Preference vs. audibility - please keep them separate.

[jkeny]

I'm not denying that statement. I'm questioning what high-end electronics has proactively done in the research and development of psychoacoustics/perception. I do have doubts, as it seems to me that the high end has rejected all the processing tools that could impact perception...heck, they've even rejected tone controls...so I'm a bit lost as to what it is they're doing inside their black boxes to leverage my psychoacoustic responses.

Tim

I don't know, Tim - it would seem to me that what we perceive as improved reproduction of sound can't be so without it's reproduction being more psychoacoustically correct/acceptable/accurate - you chose whichever term suits?

Of course if you don't think there are differences in reproduction or don't hear them, then this statement doesn't apply

 

[Groucho]

No mention of whether you agree with audibility of pre-ringing at 2Khz !

What makes you think I know enough to disagree with that point in particular?! If Putzeys and Grimm say it's so, I'll take their word for it, but I suppose it may not be as audible to most people as it is to them. Do you disagree with them?

 

[jkeny]

What makes you think I know enough to disagree with that point in particular?! If Putzeys and Grimm say it's so, I'll take their word for it, but I suppose it may not be as audible to most people as it is to them. Do you disagree with them?

Rather than make statements - here's a John Atkinson experiment that analysed this very notion of pre-ringing audibility & came to the opposite conclusion to Buno http://www.stereophile.com/content/ringing-false-digital-audios-ubiquitous-filter-page-2

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know, Tim - it would seem to me that what we perceive as improved reproduction of sound can't be so without it's reproduction being more psychoacoustically correct/acceptable/accurate - you chose whichever term suits?

Of course if you don't think there are differences in reproduction or don't hear them, then this statement doesn't apply

And it seems to me that creating electronics that are correct or accurate (low distortion, low noise, linear response) is very different from deliberately taking advantage of human psychoacoustic responses, which is what I'm asking about. The simplest example is the old "Loudness" button which boosts frequencies that are not in our highest sesitivity band so what we hear is perceived as more linear when listening at low volume, while it is actually less linear within the component. That circuit takes advantage of a human perception to create an effect. I'm still awaiting such a tangible example from high-end electronics. Vladimir Lamm has been no help so far.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

Rather than make statements - here's a John Atkinson experiment that analysed this very notion of pre-ringing audibility & came to the opposite conclusion to Buno http://www.stereophile.com/content/ringing-false-digital-audios-ubiquitous-filter-page-2

Thanks for that - very interesting. As I say, I don't know enough to agree or disagree, and Putzeys is talking about the effect of acoustic summing of the drivers on and off axis. Maybe that changes the situation..?

 

[rbbert]

...Vladimir Lamm has been no help so far.

Tim

Really? Despite his high distortion low power SET amps which many listeners find "better" sounding than any others? You don't suppose there is some attention to human perception there?

 

[microstrip]

I don't have time to read hundreds, or even dozens of articles by designers talking about their designs. Do you have anything other than broad generalities? Does Lamm? Does Pass?

Tim

Yes, they have. We debated the Lamm case several times in WBF, even recently. I will not rewrite the full history every time in WBF just because you have short (or selective ...) memory.

 

[mep]

Yes, they have. We debated the Lamm case several times in WBF, even recently. I will not rewrite the full history every time in WBF just because you have short (or selective ...) memory.

It has become obvious to me that Tim dislikes doing research, but he sure loves to debate.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, they have. We debated the Lamm case several times in WBF, even recently. I will not rewrite the full history every time in WBF just because you have short (or selective ...) memory.

Did you see the Lamm quote I posted from the TAs interview of just last year? That was no help. Can you point me to a link in which he talks about the work he's done to leverage human perception with his amps/preamps?

Tim

 

[jkeny]

And it seems to me that creating electronics that are correct or accurate (low distortion, low noise, linear response) is very different from deliberately taking advantage of human psychoacoustic responses, which is what I'm asking about. The simplest example is the old "Loudness" button which boosts frequencies that are not in our highest sesitivity band so what we hear is perceived as more linear when listening at low volume, while it is actually less linear within the component. That circuit takes advantage of a human perception to create an effect. I'm still awaiting such a tangible example from high-end electronics. Vladimir Lamm has been no help so far.

Tim

Tim,
You are taking a top-down approach to the issue - looking for stated psychoacoustic principles which are demonstrably incorporated into a product.
The bottom-up approach is equally valid - where a noticeable improvement in sound can be associated with certain design choices without a firm/solid psychoacoustic cause/effect relationship. It doesn't invalidate the end-result, however.

One example of this is the use of minimum phase filters which I think Meridian first implemented & addressed the pre-ringing issues with linear phase filters. There is still disagreement over this & whether it is audible.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It has become obvious to me that Tim dislikes doing research, but he sure loves to debate.

It has become clear to me that mep likes to do drive-by snipings of my posts, even when he clearly has no idea what has been said.

It's not my research, though I did some and found Lamm contradicting, not supporting micro's claim that he has integrated psychoacoustic research into his amplifier designs. If that's the claim, though, it is the responsibility of the person making it to back it up, rather than just saying there are hundreds of interviews out there, look them up. I Googled. The very first one I read contradicted the claim. Next up? Point me to one that supports it.

I'm not arguing at all yet. I'm still waiting for something substantive enough to except or reject.

Tim

 

[audioarcher]

And it seems to me that creating electronics that are correct or accurate (low distortion, low noise, linear response) is very different from deliberately taking advantage of human psychoacoustic responses, which is what I'm asking about. The simplest example is the old "Loudness" button which boosts frequencies that are not in our highest sesitivity band so what we hear is perceived as more linear when listening at low volume, while it is actually less linear within the component. That circuit takes advantage of a human perception to create an effect. I'm still awaiting such a tangible example from high-end electronics. Vladimir Lamm has been no help so far.

Tim

A loudness button is a crude attempt. It will only be accurate at one volume. It would be cool if someone designed a circuit that tracks the Fletcher/Munson curve as you adjust the volume control. It would be difficult to accomplish but maybe not so much if done in the digital domain.

 

[mep]

It has become clear to me that mep likes to do drive-by snipings of my posts, even when he clearly has no idea what has been said.

Tim

That's not true at all and you know it. You have a pattern of posting your opinions and asking others to do your research to prove your point which I find hilarious while Micro is not so amused. Your tactic has been commented on numerous times on numerous threads.

 

[microstrip]

Did you see the Lamm quote I posted from the TAs interview of just last year? That was no help. Can you point me to a link in which he talks about the work he's done to leverage human perception with his amps/preamps?

Tim

Sorry if it is of no help for you. Were you expecting him to publish his mathematical models and corresponding implementations just to please you?

Most people will agree that each high-end manufacturer has a sound signature. How do you believe they have this consistency?

Some people claim about the superiority of discrete analog class A circuits over ICs. How do you think they reach this conclusion? IMHO they should have models correlating what they measure with what they hear.

 

[Groucho]

Did you see the Lamm quote I posted from the TAs interview of just last year? That was no help. Can you point me to a link in which he talks about the work he's done to leverage human perception with his amps/preamps?

Let me put it this way: in this world there are great works of art and craftsmanship, but they have to co-exist with products of low taste, affordable by the poor and infirm and their terrible diseases. We great artists and craftsmen have a duty to ensure that the feeble-bodied and feeble-minded do not hold us back in our quest to build the finest musical reproduction devices that have ever existed. In my work I have found a way to synergise the energy inherent in all sounds with the electrical currents which flow in the finest electronic components and this makes the design of my amplifiers independent of extraneous factors. In other words, my amplifiers tap directly into human consciousness itself via the route of finest crafstmanship and a healthy respect for the complexity of molecular structure.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I Googled. The very first one I read (...)
Tim

You won!

 

[amirm]

A loudness button is a crude attempt. It will only be accurate at one volume. It would be cool if someone designed a circuit that tracks the Fletcher/Munson curve as you adjust the volume control. It would be difficult to accomplish but maybe not so much if done in the digital domain.

TacT implemented that in their room eq products. And yes, it was in digital domain.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
You are taking a top-down approach to the issue - looking for stated psychoacoustic principles which are demonstrably incorporated into a product.
The bottom-up approach is equally valid - where a noticeable improvement in sound can be associated with certain design choices without a firm/solid psychoacoustic cause/effect relationship. It doesn't invalidate the end-result, however.

One example of this is the use of minimum phase filters which I think Meridian first implemented & addressed the pre-ringing issues with linear phase filters. There is still disagreement over this & whether it is audible.

I think it might be useful at this point to re-visit where this line of conversation began...

Groucho --

Hi Atmasphere. My reaction is the one that says that we don't need to understand how human hearing works if we can simply (re)produce the sound accurately and cleanly. To this end, I see the system comprising source, overworked stereo amp covering the full range, driving two passive speakers as being where the deficiencies lie. New ways to specify and measure this ancient configuration won't help us very much (IMO, YMMV etc.)

Atmasphere -

This is the position held by many. But it is insufficient. Understanding how the ear/brain system works is paramount. For example, did you know that if there is information coming from the rear of the speaker, that when it bounces around in the room it can help with image location? This is due to human perceptual rules.

Atmasphere was clearly (to me, anyway) talking about a top-down approach; understanding the way the ear/brain system works and using it to enhance the illusion. This is a deliberate, strategic approach. What you're talking about seems to be simply designing well and getting a psychoacoustic effect as a result. Is the result equally valid? Sure, if it happens to be equally effective. But we'll have to disagree that the approach is equally valid. One counts on knowledge of psychoacoustic effects that are deliberately, strategically leveraged. The other counts on lucky accidents.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry if it is of no help for you. Were you expecting him to publish his mathematical models and corresponding implementations just to please you?

Most people will agree that each high-end manufacturer has a sound signature. How do you believe they have this consistency?

Some people claim about the superiority of discrete analog class A circuits over ICs. How do you think they reach this conclusion? IMHO they should have models correlating what they measure with what they hear.

My apologies if I misunderstood you, but I'd swear you said Lamm was designing amps using psycho acoustic principles to deliberately leverage human perception in audio reproduction, and that I would find him talking about this in interviews online. The very first interview I found, and a very recent one at that, contradicted that position, as Lamm very specifically positioned this use of psychoacoustics in amp design in the future tense.

As I understood it, your expert testimony does not support your argument.

Tim

 

[audioarcher]

TacT implemented that in their room eq products. And yes, it was in digital domain.

That's cool. Does it work well or are there other problems created by it's use?