What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[fas42]

Hello Frank

So Let me get this straight. You can't do live music using sound reinforcement because it's all rubbish. But you can use You Tube videos to judge the sound of the systems in the video?? You don't see the contradiction there??

Rob

No, because what I'm looking for are problems - not, how good it is!! I'll use an analogy: someone says his Ferrari is not working right, there is a vibration in the cabin; I can take it for a leisurely drive around the block, treat it like a shopping basket - and come back and say, there's a bubble on the tyres (which is exactly a problem I have just had, in real life - not the Ferrari bit, though!) - you need to replace at least one of those. I didn't have to flog it down a motorway at 10/10ths to see there was an issue - it was clearly flawed, and that was evident via a "poor quality" - low driving stress - test.

It's the way you listen that matters - it's not thinking, "Am I really impressed by what I hearing here?".

 

[NorthStar]

Here's Frank, more stuff for you:

_________

You can use a decent quality pair of cans to evaluate. ...From Sennheiser for example.

 

[fas42]

Nice one, Bob ... OK, throw it back to you: just had a quick listen to the JATP, binaural cut - what's the first, obvious thing wrong with the sound here?

 

[NorthStar]

Take the time to listen Frank, like I did. They all have their sound sig. And the video number six, pay closer attention for your personal impression. ...The sound of course. But yeah, for Father's Day I highly recommend to all Dads when they have some spare time a listening session of them ten music videos.
[ Roughly 73 minutes all together...the time of an average classical music CD ? my way of saying Happy Fathers Day! ]

And if you need an affordable suggestion: https://www.amazon.ca/Sennheiser-Lightweight-Over-Ear-Binaural-Headphones/dp/B0007XJSQC

Or: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003LPTAYI/ref=psdc_12097479011_t1_B000065BPB

________

* Like I said, they all have their own "sound". The first video is of course "echoish" sounding. I dunno if it's the recording itself (bad taste if it is), or the room's reflections, or the microphone position combination. But all ten music videos can be evaluated on their own. And you might find some pleasant sounding surprises, in particular when using decent headphones, which is best for an in depth analysis of the "room sound". ...It's not like the real illusion, just a different illusion from a youtube video source. And to be honest, many people have sound systems that don't sound that good.
Not here @ WBF, but @ other sites less ... say .... "calibrated"?

I won't comment yet on the ten videos, but I took notes already and it would be fun to read member's comments.

 

[fas42]

Bob, this should be done as a serious exercise ... most people listen to systems, they hear obvious flaws, colourations, etc - but then they try to hear past these clearly evident deficiencies, they try and hear what's "good" about the rig - wrong, wrong move!! I stop at step one, there's a clear problem; so, I put down my ears , and fix that issue; then, I listen again, etc ...

If you are "working your way through" what you hear, and latching on to the "good bits", then the system will never end up sounding as good as it should - put the laser beam on the bad stuff, and dig them out - over and over and over again.

What's the point of this "torture" ... well, getting the believability illusion, all the time, is the payoff - you know, "no pain, no gain" sort of thing ...

 

[thedudeabides]

No, because what I'm looking for are problems -

Neurosis?

 

[Steve williams]

I can't believe I'm still reading all this and now it is compounded by Bobs incessant videos. Have at Frank.

 

[fas42]

Neurosis?

That's what we pay doctors good money for - to be 'neurotic' about us ... perhaps we're wasting our time going to them ... ,

 

[NorthStar]

Only one video out of ten is in 4K. I set two of them @ 1080p (including the one @ 4K). The two ones before the last one, which is the only one @ 480p.
And all the others (the first seven ones) are @ 720p. That's for picture and sound.

But number eight was recorded @ higher audio res, and that youtube video, unfortunately, cannot capture that higher quality audio resolution.
But nonetheless, check if your ears and brain working in tandem/synergy together can make it out.
_________

I would love to invite all the WBF members for a music session here on Vancouver Island, plus a tour of Victoria and a meal @ one of the best restaurants with view on the ocean with the eagles flying above and the killer whales playing in the waves. Short of that on Fathers Day you have some music videos for divertissement (music entertainment for your aural pleasure).
_________

It's been five years, already, and we all have seen ups and downs. /// Time for the ups emphasis.
And I'm not talking about us, but the ups in the music...the music tunes we all love. That was my main philosophy when I registered here.
Everything else represents the means to that illusion @ best. There is no side to choose, there is only "lost in the music", that final portal.

* Sound reproduction, audio believabality, musical illusion, soul transformation, ...it's all being lost in the music ecstasy.
It's like walking in the forest and see each tree as they are unique in form and in appearance. ...We can even climb them if the heart tells us.
To me, music is like nature, like a forest...we can work with it, or against it. ...Some require maintenance, no doubt, and others maintain us.

 

[fas42]

I still haven't got a response from anyone as to whether they can hear the difference between 480p, and 720p settings in YouTube - I would be worried, very worried if no-one could ...

 

[NorthStar]

I still haven't got a response from anyone as to whether they can hear the difference between 480p, and 720p settings in YouTube - I would be worried, very worried if no-one could ...

Yes, @ the 720p setting, the audio is better, less compressed, more music between the "absences". I can hear more presence...in general...when the recordings are cooperating.

 

[fas42]

Yes, @ the 720p setting, the audio is better, less compressed, more music between the "absences". I can hear more presence...in general...when the recordings are cooperating.

Bob, that's good to hear - thanks for responding!

 

[Don Hills]

Frank, can you suggest any clips where the difference between 480p (96k) and 720p (192k) is especially obvious?
I've tried some of the ones you suggested, and some I know well, but am hearing little or no difference. (The most obvious so far is "Mas Que Nada", by Sergio Mendes and Brazil '66 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05w5ch9l6zI )
I also found at least one case, Talking Heads' "Stop Making Sense" remaster, where the audio was 125k at 720p. It was probably uploaded with 128k MP3 audio. It was provided to Youtube by Warner Music Group, so not surprising...

 

[fas42]

Don, I haven't especially hunted any down, just in the time since being aware of this I have always noted the difference - three areas I have regularly perused are Fremer's channel, https://www.youtube.com/user/21stCenturyVinyl/videos; AVshowreports, https://www.youtube.com/user/AVshowreports, and Kenrick, https://www.youtube.com/user/hosoken007/videos - all of these show the variation clearly, for me.

Yes, there will instances where the quality won't match what's possible, simply because the user uploaded a video with audio already highly compressed.

My memory was just jogged to recall listening to cymbal workouts, at https://www.youtube.com/user/ZildjianCompany/videos - there are some remarkable clips here, brilliant bits of drumming at shows, etc. The harmonics of the cymbals should be noticeably poorer at the lower rate, in these.

 

[Lee]

IME, everything must be right, in the "stereo" - the playback chain and its environment. As said, this can be hard, infuriatingly frustrating is what I would call it, - doesn't mean the sound isn't good to listen to on the way there, it certainly bests most stuff out there in the areas that matter, with regard to the believability stakes. But to get over the final hurdle, of always being convincing, takes much doing - the closer you get, the harder, or more painstaking, it is to inch your way right up to that ultimate goal.

Sure, I think everything must be right too. I was just thinking about the top factors. Room acoustics are huge too.

On the plus side, I think the cost of decent playback is going down. There is some killer budget gear out there now. The sound of a $5K system when I got in around 1989 was not very good. Now $5K gets you a lot of sound.

 

[fas42]

Sure, I think everything must be right too. I was just thinking about the top factors. Room acoustics are huge too.

On the plus side, I think the cost of decent playback is going down. There is some killer budget gear out there now. The sound of a $5K system when I got in around 1989 was not very good. Now $5K gets you a lot of sound.

Room acoustics seems to be a strong arguing point! Personally, when a system works well enough this becomes irrelevant to me, the quality which Ron Resnick and others call Presence, http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20082-Glossary, dominates, totally - I call this convincing sound.

I agree about the cost of decent playback - smart purchase and setup these days gets so much more, in many areas of the sound.

 

[Steve williams]

Well if we are giving opinions mine is that the room matters more than anything else. Perhaps if you had a better room you wouldn't always be tinkering

Just my $0.02

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well if we are giving opinions mine is that the room matters more than anything else. Perhaps if you had a better room you wouldn't always be tinkering

Just my $0.02

i have as much time and money tied up in my room as anyone, and i have to disagree.

while the room is important, it's garbage in, garbage out. the media, signal path, speakers and power gird are more important than the room. the room can only not screw up the information, but it cannot add in what is not there.

and any room can be optimized, even if it's only speaker placement. I'd rather have my media/gear in a modest/ordinary room, than ordinary/modest media/gear in my room.

of course; I've also learned enough from my journey to fix many room issues relatively easily. not all, just most. and so i know the net result for me would be better with the right media/gear. i guess what I'm saying is that learning how to make a room right is as important as having the right room. would my experience transfer to just any room? i don't really know, but I'd guess it mostly would.....as it's primarily having a reference in your head for where you are going.

 

[Steve williams]

Well we have to agree to disagree. A well set up room designed properly will go miles farther than most other things. Had I not had a room designed from the ground up by an acoustician I would never have been able to play my speakers in my room as they would have blown the back wall off.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well we have to agree to disagree. A well set up room designed properly will go miles farther than most other things. Had I not had a room designed from the ground up by an acoustician I would never have been able to play my speakers in my room as they would have blown the back wall off.

I agree to that......to disagree that is.

the question is what modest/ordinary media/gear you would have to make it all work with in your current room......compared to your 'uber' level gear.