Measurements & the stereo illusion

[jkeny]

I see this was added after I had started my reply

No, but if electronic components play any part in this "more solid, more 3 dmensional sound stage," A) I would expect there to be measureable changes in the output of those components if they are creating such a dramatic change

Well, your expectations may well be wrong in that the current measurements are not sophisticated enough. Again, if you read some of the research you will see that it's not a straight measurement of level or timing differences (as I had first suggested) - it seems more likely to involve relative differences at various frequencies involving timing & level, waveform envelopes, etc, Frankly, it hasn't been worked out yet what should be measured

B) The measurements in that study you linked would be pretty useless in diffentiating the component's impact from everything else involved anyway,

Huh? I'm not sure what you Are you saying here?

and C) While I certainly do not expect people in the hobby to go to such lengths, or care about much more than having fun, I expect companies in the industry to substantiate their claims. And no, that's not personal either. I don't think you've made any claims for your products in this thread.

Tim

Do you know what you are asking for based on what I have said above about the research? It's easy to make demands for measurements & when none are forthcoming wrongly concluding that it is because something is being hidden. Rather than the more informed position that nobody knows exactly what measurements are needed never mind how to make those measurements. Some realism is needed in these demands for measurements!

It really boils down to the fact that there is no one theory that explain all of what we perceive through our hearing, therefore experiments are hard to design without a theoretical underpinning of what elements should be evaluated in the test i.e the predictability of the theory being evaluated.

So referring back to your statement that theory is on your side, what theory?
And what measurements would then be appropriate based on this theory?

 

[amirm]

A good point was recently raised on another forum - how many valid, formal DBT results have been found to be found wanting after longer-term usage by a larger body of users - this can't be mass-delusion, can it?

I am not aware of anyone repeating a short term DBT with a long term DBT and getting a more "desired" result. The longer term ones you are talking about are sighted so obviously they disagree with the DBT.

 

[jkeny]

I am not aware of anyone repeating a short term DBT with a long term DBT and getting a more "desired" result. The longer term ones you are talking about are sighted so obviously they disagree with the DBT.

I'm talking about long-term "in the field" usage with a large body of people resulting in different outcomes to what the DBT results would suggest. Nothing about "desired" results, where did that come from?

 

[amirm]

I'm talking about long-term "in the field" usage with a large body of people resulting in different outcomes to what the DBT results would suggest. Nothing about "desired" results, where did that come from?

The desired result is one's subjective assessment being right. I assume that was your question: why is it that DBTs show opposite results of what we think is right and hence the use of that term. Our desire is to have our subjective sighted conclusions to be proven right.

 

[amirm]

I'm talking about long-term "in the field" usage with a large body of people resulting in different outcomes to what the DBT results would suggest.

Addressing this part now, before you worry about "in the field" usage agreeing or disagreeing with DBT, you need to worry about it agreeing with the people in that population/its own methodology. If I took two cables and handed it to 100 audiophiles, you think they would come back with the same answer of which one is better?

 

[jkeny]

..... The longer term ones you are talking about are sighted so obviously they disagree with the DBT.

Yes, taking medication is usually a sighted process
List of some withdrawn drugs which presumably underwent DBT tests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To go back to the original discussion, if a sofware player or an electronic component produced a signal alteration dramatically different enough to transcend the rest of the electronics, the speakers and the room to very audibly change the soundstage yes, I would expect that would to be readily measurable at the output of that player or component. YMMV.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

To go back to the original discussion, if a sofware player or an electronic component produced a signal alteration dramatically different enough to transcend the rest of the electronics, the speakers and the room to very audibly change the soundstage yes, I would expect that would to be readily measurable at the output of that player or component. YMMV.

Tim

But of course you are not willing to say what theory applies here & what measurements you claim are "easily measurable", just a vague hackneyed mantra & sound bite. As I said before, it's an easy position to adopt which has more to do with debating technique than looking for the truth of the matter. But then YMMV

I see you avoid answering any of my questions!

 

[jkeny]

if a sofware player or an electronic component produced a signal alteration dramatically different enough to transcend the rest of the electronics,

Is that your interpretation of what it's doing? Why wouldn't it be working by enhancing the existing electronics rather than transcending it? This may suggest far less signal level, no?

the speakers and the room

same applies here - have you ever considered that there might be an alternative explanation for the same phenomena.

to very audibly change the soundstage yes,

If you read the quotes I extracted from that paper you might see that room reflections may well decolour & improve the sound, giving a more realistic sound stage

& thus improve I would expect that would to be readily measurable at the output of that player or component. YMMV.

Tim

 

[j_j]

Whoa ---

Let's not confuse two things:

1) Preference - it's what you like. It is your preference, not my preference. My preference is my preference, not your preference. We all get to have preferences, they are just like opinions, and you know what they say about opinions. Your personal preference is inviolate UNTIL you try to assert that it has meaning beyond your own self. (to use a silly example) If you like Chartreuse and Canary-Yellow cables, that's fine. It's your preference. They might look good in your room, they may just appeal to you, IT DOES NOT MATTER, you like them, and that's that. You get to, and it's nobody's business to tell you you shouldn't, well, unless you hire an interior decorator or ask somebody to advise you ...

2) Audible Difference - Adding the word "audible" means that you're limiting this to the effects of acoustic stimuli. This requires a double-blind test.

Just go listen to the recorded talk of the "Heyser Lecture" at www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm and watch the slides. That explains why, it's really not very complicated, it's just how human beings work.

 

[microstrip]

Addressing this part now, before you worry about "in the field" usage agreeing or disagreeing with DBT, you need to worry about it agreeing with the people in that population/its own methodology. If I took two cables and handed it to 100 audiophiles, you think they would come back with the same answer of which one is better?

No knowledgeable person would formulate such a question. If you would be interested in such type of experience you would pick cables known for sounding different in some specific aspects and send them to 100 audiophiles asking for their opinions about their perception of these specific aspects. Then you would analyze their answers and try to find if there was any statistical valid correlation between their answers and the cable type. However you would need 100 audiophiles without internet access for few days - something not easy nowadays!

 

[Robh3606]

Hello jkeny

If you read the quotes I extracted from that paper you might see that room reflections may well decolour & improve the sound, giving a more realistic sound stage

Exactly and one of the reasons trying to measure or come up with measurements for sound-stage is such a daunting task. There are so many variables between speaker placement, your listening position, room furnishing and treatment. Then you have the issue of is the sound-stage you hear correct?? It's completely artificial and between speaker toe-in, speaker placement and listening position you can dial it in any way you want.

I may set the speakers up with less toe in to slightly "unfocus" the imaging because I don't like pin point imaging. It doesn't sound natural to me. Others who really enjoy pinpoint imaging would do the opposite and set them up accordingly.

So which is right?? This is one aspects of the hobby that I see as a preference issue. There is no hard and fast way to predict or measure how a speakers sound-stage will sound in a particular set-up. I am not saying that you can't get an idea from speaker measurements just that individual preferences will dictate how the speaker are eventually set-up.

Then you have the speakers themselves which obviously won't all image the same way to begin with.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But of course you are not willing to say what theory applies here & what measurements you claim are "easily measurable", just a vague hackneyed mantra & sound bite. As I said before, it's an easy position to adopt which has more to do with debating technique than looking for the truth of the matter. But then YMMV

I see you avoid answering any of my questions!

Not avoiding you at all, John, we simply disagree. I believe if a single electronic component in a system of components can affect a change dramatic enough to audibly change the spatial effect in the room, something at that component's output, causing that effect, would be detected by very mundane, standard measurements. You believe the audible change is due to some as of yet undiscovered, unmeasured elements in reproduced sound that are strong enough to affect that change from a component without changing the measurable noise, distortion, channel separation, linearity, etc. We believe what we believe because we hear what we hear, John.

We disagree, because we both believe our ears. Mine are backed up by the available data and yours require belief in something you can't measure, name, or even describe particularly well. But it is still your opinion, John, and you're entitled to it.

Did you have another question?

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Those of you who think that it's easy to measure the signal & extrapolate about the phantom image from those measurements should really do a Ph.D - you would close down several research departments throughout the world & achieve notoriety. Failing this you could at least have a heart & write to all these people wasting their time in trying to achieve this correlation. You are really wasting your talents here on a forum.

Some of you fail to understand what I'm saying - I'm saying that the sound stage is a perception/illusion which is tenuous in stereo - built up moment to moment by the sound waves reaching our ears & by our perception processes. This illusion tries to mimic the real world perception of a 3D sound image - something we know intimately & take for granted. This is only partly achieved in stereo audio but well enough that we have been happy enough with the illusion for a long time now. How this illusion is built up moment to moment requires a deep understanding of psychoacoustics (scene analysis, etc) - the mechanics of which are still not fully understood. So the key here is our perception processes & what elements of the audio signal is sympathetic with how our perception process works in the real world. Remember, stereo is not trying to recreate the actual audio event that we can walk around & experience from many different places, as we can in the real world - it is simply trying to fool a stationery listener, in the "sweet spot" that he/she is hearing a reasonable fascimile of the audio performance.

Now, it seems to me that if how something works is not fully understood, then how to achieve this illusion is a bit hit & miss. It may be that having a very accurate reproduction of the stereo signal is NOT as good as maybe having a signal which has something added to iti.e interaural fluctuations may be beneficial to the illusion, who knows? Without knowing how the perception of hearing works using the lack of measurements to "prove" something is meaningless

Most here fail to realise that the perception of hearing is still not fully understood & until such time as this happens, we are flailing around somewhat, maybe catching glimpses here & there of a final working model that explains all the OBSERVATIONS.

It really is the way science works & not a unusual - until something is fully understood & a model explains it & has proven predictive capabilities, do we finally accept it as "the best guess we currently have" i.e a working model.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Those of you who think that it's easy to measure the signal & extrapolate about the phantom image from those measurements should really do a Ph.D - you would close down several research departments throughout the world & achieve notoriety. Failing this you could at least have a heart & write to all these people wasting their time in trying to achieve this correlation. You are really wasting your talents here on a forum.

Some of you fail to understand what I'm saying - I'm saying that the sound stage is a perception/illusion which is tenuous in stereo - built up moment to moment by the sound waves reaching our ears & by our perception processes. This illusion tries to mimic the real world perception of a 3D sound image - something we know intimately & take for granted. This is only partly achieved in stereo audio but well enough that we have been happy enough with the illusion for a long time now. How this illusion is built up moment to moment requires a deep understanding of psychoacoustics (scene analysis, etc) - the mechanics of which are still not fully understood. So the key here is our perception processes & what elements of the audio signal is sympathetic with how our perception process works in the real world. Remember, stereo is not trying to recreate the actual audio event that we can walk around & experience from many different places, as we can in the real world - it is simply trying to fool a stationery listener, in the "sweet spot" that he/she is hearing a reasonable fascimile of the audio performance.

Now, it seems to me that if how something works is not fully understood, then how to achieve this illusion is a bit hit & miss. It may be that having a very accurate reproduction of the stereo signal is NOT as good as maybe having a signal which has something added to iti.e interaural fluctuations may be beneficial to the illusion, who knows? Without knowing how the perception of hearing works using the lack of measurements to "prove" something is meaningless

Most here fail to realise that the perception of hearing is still not fully understood & until such time as this happens, we are flailing around somewhat, maybe catching glimpses here & there of a final working model that explains all the OBSERVATIONS.

It really is the way science works & not a unusual - until something is fully understood & a model explains it & has proven predictive capabilities, do we finally accept it as "the best guess we currently have" i.e a working model.

Those of you who think that it's easy to measure the signal & extrapolate about the phantom image from those measurements

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that's not what I'm saying; not even close. What I'm saying is that if a single electronic component is affecting a change in the phantom image, whatever is causing that change should be measurable within the system. One dac sounds good but not extraordinary. Take it out and insert another and the phantom image is suddenly huge, deep, three dimensional. I'd bet the farm there is a measurable difference in the outputs of those dacs.

Some of you fail to understand what I'm saying

You are failing to hear what I'm saying, the most important part of which is that this is my opinion, my belief and I respect your right to disagree. Learn to take yes for an answer, John.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Learn to take yes for an answer, John.

Tim

Not all of my replies are to you, Tim - I don't know why you would assume this?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Not all of my replies are to you, Tim - I don't know why you would assume this?

The opening of my post you were replying to above:

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that's not what I'm saying

Tim

 

[jkeny]

So which is right??

Rob

The one that sounds most realistic! We all have a reference point in audio - it's called the real world, it's not a preference! The illusion that most closely matches our in-built reference is the one that is "right". Isn't this the objective of stereo reproduction?

 

[microstrip]

(...) If you experience a huge expansion of the sound stage, that makes your music more musical, more real, that brings the instruments and voices into your listening room so palpably that you can almost taste them....and you haven't changed, or even moved, the speakers, treated the room, changed a grossly underpowered amp for one up to the task, mentioned the recording or referred to a single measurable performance parameter that has changed; if instead, what you've done to achieve all that unmeasurable drama is install a new digital player or changed the power supply to your already well- isolated dac, yes, I'm going to ask for something to back that up. I might even have a little fun with it.

Tell me you think something changed and it sounds good to you, but honestly, you're not really sure of what it is because you can't seem to measure it? I'll leave you alone.(...)
Tim

Is warm-up of the system excluded from your list?

And yes, the proper digital source can create all the nice things you refer and the wrong one can kill them. And both will measure good.

 

[jkeny]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that's not what I'm saying; not even close. What I'm saying is that if a single electronic component is affecting a change in the phantom image, whatever is causing that change should be measurable within the system. One dac sounds good but not extraordinary. Take it out and insert another and the phantom image is suddenly huge, deep, three dimensional. I'd bet the farm there is a measurable difference in the outputs of those dacs.

Tim

It's easy to say this Tim but then difficult to say what measurements should reveal this (as you have avoided so far except to say "by very mundane, standard measurements."). So tell us what measurements to use!

Do we use a single tone, 2 tone, multi-tone or music as input signal? Please give your analysis of these options.
Do we measure the output from the two channels or just one? What comparisons between the channels are needed. Do we look at measurements over time or just a single point in time. Please give your analysis of these options