What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[DaveC]

John, this is an important aspect of "believability" - the almost eery invariance of "perceived amplitude". Subjectively, this means one can walk around the room, to points furthest from the direct sound, to immediately in front of and next to the drivers - and the apparent volume does not alter! I've known this behaviour for 30 years but did not appreciate what was going on inside of our hearing to make this happen, until you drew my attention strongly to ASA. The processing inside our brains keeps adjusting for the information hitting out ears so that it matches what our minds have decided, unconsciously, is going on - which includes the volume level, as necessary. When the quality of the direct sound is good enough then this happens seamlessly, effortlessly - and the illusion of the musical event is rock solid, no matter what one tries to do to shake it.

Scientific fact: point source drops off at 6 dB, line arrays at 3 dB. No way, no how can your tweaking of electronics change the laws of physics.

 

[DaveC]

This is most certainly incorrect - I've done this so many times, with such a variety of dynamic speakers, in rooms of all persuasions ... the key factor mitigating is the actual quality of the sound being produced at the surface of the drivers - if sufficiently free of anomalies then the believability snaps into place, every time. I've spent days where the sound shifts in and out of this mode continually, because I'm fiddling with the system or trying to resolve some issue.

You keep saying it, but I'll just ignore you from here on out like most people are currently doing.

I think you must be making it all up at this point. It's like you think you have this magic secret nobody else knows about that can alter the laws of physics. I'd be willing to bet almost everyone here has a higher performing system than you've ever experienced before.

 

[fas42]

Scientific fact: point source drops off at 6 dB, line arrays at 3 dB. No way, no how can your tweaking of electronics change the laws of physics.

You're confusing laws of physics with the "laws" of how the brain works - I would suggest you get a live musician in your listening room, at a position between your speakers, and then walk around the room to all possible points while he's performing - and note the characteristics of the sound as you perceive it. That's what the system should be mimicking, the qualities you hear doing that exercise ...

 

[DaveC]

You're confusing laws of physics with the "laws" of how the brain works - I would suggest you get a live musician in your listening room, at a position between your speakers, and then walk around the room to all possible points while he's performing - and note the characteristics of the sound as you perceive it. That's what the system should be mimicing, the qualities you hear doing that exercise ...

No, it shouldn't and it won't unless your speakers have the same dispersion pattern as the instrument. Creating music and reproducing music have some fundamental differences.

 

[jkeny]

I've started a thread which has a bearing on what's being said here about dispersion patterns, directivity, etc.
Thread here http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20942-What-does-a-quot-great-room-quot-mean

 

[fas42]

No, it shouldn't and it won't unless your speakers have the same dispersion pattern as the instrument. Creating music and reproducing music have some fundamental differences.

That's the theory, in some books, but not the reality. Don't you think I got a shock when I heard this happen, to me, for the first time?!! It was truly a "Bloody hell!!!" moment - but I knew from then on that's exactly what I wanted to always happen, to be able to replicate the experience on cue.

 

[fas42]

I think you must be making it all up at this point. It's like you think you have this magic secret nobody else knows about that can alter the laws of physics. I'd be willing to bet almost everyone here has a higher performing system than you've ever experienced before.

The "magic secret" is being absolutely scrupulous about optimising, taking into account every small part of what makes the system tick. Since this is not something one can buy off the shelf it would be hard for many people to simply apply - this is unfortunate, but hopefully greater understanding down the track will make this process much easier to enable, and get far more systems working at the required level.

 

[fas42]

Sorry about doing this yet again , but this just posted video by AVshowreports, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QwpbWn8Rc8 - a tribute to Richard Beers - at the very end has a short section with a live band playing. The qualities of bite and impact of the "real thing" are easily picked up the camera, and just as easily heard on my laptop - and this is what an audio system should be capable of replicating, mimicking that band in the room ...

 

[bonzo75]

The problem with having no objectivists around seems to be people who don't know better think it's all subjective, but people do get degrees in acoustic engineering for a reason.

While there is plenty of latitude for personal preference, there are lot of things posted recently that are factually incorrect and are tolerated or even supported.

Sorry, I disagree Fas42 represents subjectivists. And objectivism on this forum gave rise to a Blizzard.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Originally Posted by Peter: ". . . I think our claims about relative importance of these elements is highly dependent on our own audio journeys and specific experiences with our own systems. For me, it is very fluid and often dependent upon what I will learn next which may change my mind again. It is such a fascinating hobby."

Excellent post, Peter ...

+1

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . someone tries to impersonate someone you know over an ordinary phone line - you have no trouble discerning that the sound is fake, because you have a deep knowledge of the characteristics of that person's voice. . . .

This is a very interesting point. Having a sound or voice one knows extremely well and can identify regardless of the digitization of the sound or the low resolution of the reproduction medium definitely provides a valid sonic reference point.

But does the analogy hold for our purposes? To be a completely valid analogy in our context wouldn't one have to have heard many times an original, unamplified performance? In our context the best example probably would be a recording engineer who routinely records his singing wife's vocals.

 

[jkeny]

This is a very interesting point. Having a sound or voice one knows extremely well and can identify regardless of the digitization of the sound or the low resolution of the reproduction medium definitely provides a valid sonic reference point.

But does the analogy hold for our purposes? To be a completely valid analogy in our context wouldn't one have to have heard many times an original, unamplified performance? In our context the best example probably would be a recording engineer who routinely records his singing wife's vocals.

But I think Frank's point with this telephone example is that even using such a low quality audio reproduction system that it's relatively easy to discern a subtle difference i.e. the power & sensitivity of the auditory processing is being demonstrated.
In other words he's defending the idea that Youtube is suitable as a tool for comparative analysis of sound systems.
Obviously he isn't suggesting that it is giving the full blown auditory experience but is suggesting that it is still somewhat useful with provisos.

BTW, congrats on your co-ownership of WBF - you have always straddled the conflicts in here very equitably & I see this as a great move forward for WBF

 

[bonzo75]

Thanks Dave
I haven't heard these DML speakers either but what I read makes sense to me. The main points about DML speakers & room interactions are summarised in this paper

Essentially it compares what happens in live performances Vs speakers in rooms:


As I said, makes sense to me but as you say the proof of the pudding.......

Maybe this does deserve a separate thread?

That multidirectional sound and MCH audio makes much sense. To beat averagely priced MCH audio one has to go extremely high on vinyl, and high timbre speakers like quality horns or big Apogees or gigantic boxes.

A normal B&W type system can be replicated with B&W type speakers in MCH and with an Oppo will beat a high level dac 2CH every day on MCH classical.

 

[FrantzM]

But I think Frank's point with this telephone example is that even using such a low quality audio reproduction system that it's relatively easy to discern a subtle difference i.e. the power & sensitivity of the auditory processing is being demonstrated.
In other words he's defending the idea that Youtube is suitable as a tool for comparative analysis of sound systems.
Obviously he isn't suggesting that it is giving the full blown auditory experience but is suggesting that it is still somewhat useful with provisos.

BTW, congrats on your co-ownership of WBF - you have always straddled the conflicts in here very equitably & I see this as a great move forward for WBF

In that case I don't want anyone to tell me that mp3 is not High Resolution. If a telephone can convey such subtle nuances then there is no need for our massively expensive systems ..

The Millenia had it right: All you need is a smartphone with any earbuds .. Come on people ...! Come On!!!!

 

[jkeny]

In that case I don't want anyone to tell me that mp3 is not High Resolution. If a telephone can convey such subtle nuances then there is no need for our massively expensive systems ..

The Millenia had it right: All you need is a smartphone with any earbuds .. Come on people ...! Come On!!!!

I think you are exaggerating things, Frantz - all Frank is saying is that as a comparative tool youtube audios recorded with the same reasonable quality microphone provides some useful info.
It doesn't mean what you are trying to exaggerate it to mean.

 

[microstrip]

But I think Frank's point with this telephone example is that even using such a low quality audio reproduction system that it's relatively easy to discern a subtle difference i.e. the power & sensitivity of the auditory processing is being demonstrated.
In other words he's defending the idea that Youtube is suitable as a tool for comparative analysis of sound systems.
Obviously he isn't suggesting that it is giving the full blown auditory experience but is suggesting that it is still somewhat useful with provisos.
(...)

Again, our problems are the excessive claims of Frank and his style. The mp3 recording system works in such cases as a filter cutting information and adding some distortion. But perhaps it allows information enough to flow for some specific purposes. It is something that has some resemblance with the LIAR (listening in another room) test we discussed before.

It is not a new subject. Several decades ago, long before the too short instantaneous replies and the liberal use of red emoticons, people wrote about the use of mono tape recordings of the playback of the stereo reproduction to access loudspeakers - listeners were sent tapes to listen and express their preference. Unfortunately, as most valuable audio research carried between the 50s and the 90's it not "googleable" and I can not remember exactly where I read it, I do not have references on it. Probably Revue du Son or Wireless World, two magazines with a very open mind.

 

[FrantzM]

I think you are exaggerating things, Frantz - all Frank is saying is that as a comparative tool youtube audios recorded with the same reasonable quality microphone provides some useful info.
It doesn't mean what you are trying to exaggerate it to mean.

Am I John? Following his and your own line of reasoning , one has to wonder.

 

[DaveC]

Sorry, I disagree Fas42 represents subjectivists. And objectivism on this forum gave rise to a Blizzard.

That's your own opinion, you don't speak for everyone.

fas42 represents radical subjectivism, and just like anything radical, it has a horribly distorted view on reality and is nowhere close to the truth of anything except the fantasies playing out in their own heads.

 

[microstrip]

Scientific fact: point source drops off at 6 dB, line arrays at 3 dB. No way, no how can your tweaking of electronics change the laws of physics.

Yes, but these are measured anechoic facts, room will change it significantly. And small factors can affect our subjective findings of loudness. BTW, do you know of any theoretical estimation for a very large full range panel such as the Soundlab?

 

[Steve williams]

That's your own opinion, you don't speak for everyone.

fas42 represents radical subjectivism, and just like anything radical, it has a horribly distorted view on reality and is nowhere close to the truth of anything except the fantasies playing out in their own heads.

dave

This echoes my feelings exactly. Most of us are subjectivists in this hobby but the extreme nature to which Frank has presented his arguments IMO are no where near the truth nor do I believe that in the absence of all explanation of the Laws of Physics the argument left boils down to ASA. I think if that were the case why would anyone have a different system if all we needed to do is tell ourselves that our mind is filling in the blanks and the hell with the laws of physics.

I rarely take sides in any of these debates but this one has stirred a spot inside me and I believe that rebuttal by me to express my position is necessary. IMO DaveC and Frantz reflect my feelings exactly

On the brighter side the fact that we are discussing this cordially also IMO pays big dividends and thanks to every one for that