What is the correlation b/w measurements and good sound?

[Gregadd]

Distortion is always audibly significant.We must differentiate between the ability to identify distortion as a distinct entity and the ability to recognize that recorded music is short of the real thing. We can identify glare.as a distinct property. OTOH we listen to a live trumpet and to arecorded one.We know they are different, but we can't identify why. i It is why no system sounds ike the real thing.Some distortion is additive .Some is detractive. The only answer to this quandry is we are simply unable to describe all that is going on. We do have a very narrow set of masurements Once we are able to idntify everything that is going on, we wil be able to recreate it.

Just my theory of course.

 

[BE718]

So if you get into your car, and there's a rattling noise that wasn't there yesterday, then it's only a guess that perhaps something is not quite correct? Would you require someone to do a spectral analysis of the interior sounds, before thinking it might be worthwhile lifting the bonnet, or having a quick gaze under the vehicle? My personal preference is for a system to work 'correctly', not 'wrongly' - "superior" means nothing unless it actually relates to an absence of flaws ... if I didn't want to hear unpleasant noises inside my car then as a quick fix I could always stuff cotton wool in my ears - that's classy problem solving, right there ...

I think you are talking in very gross terms. My sub can make the windows rattle. I can hear that. Difintively Identifying the cause of some perceived issue by ear - lets say the sound of jitter as an example - by such gross analysis would be extraordinarily difficult. Yet jitter is quite esily measured.

 

[BE718]

Though, the good news is that the level of distortion can be reduced to a point where it's not audibly significant - audiophiles recognise this in a system, except they call it "magical", "organic", "immersive", "just music", "natural", etc, etc, etc ...

I know people who say those sorts of things about a dac that has a lot of intermodulation distortion.

Those sorts of things were said about my re-recording mentioned above.


This may be a pertinent point to ask how you have got on with the test tracks I devised for the other thread?

 

[fas42]

OTOH we listen to a live trumpet and to arecorded one.We know they are different, but we can't identify why. i It is why no system sounds ike the real thing.Some distortion is additive .Some is detractive. The only answer to this quandry is we are simply unable to describe all that is going on. We do have a very narrow set of masurements Once we are able to idntify everything that is going on, we wil be able to recreate it.

That's what I'm getting it - I want the live and recorded to match, whether it's trumpet, double bass or piano. From outside the house, inside at the other end of the house, and in the same room, literally a few feet away from the speaker. IME this is possible, and the biggest issue is that most systems can't go loud enough without disturbing artifacts being clearly audible - that's why they don't sound real. I went to the Sydney audio show a couple of years ago, the first in over a decade - and there was only one system that stood out, that was fully convincing - I had the chap wind up the volume on a drum set solo recording, and that worked: the raw intensity, bite and visceral feel of that instrument was in the room - I was impressed!

 

[fas42]

I think you are talking in very gross terms. My sub can make the windows rattle. I can hear that. Difintively Identifying the cause of some perceived issue by ear - lets say the sound of jitter as an example - by such gross analysis would be extraordinarily difficult. Yet jitter is quite esily measured.

Not at all. I'm not talking about real rattling, but an artifact in the sound that is equivalent to such. A good example is sibilance in voices, which sounds disturbing in a lot of playback because there is additional distortion - fix the underlying issues and that unpleasantness goes away, it just becomes the natural sound of the human voice, which we are all very familiar with. What the cause of that distortion in a particular system is will vary, it then becomes a troubleshooting exercise to track it down ...

Sorry, haven't progressed much further with the sound samples! Combination of too many things happening, and feeling a bit worn out - I tried again when I was a bit flat and uninspired, and couldn't pick what I had earlier - could this mean the differences are too subtle?

 

[NorthStar]

Rattle snakes they do rattle.

 

[fas42]

Except we don't get them down here, Bob! :b. The locals just lunge, nice and quietly, and inject lots of nasty stuff - we have an excellent percentage of the deadliest snakes in the world in Oz.

Rather than rattle, try shimmer - I listen to the quality of struck cymbals in, say, rock recordings - this is often quite hopeless, miles from the real thing ... when you get the quality up, the true sound of that instrument then appears as a distinct element in the listening room.

 

[NorthStar]

I didn't know that Frank; I thought that because you guys have temperatures so hot and dry that you had rattle snakes.

____________

Back with the program: Sometimes we read pro reviews in ultra high end audio magazines where the reviewer use his best vocabulary to describe his enchantement in listening to a pair of magnificently designed pair of hush-hush loudspeakers. And then we look @ the waterfall plots and the impulse response time, the phase in relation to its impedance curve, the box' accelerated resonances, the power response, etc., and it doesn't measure/translate as the audio professional reviewer said that it sounded, to his ears. ...Sometimes.
Other times they seem to correlate...in particular when the reviewer knew in advance of the measurements...but not all the times...it depends.

Anyway, quite fascinating our audio hobby.

 

[Folsom]

The answer is to focus in on precisely one aspect that's wrong - one and only one for the moment - you're looking for a signature to the system sound. If the playback is "perfect" then it has no signature, it just sounds like the original instruments and the distinctive quality of the recording environment, which includes the electronics used at that time. As soon as you hear the same quality, in some area of the reproduction, being imparted to the sound through a diverse range of recordings then you know you've got distortion of the playback happening. Of course, you may like that "tonality" being injected all the time, but personally I don't ...

Again, distortion is a bad term here. One of the best systems I've ever heard at any price level has a fair bit of distortion from the amplifier (1% typical, 10% max). Listening to music on it is very much like auditioning the recording process. When you're trying to critical listen you're paying attention to how you think the microphone choices were different, because the music has no mystery to you as it just comes so you don't have to try. But you can also hear choices in mixing and especially mastering where they did not make instruments life sized, or oversized them. I believe it's exactly as you describe, except distortion isn't the factor. What it does have is a one of a kind power conditioner one a crazy level that also provides PFC, with an amp that has very special care given for noise.

 

[fas42]

Again, distortion is a bad term here. One of the best systems I've ever heard at any price level has a fair bit of distortion from the amplifier (1% typical, 10% max). Listening to music on it is very much like auditioning the recording process. When you're trying to critical listen you're paying attention to how you think the microphone choices were different, because the music has no mystery to you as it just comes so you don't have to try. But you can also hear choices in mixing and especially mastering where they did not make instruments life sized, or oversized them. I believe it's exactly as you describe, except distortion isn't the factor. What it does have is a one of a kind power conditioner one a crazy level that also provides PFC, with an amp that has very special care given for noise.

Except, I use distortion in the true sense of the word, for me - not what the measurements say about extremes of the performance envelope, what the limits are. If distortion, artifacts, noise, interference modulation, whatever you wish to call it, prevent one from hearing the full measure of what was recorded then the playback chain is not working as accurately as it otherwise could - that "best system" you heard allowed you to hear deep within the sound picture; it gave you the full monte, or close to it ... from where I sit anything that prevents that happening I put under the general umbrella of 'distortion'.

 

[Folsom]

I understand. I'm sorry I don't have a better alternative when I'm asking for you to. But if I think of better nomenclature I'll let you know.

 

[BE718]

That's what I'm getting it - I want the live and recorded to match, whether it's trumpet, double bass or piano. From outside the house, inside at the other end of the house, and in the same room, literally a few feet away from the speaker. IME this is possible, and the biggest issue is that most systems can't go loud enough without disturbing artifacts being clearly audible - that's why they don't sound real. I went to the Sydney audio show a couple of years ago, the first in over a decade - and there was only one system that stood out, that was fully convincing - I had the chap wind up the volume on a drum set solo recording, and that worked: the raw intensity, bite and visceral feel of that instrument was in the room - I was impressed!

Simple fact is that instruments and our hearing do not work the same way as recording and replay with mics and speakers. It will never be more than a facsimile.

 

[BE718]

Except, I use distortion in the true sense of the word, for me - not what the measurements say about extremes of the performance envelope, what the limits are. If distortion, artifacts, noise, interference modulation, whatever you wish to call it, prevent one from hearing the full measure of what was recorded then the playback chain is not working as accurately as it otherwise could - that "best system" you heard allowed you to hear deep within the sound picture; it gave you the full monte, or close to it ... from where I sit anything that prevents that happening I put under the general umbrella of 'distortion'.

Problem is, every time I have ever put anyone to test their ability to establish what is "accurate" they fail. hence my example above where a whole bunch of dedicated audiophiles thought a less accurate, degraded re-recording was superior.

 

[fas42]

I'm sure everyone listens with different ears - if someone is very acutely aware of some aspect of what the real sound of an instrument, or noise maker is of some type is like; and the playback doesn't nail it then they would rightly say that the audio didn't match. However, I'm looking for the illusion to happen, to be fooled by the experience - if I can't tell outside the open door of the room whether there's a real piano or not inside; and I go into the room and there's a curtain separating me from the sound making apparatus, and I still can't tell ... then that's good enough for me ...

 

[opus112]

if I can't tell outside the open door of the room whether there's a real piano or not inside; and I go into the room and there's a curtain separating me from the sound making apparatus, and I still can't tell ... then that's good enough for me ...

Do you have anechoic recordings for this purpose? The way I tell the difference is that on the recording, the space in which the recording was made was captured, and normally that space has a completely different acoustic signature from the room the audio system is in. So the presence of that acoustic signature is a dead giveaway there's a recording playing. But the instrument sound, well that's pretty authentic so I'm guessing an anechoic recording would easily fool me.

 

[fas42]

Problem is, every time I have ever put anyone to test their ability to establish what is "accurate" they fail. hence my example above where a whole bunch of dedicated audiophiles thought a less accurate, degraded re-recording was superior.

They may thought that it was a more satisfying listening experience - which is not quite the same thing as whether it matched a real musical event in various technical ways ... if I was there I would be listening for various flaws being in the sound or not - some flaws are more unpleasant, subjectively, than others - so I would vote for that which is least disturbing.

 

[fas42]

Do you have anechoic recordings for this purpose? The way I tell the difference is that on the recording, the space in which the recording was made was captured, and normally that space has a completely different acoustic signature from the room the audio system is in. So the presence of that acoustic signature is a dead giveaway there's a recording playing. But the instrument sound, well that's pretty authentic so I'm guessing an anechoic recording would easily fool me.

Good point. I would say I'm tuning into, focusing solely on the instrument as the sound source in the situation, I'm looking for the direct sound to be 'working' - I'm not busting a gut to catch the deception out. If I was deadly serious about it, then I would probably need that anechoic version.

 

[opus112]

Just an observation here that I find interesting - the ultimate sign of quality of a system (to me this is, not legislating here for anyone else) is how well that acoustic space is rendered. Sometimes its like a luminous ball of sound hanging there between and behind the speakers. That's the aim anyway - when that 'ball of sound' is apparent there's no such thing as a 'sweet spot' as the ball is audible no matter where I am in the room. There's no hint of a collapse of soundstage when moving around.

 

[BE718]

They may thought that it was a more satisfying listening experience - which is not quite the same thing as whether it matched a real musical event in various technical ways ... if I was there I would be listening for various flaws being in the sound or not - some flaws are more unpleasant, subjectively, than others - so I would vote for that which is least disturbing.

No, they said is was better, and Im sure they were looking for flaws in the sound too.

 

[fas42]

Just an observation here that I find interesting - the ultimate sign of quality of a system (to me this is, not legislating here for anyone else) is how well that acoustic space is rendered. Sometimes its like a luminous ball of sound hanging there between and behind the speakers. That's the aim anyway - when that 'ball of sound' is apparent there's no such thing as a 'sweet spot' as the ball is audible no matter where I am in the room. There's no hint of a collapse of soundstage when moving around.

Yes, the "ball of sound" - some people might call the experience immersive. Takes a system in good shape to do it - and the interesting thing is that even "terrible" recordings have it; it can be an enormous size, and it will completely take over the room in which you're in.

This is what I'm looking for when I listen to a system, how "close" it is to achieving this state; so, a "better" version of playback will show more promise in this direction.