Measurements & the stereo illusion

[jkeny]

Tim is also blind to this - he thinks that listening is an all concious process & if some difference sensed while listening can't be reduced to some simplistic description then there is no difference. There are many auditory processes happening that we are not consciously aware of. Disturbances in these process result in our loss of interest in the audio playback or in listener fatigue or lack of engagement with the audio reproduction. The opposite is also true - when a better reproduction system is heard, we are more engaged with it, we enjoy it more, it's more real at that subconscious level.

That is not to say that this is not measurable in the signal but we don't yet know the measurements to use - this requires that we first fully understand the model of it's operation

 

[j_j]

Tim is also blind to this - he thinks that listening is an all concious process & if some difference sensed while listening can't be reduced to some simplistic description then there is no difference.

That's not how subjective testing works. You don't have to know what the difference is, be able to put words on it, or anything else. All you have to do is to be able to tell A from B in a reliable fashion without knowledge from outside of the audio stimuli.

A classic example is people who answer, are sure they heard nothing, and who none the less manage 10/10 identifications. Yes, this happens.

Now, I don't know who Tim is, or why you think Tim thinks this, but I suspect you may be putting words in someone's mouth there.

As far as the stereo illusion is concerned, the "what" you need to provide is very well understood.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim is also blind to this - he thinks that listening is an all concious process & if some difference sensed while listening can't be reduced to some simplistic description then there is no difference. There are many auditory processes happening that we are not consciously aware of. Disturbances in these process result in our loss of interest in the audio playback or in listener fatigue or lack of engagement with the audio reproduction. The opposite is also true - when a better reproduction system is heard, we are more engaged with it, we enjoy it more, it's more real at that subconscious level.

That is not to say that this is not measurable in the signal but we don't yet know the measurements to use - this requires that we first fully understand the model of it's operation

Whew. That's a relief. It's so good to finally know what I think. Thanks, John, for putting your psycho in my acoustics and sorting that out for me.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---- ... I'm reading that too!

 

[jkeny]

That's not how subjective testing works. You don't have to know what the difference is, be able to put words on it, or anything else. All you have to do is to be able to tell A from B in a reliable fashion without knowledge from outside of the audio stimuli.

A classic example is people who answer, are sure they heard nothing, and who none the less manage 10/10 identifications. Yes, this happens.

Now, I don't know who Tim is, or why you think Tim thinks this, but I suspect you may be putting words in someone's mouth there.

As far as the stereo illusion is concerned, the "what" you need to provide is very well understood.

Sure, JJ, in the same way that to create life requires four nucleotide bases ATGC - it's simples, right?

 

[jkeny]

Whew. That's a relief. It's so good to finally know what I think. Thanks, John, for putting your psycho in my acoustics and sorting that out for me.

Tim

Here to serve, Tim

 

[j_j]

Sure, JJ, in the same way that to create life requires four nucleotide bases ATGC - it's simples, right?

Is there some reason you have a strong need to make up positions that people haven't claimed?

No, it's not like that. Have you bothered to acquire and read Blauert? You could start with Brian C. J. Moore's book on the psychology of hearing, if you'd like, it's probably a bit simpler, but then you'd have to go to Blauert to learn about cochlear excitation and how it maps binaurally and so forth anyhow to learn about stereo.

Then maybe you wouldn't be building straw men and setting them on fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[jkeny]

Is there some reason you have a strong need to make up positions that people haven't claimed?

You mean like the one you just made up for me in your last post? I posted what a person heard as an example of what I'm talking about. Tim, says it's all expectation bias & you relate it to subjective testing. How do you know he didn't do A/B testing?

No, it's not like that. Have you bothered to acquire and read Blauert? You could start with Brian C. J. Moore's book on the psychology of hearing, if you'd like, it's probably a bit simpler, but then you'd have to go to Blauert to learn about cochlear excitation and how it maps binaurally and so forth anyhow to learn about stereo.

Then maybe you wouldn't be building straw men and setting them on fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

JJ do you read what I post or are you intent on just taking the title of the thread in as simplistic & literal a manner as possible & constantly arguing this restricted point? Your input could be valuable If you actually addressed the points raised.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You mean like the one you just made up for me in your last post? I posted what a person heard as an example of what I'm talking about. Tim, says it's all expectation bias & you relate it to subjective testing. How do you know he didn't do A/B testing?



JJ do you read what I post or are you intent on just taking the title of the thread in as simplistic & literal a manner as possible & constantly arguing this restricted point? Your input could be valuable If you actually addressed the points raised.

Oh I know! I can answer this one! The person you're referring to didn't actually report what he heard. He said, in the quote you supplied, that he didn't really hear anything, but was reporting something he sensed (though we don't know which sense) or felt, or experienced...not sure really, as he didn't seem to be sure himself. He just knew that he relaxed and enjoyed the music more knowing that whatever magic solution he was listening for was in play. While Tim didn't say it was all expectation bias, in this case it seems pretty clear. Thanks for the great example. It bears repeating, actually. Let me see if I can go find it. BRB...

When DAC connected to computer via USB, the sound is smooth, soft, detailed, good extension on high and low freq. extremes.

When DAC connected to XX USB converter, the overall sound signature remains the same. The soundstage seems the same in size, just instruments placement become a bit more accurate and more air between them. Slightly more bass presence. What is interesting, is that while the sound signature is retained, music listening gets much more involving. And this is really a big change in a listening pleasure, not subtle! It seems it has something to do with timing change, plus microdynamics maybe.

So, I'm not a master in audio equipment reviewing, leaving alone my language limitations. But this is something I really can not easily explain: sound is almost the same (smoothness, soundstage size, detail level), but music listening is more involving and pleasurable.

Just to give you an idea: before XX converter I was planning my listening sessions in advance, waiting for the mood to sit and listen, carefully selecting the album which should fit the mood, waiting for conditions - kids are in beds, quiet late evening etc.
Now with XX converter, as soon as I put headphones on and play any of my several hundred albums, at any time of the day, - I'm get so involved that I need quite an effort to stop!

Ooops. My apologies. He does report more "more air between the instruments" and "slightly more bass presence"...from a USB converter...but he repeatedly says that while the sound is unchanged, the experience is transformed. John if you don't understand how this makes a much better case for expectation bias than it does for the performance of the converter, I'm not sure how I can explain it to you, though I appreciate your making my case for me.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Oh I know! I can answer this one! The person you're referring to didn't actually report what he heard. He said, in the quote you supplied, that he didn't really hear anything, but was reporting something he sensed (though we don't know which sense) or felt, or experienced...not sure really, as he didn't seem to be sure himself. He just knew that he relaxed and enjoyed the music more knowing that whatever magic solution he was listening for was in play. While Tim didn't say it was all expectation bias, in this case it seems pretty clear. Thanks for the great example. It bears repeating, actually. Let me see if I can go find it. BRB...

So JJ & Northstar, were wrong, I wasn't putting words in Tim's mouth he says it all himself here - "he didn't actually report what he heard". Tim, thinks that unless you can consciously hear something & name it then it doesn't really exist, it is a figment of imagination. Congrats Tim for confirming this - it might be the start of some realisation in your listening process.

Ooops. My apologies. He does report more "more air between the instruments" and "slightly more bass presence"...from a USB converter...but he repeatedly says that while the sound is unchanged, the experience is transformed. John if you don't understand how this makes a much better case for expectation bias than it does for the performance of the converter, I'm not sure how I can explain it to you, though I appreciate your making my case for me.

Tim

No, thank you for being so crystal clear & detailing your viewpoint - it might help others avoid the same pitfall that you are so blind to.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

John, you've put plenty of words in my mouth on this board and you just did it again:

So JJ & Northstar, were wrong, I wasn't putting words in Tim's mouth he says it all himself here - "he didn't actually report what he heard". Tim, thinks that unless you can consciously hear something & name it then it doesn't really exist, it is a figment of imagination. Congrats Tim for confirming this - it might be the start of some realisation in your listening process.

Nope. Not even what I said, which, unlike my mind, you can actually read.

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

Indeed, some people seem to forget that the full mechanisms of perception needs to be understood in order to more accurately create an illusion that fully appeals to our senses.

Hello jkeny

So your not happy with the stereo images that are created in the studio. It's obvious to me at least that the abillity to create these images demonstrates a good understanding of how we hear them. These guys manage to to this everyday in the studio. It doesn't appear to be a mystery to them at all.

The mistaken & predominant approach in audio reproduction is to try to make the waveform emanating from the speakers as accurate as possible to the waveform captured by the microphone(s).

Mistaken in what way?? As I have said before if you don't do that you can't recreate the illusions. You need to keep the timing, phase and amplitude correct or they won't work. Fortunately our systems seem to readilly be able to do this. All because of those antiquated and useless measurements.

This has brought us a long way to where we are today but the measurements used to achieve this has a disconnect with our perception i.e current measurements can't tell us exactly how a device will sound to us as listeners.

It's not a perfect world and the illusion we strive to recreate is just that an illusion. It's an illusion inside your brain. Any illusion meters out there on the net??

Rob

 

[microstrip]

It's not a perfect world and the illusion we strive to recreate is just that an illusion. It's an illusion inside your brain. Any illusion meters out there on the net??

Rob

Yes. Everyone who listens to recorded sound and manages to have an opinion. The problem is creating conditions to analyze the opinion about the illusion with independence from market pressures and in a statistically valid way.

 

[FrantzM]

Yes. Everyone who listens to recorded sound and manages to have an opinion. The problem is creating conditions to analyze the opinion about the illusion with independence from market pressures and in a statistically valid way.

Blind Tests?

 

[microstrip]

Blind Tests?

As long as the particular conditions to carry the Blind Tests do not interfere with the perception of the illusion they are perfect.

 

[jkeny]

Hello jkeny

So your not happy with the stereo images that are created in the studio. It's obvious to me at least that the abillity to create these images demonstrates a good understanding of how we hear them. These guys manage to to this everyday in the studio. It doesn't appear to be a mystery to them at all.

A better understanding of the fully worked out model of the perception of hearing will help improve the micing/recording/mixing processes, if it is used.

Mistaken in what way??

Mistaken in the way that no system perfectly reproduces the signal - as a result the whole recording/reproduction chain is a tradeoff & accommodation to this less than perfect signal chain. Choosing the areas to focus on, if informed by a full model of hearing, has a better chance of producing something more real & natural sounding.

As I have said before if you don't do that you can't recreate the illusions. You need to keep the timing, phase and amplitude correct or they won't work. Fortunately our systems seem to readilly be able to do this. All because of those antiquated and useless measurements.

I that were true then all systems would be perfect & sound exactly alike but they don't.

It's not a perfect world and the illusion we strive to recreate is just that an illusion.

Ah, so now you agree that we do't recreate the signal perfectly - that's exactly my point - it's a blunderbuss approach. better to precisely target how the illusion is best created.

It's an illusion inside your brain. Any illusion meters out there on the net??

It's an illusion which only works because it ticks enough of the perceptual boxes that we expect to hear from real events & yet it falls short because we are not fooled by ever thinking that it is a real orchestra or band in our room - we can discriminate between reproduced & live (yes, even blind). Why would this be, do you think?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As long as the particular conditions to carry the Blind Tests do not interfere with the perception of the illusion they are perfect.

The quality of blind listening conditions appears to be conditional:

They are excellent when we hear, blind, what we heard sighted. But when the results indicate that we are not actually hearing what think we hear, removing knowledge of the thing being tested, under any conditions, seems to spontaneously destroy our critical listening abilities.

It may be the greatest mystery of the audiophile endeavor.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

The quality of blind listening conditions appears to be conditional:

They are excellent when we hear, blind, what we heard sighted. But when the results indicate that we are not actually hearing what think we hear, removing knowledge of the thing being tested, under any conditions, seems to spontaneously destroy our critical listening abilities.

It may be the greatest mystery of the audiophile endeavor.

Tim

Tim,

You love to bring the threads to extremist positions, in order to squeeze them with your reduced logic.

It is a mystery for you and some others - happily audiophiles and many audio researchers managed to solve it, and considerable progress in being made in sound reproduction using the proper diagnosing and development tools, including common sense techniques to analyze non blind tests.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

You love to bring the threads to extremist positions, in order to focus on your reduced logic.

It is a mystery for you and some others - happily audiophiles and many audio researchers managed to solve it, and considerable progress in being made in sound reproduction using the proper diagnosing and development tools, including common sense techniques to analyze non blind tests.

Sorry. What is a mystery? What have happy audiophiles and researches managed to solve? What common sense techniques have been developed to analyze sighted tests, and, I assume, eliminate sighted bias from the results? Got data? Got anecdotal information? Got the ability to even describe what you're talking about? Got anything at all?

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Jkeny

A better understanding of the fully worked out model of the perception of hearing will help improve the micing/recording/mixing processes, if it is used.

Yes of course it would however they seem to be doing just fine with what we already know but there is always room for improvement.

As I have said before if you don't do that you can't recreate the illusions. You need to keep the timing, phase and amplitude correct or they won't work. Fortunately our systems seem to readily be able to do this. All because of those antiquated and useless measurements.


"I that were true then all systems would be perfect & sound exactly alike but they don't."

How on earth did you get from various systems being able to image the same way with the same recording to "they all would sound exactly the same"??

It's an illusion which only works because it ticks enough of the perceptual boxes that we expect to hear from real events & yet it falls short because we are not fooled by ever thinking that it is a real orchestra or band in our room - we can discriminate between reproduced & live (yes, even blind). Why would this be, do you think?

Well heres one for openers. When you listen to a friend singing where does the sound come from?? Your friend or a pair of speakers?? Stereo is a complete hoax there is absolutely nothing natural about it. Using 2 speakers to recreate a single singer and you wonder why we can tell it's fake even blind????

I enjoy listening to it but I have no illusions about how "real" it is. That's a huge problem people seem to think that the stereo recording is the real event. It's not and never will be. It's just a recording and nothing more. Same thing when using a live event as the holly grail for what a recording should sound like. It's recording if you want to hear live music go to a show. Apples and oranges the two will never meet.

Rob