Forget all the processing or lack therof for a moment. Let's assume we have some very simple, natural, high-quality recordings.

I guess the point I've been trying to make is that, IMO, cymbals that sound like cymbals, guitars that sound like guitars, is a very low reference standard. And I'm not talking about the idea that I can tell it's a guitar on my table top radio. Not that low. Start off at good hifi, heck, start of where you can really hear the ring of the brass in the ride cymbal carrying along that tshhhhh that some people hear as hiss (they actually do hiss in nature...). Let's start with something that sounds natural. That's still a very low standard IMO. Let's take it up a notch. Can you tell which ride cymbal? Paiste or Zilgian? Size? The mass of the stick that's striking it? How about a guitar -- can you tell if it is a mahogany jumbo or a rosewood orchestra model? Now you're starting to get to where high end or good pro audio should resolve. Given a clean, simple, high quality recording, a really good reproduction system should be revealing some of the nuance of the particular instrument on the recording. Sounding like "a" cymbal instead of like an aerosol can isn't good enough. Basic recognition of the instrument being played is not too much to ask. You with me so far?

Tell me this: Could you tell the difference between you sister's voice and your mother's voice on your playback system? Of course you could. We're not talking about a terribly high standard of fidelity.

Agreed?

OK then. Do you know the sound of the instrument that was recorded? Have you heard it at all? Do you know it well enough to differentiate it from other instruments of its type as readily is you could differentiate your sister's voice from your mother's? Because if you don't, if you can't, if you don't have that level of knowledge of the instruments on your reference recording, then the "sound of real instruments" is a very low reference standard for judging your system.

You're deciding that a photograph must be very well reproduced because you can tell that the fire truck is red.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about what I'm talking about. In that track I gave Court & Spark at the beginning (don't have a time marker) there is cymbal brushing which I listen for texture in. I have heard this sound like hiss in some systems. The better systems show more texture to this sound. So I am talking about a relative difference in texture between systems, not an absolute matching of the sound to a specific cymbal brush that I wasn't privy to when it was played in reality.

I don't find this a gross level of reference, I'm talking about nuances of this sound as being one of the types of references. There are others that use certain parts of Rebecca Pidgeon's Spanish Harlem as a reference. And others will use .......

Edit: Yes, I can give a time marker - it begins at about 0:50 in with the cymbal brushing & cymbal hits (rides?) You'll hear on Yuotube what I'm talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZpZNfZJzUo&feature=related

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Given that it came immediately after mine, I thought your post might be in response to mine, John, so I opened it. My apologies. But I'm not confused; I wasn't referring to your example of the cymbals in the Herbie Hancock recording, but to the general idea of real instruments as a reference. What you're doing there, IMO, listening for detail you hear in a particular recording on some systems but not others, is not using real instruments as your reference. It is using your knowledge of that recording and how it sounds on certain systems as a reference. Your reference for reproduction is other reproduction. A bit challenging, but probably a lot more realistic than trying to reference real instruments one hasn't heard. I think we all do this. We hear something wonderful in a particular recording that seems to come out on really good systems. We set it as a benchmark and listen for it in other systems.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Is there such a thing as an "objectivist recreational drug user"?

Funny, critics never cite whether they are imbibing, toking, or snorting when they take listening impressions for reviews.

No they just drive subjectivists to drinking and smoking, etc.

Oh, and the best retort once heard about a review: I don't doubt they heard that; what were they on though when they heard it?

 

[JackD201]

Forget all the processing or lack therof for a moment. Let's assume we have some very simple, natural, high-quality recordings.

I guess the point I've been trying to make is that, IMO, cymbals that sound like cymbals, guitars that sound like guitars, is a very low reference standard. And I'm not talking about the idea that I can tell it's a guitar on my table top radio. Not that low. Start off at good hifi, heck, start of where you can really hear the ring of the brass in the ride cymbal carrying along that tshhhhh that some people hear as hiss (they actually do hiss in nature...). Let's start with something that sounds natural. That's still a very low standard IMO. Let's take it up a notch. Can you tell which ride cymbal? Paiste or Zilgian? Size? The mass of the stick that's striking it? How about a guitar -- can you tell if it is a mahogany jumbo or a rosewood orchestra model? Now you're starting to get to where high end or good pro audio should resolve. Given a clean, simple, high quality recording, a really good reproduction system should be revealing some of the nuance of the particular instrument on the recording. Sounding like "a" cymbal instead of like an aerosol can isn't good enough. Basic recognition of the instrument being played is not too much to ask. You with me so far?

Tell me this: Could you tell the difference between you sister's voice and your mother's voice on your playback system? Of course you could. We're not talking about a terribly high standard of fidelity.

Agreed?

OK then. Do you know the sound of the instrument that was recorded? Have you heard it at all? Do you know it well enough to differentiate it from other instruments of its type as readily is you could differentiate your sister's voice from your mother's? Because if you don't, if you can't, if you don't have that level of knowledge of the instruments on your reference recording, then the "sound of real instruments" is a very low reference standard for judging your system.

You're deciding that a photograph must be very well reproduced because you can tell that the fire truck is red.

Tim

Do we need to know what the actual thing or person sounded like in person? That is an impossible standard. A whole lot of the artists we listen to are dead! Yet, we can tell Sinatra, Garland, Cobain et al over a telephone receiver and in the background at that even if we've never heard them live at all. We recognize their patterns from a whole bunch of varied reproductions. In reality, we don't know what they or the cymbals sounded like in those exact captured moments but over time and experience, we may have formed an idea of what they(artists) and similar models(instruments) shouldsound like and so only expect them to sound like. Even if we applied the fidelity philosophy there is no escaping the pattern of behavior since it is hard wired. We would seek out a system or systems we believe to be neutral, train ourselves to recognize the traits and tendencies of these systems, then judge these and other systems according to how closely they fit the model. Hopefully, it was really neutral to begin with!

In the end both approaches are simply two ways to rationalize choices.

 

[terryj]

Thanks for linking that track on you tube john, it allowed me to listen in the background whilst browsing. Way to jazzy for my tastes, those breathy vocals are another part of what I can't stand (and boy, are'nt THEY appearing everywhere nowadays! Can't people just sing?)

Look, for sure there will be differences in reproduction between systems, but c'mon, on my 20 dollar computer thingies here it did not remotely sound like a aerosol pack. You could easily hear the swish etc etc. I DO get your point but still.

What you're doing there, IMO, listening for detail you hear in a particular recording on some systems but not others, is not using real instruments as your reference. It is using your knowledge of that recording and how it sounds on certain systems as a reference.
Tim

Ahh, yet another thing I bet few have pondered, and again if not even examined yet another trap we can fall into.

The 'false standard'. Note again I am not saying it is true in each and every case, but it needs to be looked at.

How often does anyone think it might go like this, even if only mentally?

"This is one of my track references, and I have found it very effective to help distinguish between systems. Very few systems IME are able to reproduce this correctly. On track five, the one I use, during the guitar solo as it builds to the climax the guitarist-what a virtuoso he is!-manages to get the climactic note to ring out in glorious isolation, not only a soul stirring rendition but a powerful discriminative tool to boot! So I always wait for that note at 4.55 in the track''

That's all well and good, but here is the kicker. As he said (or thinks, doesn't matter) very few systems get that note to ring out in glorious isolation...because in actual fact it does not and never was meant to! On his system (which of course is ALWAYS our reference, the one most intimately known and therefore always the 'go to' when hearing other systems, even if subconsciously) that particular note on that particular recording just happens to coincide with a ringing in his system (say), which makes it suddenly soar out of the mix and stand proudly forth. Or it just happens to interact with his room in a peculiar way at that point, the possibilities are endless.

No wonder very few systems manage to reproduce it correctly! There we have it, one example of a hidden standard.

It hearkens directly back to the type of questions we have been looking at the last few pages, how do you KNOW that it indeed is supposed to ring out grandly? A lot will, without thought, immediately reject this question as absurd. Again, that would be unexamined assumptions at work which can in a very real way cloud our judgement. Has it ever been mentioned in any of the 'The recording of ******* classic album' series about how the producer made the guitar climax of track five? Nah, cause it was never there, it only appears on my system. I mean I love it when it happens and stuff, but it is not true.

I mean, one of the giveaways is that it is usually one exact, particular point in the recording, it does not happen at 4.50, or 2.33, but exactly at 4.55

 

[jkeny]

Terry, I agree with you in this sense - some people can mistake certain distortions in digital as the uber-reality of digital - I & others call it MSG (as in the MSG that is used as flavour enhancer in food). Some people actually prefer this as it can give an illusion of extra "air" & wider sound stage. How to avoid this "trap" - listen to enough varied digital systems, preferably from a wide quality range to get an idea of what is distortion & what is not.

BTW, if you think that cymbal brushing on your PC's sound fine then you are missing what I'm talking about - to understand texture you need to hear it on a high end system, not low quality audio played back over an internet connection through a low quality playback system!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Do we need to know what the actual thing or person sounded like in person? That is an impossible standard.

That's what I'm saying.

A whole lot of the artists we listen to are dead! Yet, we can tell Sinatra, Garland, Cobain et al over a telephone receiver and in the background at that even if we've never heard them live at all.

Exactly. It not really hard to tell individual examples of instruments -- human voice or guitars -- apart. It doesn't even require very high fidelity. What it does require is intimate familiarity with the individual sound of those individual instruments. Yet people are saying that their reference, their standard for judging the fidelity of high-end systems is something they don't personally possess a point of reference for, but could recognize on mid-fi (at the high end) if they did.

I think you've framed the problem beautifully!

We recognize their patterns from a whole bunch of varied reproductions. In reality, we don't know what they or the cymbals sounded like in those exact captured moments but over time and experience, we may have formed an idea of what they(artists) and similar models(instruments) shouldsound like and so only expect them to sound like.

Of course. This is exactly the problem. Using this -- recollection of patterns from a whole bunch of varied reproductions, and idea of how something, or something similar should sound, or we expect it to sound like......as our reference for judging the resolution of a high-end reproduction system.

It doesn't make a lick of sense. It is either an impossible standard or an impossibly low, inadequate one.

Tim

 

[terryj]

Terry, I agree with you in this sense - some people can mistake certain distortions in digital as the uber-reality of digital - I & others call it MSG (as in the MSG that is used as flavour enhancer in food). Some people actually prefer this as it can give an illusion of extra "air" & wider sound stage. How to avoid this "trap" - listen to enough varied digital systems, preferably from a wide quality range to get an idea of what is distortion & what is not.

BTW, if you think that cymbal brushing on your PC's sound fine then you are missing what I'm talking about - to understand texture you need to hear it on a high end system, not low quality audio played back over an internet connection through a low quality playback system!

Ok john. Thanks for pondering the question anyway, sigh.

Did I say anything about crappy twenty dollar speakers using a low bit rate internet connection sounding 'fine'? I said quite clearly (I thought) that it did not remotely sound like an aerosol pack. I have no idea of what systems you listen to john, but I can safely say I have never heard cymbals sound like an aerosol pack!

Ok, I put it down to the type of exageration normally found in audio reviews, but still a little bit of grounding in reality would surely help any conversation held on the forum.

 

[jkeny]

Terry, I said the brushing of cymbals that sound like electronic hiss, applause like raindrops on a tin roof. Somebody, Jack I think, said about cymbals sounding like an aerosol - I believe this does sound like a hiss. So I don't understand where the exaggeration is, it sounds like a very reasonable analogy to me?

A swish is not really it, that's just the gross impression of the sound - it's about the inner texture of the cymbal brushing - this is all low level detail & good systems reproduce this detail well.

 

[NorthStar]

---"Aerosol", that's a good term, and that I understand very well when referring to cymbal's sound.

* Not that my speakers sound like that, but close anyway.

 

[JackD201]

That's what I'm saying.



Exactly. It not really hard to tell individual examples of instruments -- human voice or guitars -- apart. It doesn't even require very high fidelity. What it does require is intimate familiarity with the individual sound of those individual instruments. Yet people are saying that their reference, their standard for judging the fidelity of high-end systems is something they don't personally possess a point of reference for, but could recognize on mid-fi (at the high end) if they did.

I think you've framed the problem beautifully!



Of course. This is exactly the problem. Using this -- recollection of patterns from a whole bunch of varied reproductions, and idea of how something, or something similar should sound, or we expect it to sound like......as our reference for judging the resolution of a high-end reproduction system.

It doesn't make a lick of sense. It is either an impossible standard or an impossibly low, inadequate one.

Tim

Uh-huh. We all face the same problem don't we? We always want more! It's human nature. On one hand we could be adding stuff that shouldn't be there on the other we might be convincing ourselves we have all we need and shortchanging ourselves in the process. Then we hear something we like more for whatever reason and the whole darned thing starts up again. LOL.

I will confess I could have stopped a long time ago if it was really just all about the music. Fortunately or unfortunately, I enjoy the process as much as the rewards........most of the time......

 

[GaryProtein]

---"Aerosol", that's a good term, and that I understand very well when referring to cymbal's sound.

* Not that my speakers sound like that, but close anyway.

I first mentioned that I hated when a ride cymbal sounded like an aerosol spray can in #661.

My speakers don't sound like that either, but in cars or other people's homes, that's what they sound like.

In a bad system, the cymbals always seem to project all the harmonics of the cymbal, but for some reason, the fundamental tone of the stick striking and the immediate fundamental ring of the cymbal is always missing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Uh-huh. We all face the same problem don't we? We always want more! It's human nature. On one hand we could be adding stuff that shouldn't be there on the other we might be convincing ourselves we have all we need and shortchanging ourselves in the process. Then we hear something we like more for whatever reason and the whole darned thing starts up again. LOL.

I will confess I could have stopped a long time ago if it was really just all about the music. Fortunately or unfortunately, I enjoy the process as much as the rewards........most of the time......

I don't know what the proper "reference" is, but it seems pretty clear that it is neither or collective impressions of things we haven't actually hear, nor is it a set of incomplete measurements that don't get us very far. And so we are left where we started; Listening to what we like.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---Yeah, it's also about human exchanges with people who share similar hobbies.

...And the true power of Music: a Universal Language. ...And Cinema too.

 

[JackD201]

It sure would be boring as all heck if we agreed about everything but it's nice to know we can agree on some.

 

[NorthStar]

---The more money we spend in our hobby, the more demanding we become?

...And our true preference takes precedence over superficial reference.

Hey, it ain't a thing of the mind (spirit); it's about the auditive/sensorial pleasure.
...Then we can have all the emotions we wish for ... It's pretty much automatic anyway.

 

[GaryProtein]

---The more money we spend in our hobby, the more demanding we become?

That's why Chevy owners are happier with their cars than Rolls Royce owners.