Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Psychoacoustics?

2.108.1.16
Posted on November 25, 2016 at 16:05:56
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 I had originally thought this was an empirical approach, using human subjects, to determine experimentally what "characteristics" of sound they found enjoyable and then to build these characteristics into loudspeakers. But now, after a very little reading on the subject, it seems that this is another objectivist, measurement-based, approach to jam "linearity" down our throats as "what's best" for everyone.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Psychoacoustics?, posted on December 29, 2016 at 20:28:44
Inmate51
 Hi Frihed89,

I don't often look at the Critic's Corner Asylum, so I've just now found this thread. Reading your original post, it almost seems as if there is a source or maybe a link to which you are referring, but I don't see one. Is there one, or, is this just something you were thinking about?

Either way, psychoacoustics is the science of how we perceive sound, and is an area which I've studied, and in which I'm very interested.

I would like to contribute something useful here, but I thought it best to ask if there was a source or link that I should be aware of, which prompted your post.

:)

 

RE: Psychoacoustics?, posted on December 5, 2016 at 09:18:36
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 8196
Joined: July 4, 2002
 There are two paths and these are not clear choices.
If one designs around some type of music, particular song or style, then one is on one path.

If one designs a loudspeaker to be maximally faithful, then one is on another.

The first path is fine if they are your speakers and are "tuned" for your music but this is a disaster for speakers that others will be using as their tastes are likely different than yours.

The other path is complicated by ones hearing which is an individual experience and irrevocably tied to the ear / brain system composing a single auditory experience base on two inputs.

For the latter path, what can be useful is a generation loss recording where the loudspeaker playing music is recorded with an instrumentation microphone and then evaluated with good headphones and this by passes the stereo image process. The difference is stunning when one hears the loudspeaker live and then the recording and often once one hears the "warts" as recorded, they often become just as audible listening live once one knows what they sound like.

More generations simply exaggerate the flaws with each generation and it is VERY rare to have a loudspeaker that is tolerable after just 3 generations. Here, the most faithful speaker will also reproduce the widest variety of music favorably for the audience of each AND if informally captured on an iphone or video, also sounds "different". We do this kind of testing at work on "large" loudspeakers because larger the system and distance, the greater the difficulty in being "faithful" If you have headphones on your computer, here is a video of a stadium sized speaker at 400 feet which demonstrates this.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g61e95t8eve7gux/20160623090318.mts?dl=0

AS for the scientific Psychoacoustics, this is not an easy area at all but a good deal is known in spite of that but this is an academic area and not strongly related to hifi sales. A co-worker has done a lot of work in this area and the link is to some recordings which use "how the ear works" to create the impression of space, movement and position. Doug is professor emeritus in acoustics, has designed many recording studios and listening halls and is in charge of education at the company.
Try these;

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php

Best,
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs

 

Thanks for the video and links, posted on December 6, 2016 at 08:13:27
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Caleb is pretty impressive. :)

 

Well... Most Audiophiles ARE Psycho-acoustics. nt, posted on December 2, 2016 at 08:23:49
Smelly_Socks
 .

 

Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on November 29, 2016 at 06:12:15
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 And then using that relationship to design products that fit better with the way we hear in a more scientific, engineering based approach.

starting back in the 1940s (at least if not before) some engineers were looking into the relationship between what most people find the best sounding (whatever that means but hopefully means more like a real instrument in real space) and the measurements of the gear that is generating that more pleasing sound.

Starting with Shorter from the BBC and later Hiraga people have tried to generate corrlations between distortion and listener impact. More sophisticated recent efforts to come up with a quantitative assessment of sound quality can be found in the Thesis of Cheever and the papers from Geddes. Their equations can (in theory at least) be used to evaluate if a design will likely be favorable to listeners or unfavorable sonically.

Keith Howard also looked empirically at what adding different distortion patterns to a digital file would have on the sound quality. Unsurprisingly, he found that no added distortion sounded the best but that a monotonic pattern (exponentially decreasing amplitude of harmonics as the harmonic order increases) was the least offensive and that all odd harmonic (typcial of most push/pull circuits...by design) patterns were the most offensive.

For speakers, work has been done by O'Toole and Geddes and many others where things like driver break up, cabinet resonance, dispersion directivity, dynamic compression etc. are probably more important than harmonic distortion, which is mostly low order anyway in a speaker.

When you take these things into account, and yes it is statistical rather than absolute, you can begin to design products that might in an absolute objectivist sense fall short but will satisfy more people more of the time.

One must never forget that with humans there will always be exceptions that will leave room for dissent and alternative preference for something other than the most psychoacoustically correct designs.

However, for the most part, psychoacoustically correct designs largely do not exist except for trial and error where the designer hit upon some principles leading to a good sound. Only Vladimir Lamm, to the best of my knowledge, claims to use a hearing model to optimize his product designs. Apparently, adherence to the model, rather than listening tests are the key to his products sounds. Based on what I have heard from Lamm products his model must be pretty good.

I don't see it at all as someone trying to "Jam" linearity down anyone's throat. In fact, it is often the case that the less linear "objective" measuring piece of gear is in fact the one that does best psychoacoustically. Read Cheever, he does a good job exposing this.

 

Thanks, posted on November 30, 2016 at 06:34:38
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 That was my original understanding on the basis of limited reading.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on November 29, 2016 at 20:28:56
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 I would love to see an argument that poorer linearity sounds more 'real'.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on December 5, 2016 at 10:28:11
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 8196
Joined: July 4, 2002
 Easy, when listening to a subwoofer, people nearly always pick the one that "sound most like" a kick drum.

The problem is, a subwoofer is ONLY supposed to produce what comes out of the low pass crossover which is just the lowest parts of the drum.

The subwoofer with greater distortion and / or least low extension will sound most like the drum because it has a wider spectrum, even though it's not part of the input signal.

Another example, in recording tweaked electronics were used to add warmth (Beatles white album was the first one i knew of). Even harmonics are musically related and can add that warmth but is another non-linearity.

Now, what is the faithful reproduce is the issue and ears are not that reliable while a generation loss recording can make warts standout like soot on a white carpet.


 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on November 30, 2016 at 06:38:27
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 I don't think the poster you replied to was talking about what sounded real, but what they liked.

SET amps have higher THD than most well-engineered SS amps, but they still have a following.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on November 30, 2016 at 09:30:32
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 They have high second harmonic primarily because they are non-linear. They amplify the positive side of a signal differently than the negative side which is compressed relative to the positive side. Second harmonic is very pretty and a very musical distortion.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on December 1, 2016 at 07:23:42
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 It is also inaudible up to about 2%...with a pure sine wave. This means that with real music, even higher levels are likely to go unnoticed.

Keith Howard reported that even predominantly 2nd harmonic was not better sounding than an undistorted file when he made digital files with added distortion of different types. He did find; however, that a monotonic pattern (i.e. with even and odd harmonics falling away exponentially) was the least damaging of the file. This is totally consistent with what Hiraga was claiming and also what Cheever found.

All odd harmonic patterns, even at low levels, were the least pleasant and all even patterns were in the middle somewhere. Most well designed push/pull amps will have predominantly odd harmonics.

The human ear/brain is accustomed to a monotonic pattern, which is what the ear mechanism generates on it's own. Therefore, masking is pretty good if that pattern, at a given SPL, is followed closely.

Since there is no electronic equivalent to the undistorted file, the best we can do at this time is to have the least damaging pattern.

Note, Mr. Howard did not find ANY of the patterns Euphonic and preferrable to the undistorted original.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on December 1, 2016 at 06:45:30
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 Yes, but still nonlinear based on THD. To me they present the "illusion" of a live performance, which is fine with me.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on December 1, 2016 at 07:26:34
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 I think a lot of that has to do with the relative lack of distortion at high frequencies, which is superior with SETs, at least at modest powers. This definitely helps with the 3d effect of images and soundstage. HF distortion flattens both due to how these high frequency distortions are perceived.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on December 2, 2016 at 03:42:15
MannyE
Audiophile

Posts: 2088
Location: Miami Beach
Joined: March 4, 2001
 Hi... new to this.

Interesting discussion about something I have no idea about.

Does that mean that a hybrid bi-amp situation where a tube amp powers the tweeter and a solid state amp the woofer could be worth the effort?

 

RE: Psychoacoustics is about correlating what we hear with what we measure, posted on December 2, 2016 at 07:44:13
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 It could be worth the effort but this does not mean that.

 

I thought you were talking about..., posted on November 27, 2016 at 21:02:25
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
 ...this:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html

 

RE: Psychoacoustics?, posted on November 26, 2016 at 06:30:20
fantja
Audiophile

Posts: 15518
Location: Alabama
Joined: September 11, 2010
 Both linearity and imagery are important during the playback process.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics?relatively few, posted on November 25, 2016 at 22:59:02
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 here and elsewhere recognise the importance of this branch of Acoustics in relation to audio eg say, the differences among perception, noise nuisance and length of exposure.

The common stuff we get here is loudness and often in relation to undefined SPL levels that have no meaning in acoustics.

 

RE: Psychoacoustics?, posted on November 25, 2016 at 20:26:16
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 What's wrong with linearity. It's the heart and soul of accurate reproduction. You make me think of an article a friend proposed writing once called, Color Me Perfect.

 

I understand what you are saying, posted on November 26, 2016 at 04:18:11
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 I visualize music. It's hard to explain, but the images i see are as important to me as what i hear.

 

accurate reproduction?, posted on November 26, 2016 at 01:20:53
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Audio has nothing to do with accurate reproduction. You need a holodeck for that. Audio is auditory smoke and mirrors. It's a trick, an aural illusion. Nothing about it is a reconstruction.

 

RE: accurate reproduction?, posted on November 26, 2016 at 20:45:36
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 The elusive goal is accurate reproduction. Otherwise we're just making electric and elctro/acoustic candy. That's not my game. And it isn't the game of the great designers and the great critics like HP and JGH.

 

RE: accurate reproduction?, posted on January 1, 2017 at 22:44:26
Inmate51
 You, and others, toss around these initials like they matter. The heck with HP and JGH and whoever. Who cares?

I'm a musician. I can't count how many rehearsals and concerts I've played in.

Loudspeakers will NEVER sound like a real musical instrument. Let me be clear: Never.

I've explained it here multiple times.

:)


 

RE: accurate reproduction?, posted on November 27, 2016 at 18:50:10
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 As accurate as possible. That doesn't mean we're near there or even have a possibility of reaching there. But that doesn't mean you abandon the goal. This isn't ice cream where everyone gets their favorite flavor. If it is there's nothing to aim for except as individuals and we're wasting our time in this hobby. I don't think I'm wasting my time and my goal is to go down a road to more realistic. We're not on the same road.

By the way HP and JGH are turning over in their graves if you're correct.

 

RE: "This isn't ice cream where everyone gets their favorite flavor.", posted on November 28, 2016 at 05:57:42
1973shovel
Audiophile

Posts: 10117
Location: Greenville SC
Joined: February 25, 2007
 It is for me. Why would I purposely choose something I like less? To adhere to someone else's philosophy?

For example, Holt embraced Shure cartridges. I've owned several, and found them somewhat bland and musically uninvolving, at least compared to the sound of some of the moving coils I own.

Are my moving coils more colored and less accurate? Holt might have argued, "Yes". But listening to music and thinking, "I know I would get more pleasure out of these LPs with a moving coil cartridge, but this is more accurate!" is something I gave up years ago, and I'm very happy for it.

Sometime back in the early 1990s, back when single ended triode tube amps were just gaining awareness by the masses, Stereophile featured one on their cover, along with a massive Krell amp. Their caption read something like, "If one of these amplifiers is right, the other one must be wrong".

Using your philosophy, I would agree with that. Using mine, I'd say, "One of these amplifiers brings me far more musical pleasure than the other. I'll take that one."






 

Pretty much everything you said here is wrong., posted on November 27, 2016 at 19:16:14
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "As accurate as possible. That doesn't mean we're near there or even have a possibility of reaching there. But that doesn't mean you abandon the goal."

If you actually understand how stereo recording and playback works you should understand that "accuracy" that being *an accurate RECREATION of the original acoustic event* was never the goal.

"This isn't ice cream where everyone gets their favorite flavor. If it is there's nothing to aim for except as individuals and we're wasting our time in this hobby."

Nonsense. If one is enjoying the hobby it is hardly a waste of time. Do you really believe any hobby has to have a singlular goal otherwise it's a big waste of time? That is just ridiculous.

"I don't think I'm wasting my time and my goal is to go down a road to more realistic. We're not on the same road."


Whoa dude! Can't let that one go without pointing out how far off the mark you are here. Were not talking about "realistic" we are talking about "accuracy" and accuracy being an accurate RECREATION of the original acoustic event. When you understand the fundamental difference between the two you are then ready to participate in the conversation.

 

RE: Pretty much everything you said here is wrong., posted on November 27, 2016 at 19:55:05
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 He could be talking about the accurate reproduction of the recording he is listening too whether a vinyl record, a cd/sacd or a digital file. If that is what he means we could have a discussion. The problem is who is to say what the recording should sound like. Again, this is a subjective hobby which starts in the studio and ends with the listener. JGH and HP both who I admired a lot ignored a lot to try to advance the hobby. Nothing wrong in that. Good listening
Alan

 

RE: Pretty much everything you said here is wrong., posted on November 27, 2016 at 20:21:08
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "He could be talking about the accurate reproduction of the recording he is listening too whether a vinyl record, a cd/sacd or a digital file. If that is what he means we could have a discussion."

1. If that is what he is talking about then he is off topic.


2. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the accuracy these various media offer in reproducing the signal they are fed? Or are you talking about what they "sound like"? Two very different discussions. Yes, we could have a discussion about the objective accuracy vinyl and CDs/SACDs offer in comparison to the signal they are fed. The vinyl is objectively less accurate. Both in it's technical measurements and in it's audible distortions. And there is where that discussion starts.

Now if we are going to have a discussion as to which sounds subjectively better it's a very different discussion. Personally, on my vinyl playback gear I very much prefer sound of the vinyl.



"The problem is who is to say what the recording should sound like."



That does seem to be an on going debate in and of itself.



"Again, this is a subjective hobby which starts in the studio and ends with the listener. JGH and HP both who I admired a lot ignored a lot to try to advance the hobby. Nothing wrong in that. Good listening"



Yes!!! It is subjective. But I think there is this huge myth in audiophilia about accuracy being the goal of audio. There is no attempt built into the basic design of stereo recording and playback to actually be an accurate reconstruction of the original waveform present in the original sound space. It's an absurd idea. The design of stereo recording and playback was to create an *aural illusion* of accuracy to that original event from a specific aural perspective. two very very different design goals. And when one fully grasps that idea, that fundamental difference, then one can understand why an obsession with objective accuracy within each link in the audio chain is only valuable in so far as it serves the aural illusion. Then it also becomes possible to understand that in some cases some inaccuracies actually do a better job of creating the aural illusion.

 

This..., posted on November 28, 2016 at 11:10:20
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 4376
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >The design of stereo recording and playback was to create an *aural illusion* of accuracy to that original event from a specific aural perspective. two very very different design goals. And when one fully grasps that idea, that fundamental difference, then one can understand why an obsession with objective accuracy within each link in the audio chain is only valuable in so far as it serves the aural illusion. Then it also becomes possible to understand that in some cases some inaccuracies actually do a better job of creating the aural illusion.<

...is stated about as perfectly as I've ever witnessed. Spot on!

 

RE: Pretty much everything you said here is wrong., posted on November 27, 2016 at 21:21:31
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 For what it's worth both Gordon and Harry were trying to get as close to the live experience as possible in reproduction. That's why Harry called his magazine The Absolute Sound which he stated in issue 1 and many times after. And that was Gordon's attitude also which he also stated in the magazine and I often discussed with him.

Neither would say we were there or even expected to get there knowing the limitations of our gear. But that was the goal even if they never got there. Some of your comments are probably why Gordon was interested in surround sound.

I suspect they'd agree that audio is an illusion. But the goal is to make it so the illusion can almost fool you so you can make believe once in a while. But they would call that an attempt at reproduction and so would I.

Other wise what is the goal of high end audio with its costly, intricate gear. What are your targets?

 

RE: Pretty much everything you said here is wrong., posted on November 27, 2016 at 21:40:24
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "For what it's worth both Gordon and Harry were trying to get as close to the live experience as possible in reproduction."


Two things here.
1.Stereo playback does not involve "reproduction." It does not "reproduce" anything. Stereo playback produces a unique and new acoustic waveform.
2."The live experience?" There is no such thing as "THE live experience."


"That's why Harry called his magazine The Absolute Sound which he stated in issue 1 and many times after. And that was Gordon's attitude also which he also stated in the magazine and I often discussed with him."

If they were alive today I would have enjoyed discussing this issue with them. But as they are not here to engage in the discussion I don't see the relevance of two former audio journal editors' opinions on this subject. BUT...if you can show me any quotes in which they actually say the goal of stereo recording and playback is an accurate "RECONSTRUCTION" of the original waveform from the original acoustic event then I will concede that they actually believed that.



"Neither would say we were there or even expected to get there knowing the limitations of our gear."

It has nothing to do with the limitations of audio gear. It has to do with how stereo recording and playback actually works and what it was designed to actually do.


"But that was the goal even if they never got there."


They may or may not have thought it was *their* goal. It certainly was not the goal of the people who invented and developed stereo recording and playback. Again, we are talking about an accurate *RECONSTRUCTION* of the original waveform of the original acoustic event.

"Some of your comments are probably why Gordon was interested in surround sound."


I would bet he was interested in surround sound because as a subset of stereo recording and playback it may offer a more pleasing aural illusion of spaciousness and imaging.


"I suspect they'd agree that audio is an illusion. But the goal is to make it so the illusion can almost fool you so you can make believe once in a while."

OK that is what i have been saying all along.

"But they would call that an attempt at reproduction and so would I."


But it isn't. And this is a critical issue in understanding audio. In audio we do have attempts to accurately "reproduce" an audio signal. That was one of the ideas behind digital media, that it could more accurately record and reproduce the signal it was fed than any analog technology. So, IMO, it's pretty important talk about "reproduction" when we actually mean reproduction. A convincing aural illusion of realism is a different thing. calling that "reproduction" only creates confusion and gross misunderstandings about the role of accuracy in audio.


"Other wise what is the goal of high end audio with its costly, intricate gear. What are your targets?"



My targets are aesthetic excellence. Here is a question for you. Let's say you have a really crappy recording of music you love. Let's say the imaging is ping pongy and mostly located at the speakers and the balance is ear bleed bright. Do you want to hear that accurately or would you like it fixed with imaging that is more spacious and away from the speakers and a balance that actually sounds good? do you as a listener serve this ideal of accuracy or does audio serve you and your aesthetic values?

 

RE: Pretty much everything you said here is wrong., posted on November 28, 2016 at 06:08:31
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 I think we have to agree to disagree. Neither of us are going to see the other's approach. And HP and JGH would never agree with you even today. JGH wanted multi channel done to again simulate the live experience as closely as possible. I don't know HP's attitude here.

And yes I want to hear what's on a recording. The only way to make a bad recording sound 'nice' is to color it and the price of that is to also color a superb recording, not a price I want to make.

 

"The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 28, 2016 at 10:27:24
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 It's like talking about "the flavor of food." Ther is no singular thing that is the sound of live music. The sound of live music runs the gamut of amazing to total crap. If JGH and HP really thought that this was some kind of reference then they clearly lacked meaningful experience with live music. 10th row center at Disney Hall with the Berlin Phil playing is no more live, and no more real than listening to a high school band from the far corner of the high school auditorium. Those "live experiences" those two versions of the "sound of live music" are no more or less real than the other. But they could not be more different. You can see the same live concert from two very different seats in the same concert hall and get two very very different sounds and experiences. This idea that there is some reference there is ridiculous.

And as for hearing what is on the recording...recordings have no intrinsic sound. You can't hear what is on the recording without coloring it with a playback system and the idea that your system will match that which was used to master any recording is pretty much nil. But if you are willing to listen to shit sound with the belief that there is some higher cause with "accuracy" is your choice. I'd rather have it sound good.

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 29, 2016 at 06:20:13
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 "The live experience" There is no such thing"
I have followed all your posts on this thread and I really don't understand what you are talking about
I play classical guitar. When I sit down and play a piece and listen to what I am playing, that is "The Live Experience". If not what would you call it? If I record that performance and listen to it on my stereo that is a reproduction of a live experience. Yes if you sit in different positions in a concert hall things will sound different but they are all "Live Experiences". Yes I agree about the whole quest for accuracy in reproduce music is simply nonsense. I was a recording engineer for 25 years and reproducing exactly a live event was never once on my mind. As soon as i chose my colored microphones that goal was no longer possible and yes all microphones have there ownn unique colorations. My goal in listening to reproduced music is to make an emotional connection to the music and my system does that for me.
Alan

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 29, 2016 at 06:32:09
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 ""The live experience" There is no such thing"
I have followed all your posts on this thread and I really don't understand what you are talking about
I play classical guitar. When I sit down and play a piece and listen to what I am playing, that is "The Live Experience". If not what would you call it?"

***A*** live experience. I thought I was being clear that there is no *singular* sound or sound quality that is ***THE*** live experience and that there are a multitude of live experiences that run the gamut of amzing SQ to utter crap SQ. So this idea that the great dividing line is merely whether or not something is live is simply wrong.

"My goal in listening to reproduced music is to make an emotional connection to the music and my system does that for me."

Yes, pretty much the jist of what most musicians say about it. I have been trying to get some of the other posters here to talk about how they describe what they hear when they are evaluating "accuracy/realism" (I don't equate the two myself). So far no takers. So it makes it hard to make my point. But maybe we can get someone to talk about what accurate? realistic playback sounds like to them.

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 28, 2016 at 10:38:17
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 what are you in audio for? you're wasting your time. go buy a system colored like you want it and just listen to whatever kind of music you want.

And both JGH and HP did know what music sounded like. They both attended live concerts, mainly classical. And JGH did extensive recording. What's your claim to expertise?

 

here is a thought experiment for you. Lets start by looking at accuracy in audio, posted on November 28, 2016 at 11:30:39
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 when you assess accuracy/realism in audio. How do you do it? What is the proccess? What are the specific things you are listening for and judging? what are you comparing? What is your specific reference? Once we cover this subject we can move to the next point.

 

Goosebump quotient. Thrill of hearing new, better things in a favorite recording... nt, posted on November 28, 2016 at 20:28:16
Smelly_Socks
 .

 

RE: here is a thought experiment for you. Lets start by looking at accuracy in audio, posted on November 28, 2016 at 12:28:09
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 You play your games and I'll play mine. This has been silly. I really knew this from the start. I'm not so much bothered by your beliefs as I am that you won't accept my approach.

 

RE: here is a thought experiment for you. Lets start by looking at accuracy in audio, posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:05:26
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 How can I not accept it if you won't even tell us what it is? Were my questions in any way unreasonable or unfair? You do have an approach to figuring out what is more accurate/realistic do you not? You have specific qualities that you listen for do yo not? I'm not going for any kind of gotcha here or any tricks. I just thought it might be interesting for you to take a look at this from a different prspective.

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 28, 2016 at 11:22:41
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "what are you in audio for?"

To enjoy recordings of music. To get the best aesthetic experience from that.

"you're wasting your time."

I assure you I am not. I have had years of great pleasure from audio. How could that be a waste of time? Because *you* don't agree with my approach?

"go buy a system colored like you want it and just listen to whatever kind of music you want."

That's what I have done. That's actually what most subjectivists have done. But they have, in most cases, also wrongly convinced themselves that their choices were for "more accurate" gear when in fact it all too often was for far more colored gear. It is an inevitable mistake one makes when they conflate the subjective sense of realism with objective technical accuracy.

"And both JGH and HP did know what music sounded like. They both attended live concerts, mainly classical. And JGH did extensive recording. What's your claim to expertise?"

You can't speak for them. If they ever claimed that they knew what "THE sound of live music" was I'd call them on it because that is BS. As I have already clearly stated, there is no such singular thing as THE sound of live music. Live music has a multitude of sounds, many of which are not good. Live per se is no acid test for SQ.

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 28, 2016 at 12:26:24
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 I don't disagree with your approach as much as you don't seem to allow me my approach. Your way is fine for you. It isn't for me. I suppose this means there is no approach. It's all a matter of taste?

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:01:15
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Ultimately it is all a matter of taste. whether one knows it or not. But let's explore your approach for a bit here. It's not that I won't allow it. It's that I think it's based on some fundamental misconceptions about audio and live music. But you are free to persue the hobby any way you see fit.

 

RE: "The live experience" There is no such thing, posted on November 29, 2016 at 06:17:29
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4306
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 as are you.

 

Sure there is, posted on November 28, 2016 at 12:25:52
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 If they ever claimed that they knew what "THE sound of live music" was I'd call them on it because that is BS

I aver that I too, have a good notion of what the sound of live, unamplified music sounds like in its many flavors. I hear wifey play her baby grand on a regular basis. I went to the symphony last week.

You can't speak for them.

But we can recall what they put in print. Here is HP from issue 6:

"This magazine does have a philosophy: That recorded music should try to recreate the illusion of hearing music in a good hall".

Having known HP for over thirty years, I can attest that is exactly what he preached for as long as I knew him. And hearing his systems convinced me that we could get close at times. :)


 

And hearing his systems convinced me that we could get close at times., posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:11:04
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Soooo how do you gauge that? How do you determine a system gets close to the sound of live music in a good hall? What are you listening for and evaluating?

 

How?, posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:29:25
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Learned experience! I hear auditory cues demonstrated by instruments being played in space.

I can't say that I have experienced the *best* halls, but again that detail misses the distinction between hearing a live, unamplified experience and the more common sound reinforcement variety.

 

RE: How?, posted on November 28, 2016 at 14:24:50
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 And what auditory cues did you find in HP's system that were missing in others? Your answer feels a little like a dodge. Kind of circular reasoning. Imagine for a moment someone asking you this who knows nothing about high end audio.

 

RE: How?, posted on November 28, 2016 at 14:49:26
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 And what auditory cues did you find in HP's system that were missing in others?

1. Sense of three dimensional space

I've never heard the walls disappear with an audio system like I have there. You perceive the acoustic boundaries of the recorded space.

2. Profound resolution

Every rhythm in the background is rendered so clearly. Why didn't I ever hear that before?

3. Authority

Sense of ease at any (unamplified music) dynamic level. Utter lack of strain or notion of clipping.

edit: Just reviewed your profile and rediscovered you are a brethren Sound Lab and Audio Research enthusiast. We likely share more than differ. In reading your musical preferences. I find I enjoy much of what you've described, but am not limited to such nor use pop music as a reference. FWIW, however, Madonna's Ray of Light blew me away on Harry's system. Ever found yourself laughing out loud when you hear something so f--ing good? :)

 

Three dimensional space, posted on November 28, 2016 at 17:30:20
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 A sense of space and imaging are very interesting subjects in audio IMO especially when we are talking about the illusion of realism in audio. Live music and audio are such fundamentally different experiences. One of the biggest differences between the two is the absense of visual cues in audio. We, as audiophiles, can't forget that how we percieve sound is profoundly affected by visual cues. We evolved using the two in tandum. And visual cues give us far more accurate information on where things are and how far away they are than auditory cues. so, as it goes, most the the imaging we think we hear in live music we actually see. If one were able to take the actual waveform at any live concert and transfer it to our ears in the lsietning room we would almost universally find that sound have very poor imaging and not be loud enough. So the imaging we get for high end audio has to compensate for the lack of visual cues to create an illusion of aural realism. Imaging in audio is far more precise, far more defined and far more palpable in high end audio than in real life. And that is a good thing. It makes for a better aesthetic experience IMO. An inaccuracy that seems like an accuracy.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on November 28, 2016 at 19:01:09
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 And visual cues give us far more accurate information on where things are and how far away they are than auditory cues.

Except of course when you're sitting in the orchestra and can't see many performers past the first violins, cellos and bass. All the woodwinds and various brass are back there somewhere.

Imaging in audio is far more precise, far more defined and far more palpable in high end audio than in real life.

Not always, but I agree with the sentiment. You'll note I said nothing at all about "precise imaging". Just observed the ability to render all the instruments clearly in a larger apparent space.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on November 28, 2016 at 19:20:59
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "Not always, but I agree with the sentiment."

I think it's pretty close to always. If you are sitting very close to a small ensemble then the actual sound only imaging get's pretty precise. But other than that most of the percieved precision in real world acoustic music is visual as well as just about any day to day perception of placement. In fact the visual will almost always not just support the audible sense of imaging it will override it. Just think about anytime you go to the movies. We always percieve the sound of the actor's voices to be eminating from the image of their mouths when in fact it is often comming from a speaker that is physically pretty far away from the actors image on the screen. This is the Mcgurk effect. When the visual cue is in conflict with the audible cue the brain automatically picks the visual cue as the reliable one.

"You'll note I said nothing at all about "precise imaging". Just observed the ability to render all the instruments clearly in a larger apparent space."

Yeah, I was the one who brought up the issue of the percieved precision of imaging. That was not meant to be an argument against anything you said.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on December 1, 2016 at 07:29:51
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Keep in mind microphone positioning for most recordings. That explains the precision to a large degree.

I have some recordings where the microphones were at "live" distances and the imaging precision is much more like you would get live.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on December 6, 2016 at 10:02:22
A.Wayne
Audiophile

Posts: 2527
Location: Front row center
Joined: November 30, 2011
 Not to mention compression and EQ'ing kills any realism ...

 

EQing?, posted on December 6, 2016 at 13:40:23
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 every microphone ever used to recorded live music has it's own inherent EQ built in.

Change positions in the concert hall and you change the spectral balance of the sound. But it will be just as realistic being that it is still real.

 

RE: EQing?, posted on December 31, 2016 at 21:32:21
Inmate51
 "every microphone ever used to record live music has it's own inherent EQ built in. "

10-4 on that!

:)

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on December 1, 2016 at 08:00:28
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 yes. But my point was that without the visual cues that more "natural" imaging will not be *percieved* as realistic because it will have virtually no specificity. So IMO the less truly realistic but more palpable and clear imaging we get with the most highly praised audiophile recordings will seem to be more realistic and will be prefered in terms of sound quality.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on December 1, 2016 at 12:47:29
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 So, you mean to tell me that you never close your eyes at a live concert? I find that I do this quite often...particularly at classical concerts. Guess, what? i can still get quite good "imaging" and "soundstaging". I can easily still tell where the violins, flute, oboe, cellos and basses are located. Or a soloist. I can also tell the horns and the percussion are in the back. Is it razor sharp? Only if I am sitting very close but that is true whether my eyes are open or not.

Visual cues are not required to be able to get good auditory placement in live un amplified concerts...for amplified concerts it is more important since most of the sound is coming to you disconnected from the performers.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on December 1, 2016 at 14:35:18
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Yes I have done that. But that experiement is basically poisoned to a degree once you have visually located the various musicians. OTOH there have been a number of times when I did not see where particular musicians were seated before the music started and they were placed in atypical positions. In those cases I absolutely could not locate those musicians by sound alone. *We hear what we know.* When the unexpected happens it's not so clear. And that is the real test.

 

RE: Three dimensional space, posted on November 29, 2016 at 05:47:33
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I think it's pretty close to always.

I have quite a few recordings that work to the contrary.

And certainly many that exhibit extreme "precision" like a number of 60s recordings that exhibit ping-pong instrument and voice placement. For some reason, it seems poor Astrid Gilberto was frequently placed on one side of the room. :)

 

I have quite a few recordings that work to the contrary. , posted on November 29, 2016 at 08:10:42
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 But of course. But when we talk about some of the best sounding recordings of acoustic music we are pretty much always talking about recordings that exhibit very palpable imaging in a very well conveyed sound space. We can point to the different sections and get a sense of depth/distance and a sense of size of the instruments and a sense of space around them and a sense of the concert hall. Any recording of live music that fails to convey these qualities is generally deemed to be inferior recordings in terms of sound quality. Would you not agree?

 

RE: I have quite a few recordings that work to the contrary. , posted on November 29, 2016 at 08:24:54
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I'll agree to most of what you've said, but not necessarily with "very palpable imaging".

Many of the recordings to which I refer are minimally miked Telarcs that provide a very realistic diffuse sounding nature when it comes to individual instrument localization.

Yes, the violins are to the left, heavy brass typically back right, but I can't tell you where the oboist is seated or how the violas are arranged.

 

RE: I have quite a few recordings that work to the contrary. , posted on November 29, 2016 at 14:34:20
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 What you descibe is indeed very "realistic" imaging. I prefer less realistic more palpable imaging and a nice thick palpable sense of hall space. Here is why. In a live concert we percieve imaging that is very palpable and pretty well defined because we can see the musicians. (generally) and those visual cues literally make our brains think we are hearing sound with more specificity of location than we are actually hearing. IMO the less accurate imaging of many audiophile favorites compensate for the lack of visual cues. And in effect seem more realistic to most listeners. Personally I don't care so much as to whether or not it's more accurate. I just like the sense of palpable presence that comes with that kind of imaging. Makes the music more visceral for me.

 

"I prefer less realistic more palpable imaging", posted on November 29, 2016 at 15:00:28
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 That sums it up nicely - to each his own!

 

RE: Sure there is, posted on November 28, 2016 at 12:58:07
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "I aver that I too, have a good notion of what the sound of live, unamplified music sounds like in its many flavors. I hear wifey play her baby grand on a regular basis. I went to the symphony last week."

great and did the symphony at the concert hall sound just like the wife playing the baby grand at home? I am quite sure they didn't. So which one was more "the live experience?"



"But we can recall what they put in print. Here is HP from issue 6:

"This magazine does have a philosophy: That recorded music should try to recreate the illusion of hearing music in a good hall"."

Ooooh look at that! "Hearing music IN A GOOD HALL" That would be what we would call a small subset of all Live music. Now let's look at what the other poster has been talking about. "the live experience" Quoted multiple times. Again, there is no such thing as "**THE** live experience." Every live experience is a unique one. And clearly when he was trying to speak for HP he missed a real real big qualifier. That being a "good concert hall." Huge issue with live sound.

"Having known HP for over thirty years, I can attest that is exactly what he preached for as long as I knew him. And hearing his systems convinced me that we could get close at times. :)"

Did he limit his qualifiers to good halls? No mention of the quality of the instruments or the quality of the playing or the quality of the seat one sits in in a "good hall?" All of those things matter just as much as the quality of the hall. Any discussion of the parameters of what constitutes a "good hall?" There isn't a clear line between "good halls" and all other halls. There is no singular sound for "good halls either. No two halls sound the same.

 

RE: Sure there is, posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:23:49
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 great and did the symphony at the concert hall sound just like the wife playing the baby grand at home?

Just like, no. Could I tell that each was playing a live, unamplified instrument in space, yes.

Again, there is no such thing as "**THE** live experience."

Any facsimile of a live experience works for me.

Did he limit his qualifiers to good halls?

Return to the quote. Operative word being "should". I attended many a concert at the ASO where we sat in his good friend JWC's favorite spot in the loge. HP preferred other halls and for that matter, orchestra seating, but still enjoyed the experience. I think you'll find a number of very nice Telarc recordings made in that space under Shaw, Lane and Spano. I played a small role in one.

No two halls sound the same.

No disagreement there. But misses the point HP was making.





 

"Any facsimile of a live experience works for me.", posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:29:48
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Any? Even if a "live experience" involves utterly and totally crap sound quality? If so why? Why would something that sounds like crap work for you as a reference for home audio?

 

Fortunately, posted on November 28, 2016 at 13:35:12
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Even if a "live experience" involves utterly and totally crap sound quality?

I've never experienced such with live, unamplified music. Maybe I'm just lucky. Once again the goal is for the optimum experience which for many implies seating position as well.

Why would something that sounds like crap work for you as a reference for home audio?

That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.

 

" That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.", posted on November 28, 2016 at 14:30:36
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 You said ""Any facsimile of a live experience works for me." Sorry but you can't group that broad scope of live music with HPs narrower scope of live music in "a good hall"

If you have never experienced crap sound at a live acoustic concert then this speaks to the narrow scope of your experience with live music or a profound bias that live is an automatic qualifier for excellence. But I can assure you that bad SQ does exist in the world of live acoustic music. But it seems (correct me if I am wrong) that you draw the line at "live." That meaning any live music is a good reference. Yes? No?

 

RE: " That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.", posted on November 29, 2016 at 06:27:20
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 All the bad sounding live concerts have always been with amplified music. I have been to hundreds of unamplified music and have never experience "Crap" sound
Alan

 

RE: " That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.", posted on November 29, 2016 at 10:10:45
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 then you don't know what crap sound is. Sorry but the idea that anyone has been to "hundreds of live acoustic concerts andnever heard crap sound" is load of B.S. Really? In hundreds of live concerts you have never sat in a bad seat or gone to a bad hall or heard a bad musician or heard an instrument that was out of tune? Never? Bull ****.

 

And yet..., posted on November 29, 2016 at 11:01:43
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 or heard a bad musician or heard an instrument that was out of tune?

there is still a characteristically live component to the sound despite those shortcomings. My wife is a professor at a local college where there are many opportunities to experience live music. Some is quite good - I thoroughly enjoyed a concert by the Katona Twins where I was seated not twenty feet from them. The only reinforcement was a small acoustic shell. Superb.

I've also heard a range of student players play there. While the performance ability isn't symphony level quality - the sound experience itself is nevertheless that of live, unamplified music. Talent alone is not a critical factor in perceiving the aspects of the live sound experience one hears.

 

RE: And yet..., posted on November 29, 2016 at 13:13:45
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "I've also heard a range of student players play there. While the performance ability isn't symphony level quality - the sound experience itself is nevertheless that of live, unamplified music. Talent alone is not a critical factor in perceiving the aspects of the live sound experience one hears."

I definitely disagree with this. A string instrument played off pitch sounds bad. A poorly tuned piano sounds bad. This happens sometimes even with the most famous soloists. For all the hair splitting that goes into audio, if any piece of gear were to distort to the point of playing audibly off picth it would be considered broken.

 

RE: " That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.", posted on November 29, 2016 at 10:35:41
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 We all know where the bullshit is coming from. Another self appointed expert who has no idea what he is talking about. What are your credentials to back up anything you are saying. My acoustic concerts were 35 years at orchestra hall listening to the Chicago Symphony pretty much in the same seats. No crap sounding concerts. I know crap when I hear it and especially when I read it. I spent 25 years listening to live musical instruments out in the studio. I know what they sound like.
Alan

 

"I know crap when I hear it", posted on November 29, 2016 at 13:17:43
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 35 years and you claim you never heard bad sound at a concert or any other time you listened to live acoustic music? Clearly you don't know bad sound when you hear it. If you have had that much exposure to live music you HAVE heard bad sound. Your claims are truly laughable.

 

RE: "I know crap when I hear it", posted on November 29, 2016 at 14:42:31
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Never said that. I have heard plenty of bad sound at live amplified concerts. Never at the Chicago symphony concerts. I have also heard many bad sounding recordings. Of course in that case you don't know if the original performers sound bad or the engineers have done a terrible job. You seem to be totally fact deficient. You do not really want to discuss anything. Just state your opinion and everybody should agree with you. Almost everybody on this thread has disagreed with you but I doubt you will learn anything from that
I have no more time for this. Have a nice deluisional life
Alan

 

RE: " That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.", posted on November 28, 2016 at 14:42:08
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 If you have never experienced crap sound at a live acoustic concert then this speaks to the narrow scope of your experience with live music or a profound bias that live is an automatic qualifier for excellence.

Believe what you will.

But I can assure you that bad SQ does exist in the world of live acoustic music.

Sorry you've experienced such.

But it seems (correct me if I am wrong) that you draw the line at "live."

When one's experience is devoid of "crap", then such does not play into my point of reference.



 

RE: "That assertion has nothing to do with either HP's concept or what I use as a reference.", posted on November 28, 2016 at 17:20:44
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 If one's experience with live music is devoid of crap sound quality then one's experience is quite limited or, for whatever reason, they aren't identifying crap sound as crap sound. Not really that uncommon with audiophiles. I remember way back in the day James Boyk gave a seminar on piano sound at the first Stereophile Hifi show. And while the seminar was very informative the sound of the actual piano he used for the demo was terrible. The room was simply too small. It was painfully overloaded by the piano. And yet just about everyone who attended came out of the room ooohing and awing about the amazing sound of a live piano they just heard. They clearly had no idea what good live piano sound was all about.

 

"It was painfully overloaded by the piano.", posted on November 28, 2016 at 19:04:25
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 HiFi shows are not the best environments to hear anything in my experience. :)

 

RE: "It was painfully overloaded by the piano.", posted on December 1, 2016 at 08:38:18
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Maybe so but judging from the comments at that event a whole room full of audiophiles came away from that demo thinking they just heard the most magnificent sound they had ever heard, a live piano! But what they heard was in fact really crappy live piano sound.

I think audiophilia has built up this bizzarre mythology about "the absolute sound" and audio. A bizzarre mythology that has lead many audiophiles to beleive that any live acoustic music is inherently excellent sound, that it all is uniformly distinctive in nature and that it sets a singular reference by which to judge audio playback.

Me thinks it is an absurd sacred cow that most it's worshipers barely know much about.

And in the end it has audiophiles rationalizing why they willfully embrace horrible sound sometimes, because it is more "accurate" and accurcy and realism are synonymous and realism is the singular goal of audio.

 

RE: "It was painfully overloaded by the piano.", posted on December 1, 2016 at 10:18:43
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 they just heard the most magnificent sound they had ever heard, a live piano!

That's because they did.

Enjoy your "less realistic" sound. :)

 

RE: "It was painfully overloaded by the piano.", posted on December 1, 2016 at 14:40:50
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 >> they just heard the most magnificent sound they had ever heard, a live piano! >>

> That's because they did.>

No, they did not. When a piano or any other instrument overloads a room it sounds bad, period.

> Enjoy your "less realistic" sound. :)>

Nice snarky remark. What I enjoy most is *excellent sound.* That does not include a piano that is overloading the room. OTOH it does include a world class piano that has just been tuned and tweeked by a highly skilled piano technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall from an excellent seat.

Is that "less realistic" sound IYO?

Do you think that the sound of a piano that is overloading a room is equally as good as the sound of a piano as I just described because they are both equally realistic?

 

RE: "It was painfully overloaded by the piano.", posted on December 1, 2016 at 15:24:45
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Nice snarky remark.

That is your terminology, not mine.

Is that "less realistic" sound IYO?

If a recording were multi-miked such that it sounded "less realistic and more palpable", yes. Once again, I'm using your wording. Remember?

Scott, by now we all get your preference. Repeating the concept of your ideal is really unnecessary.

 

RE: "It was painfully overloaded by the piano.", posted on December 1, 2016 at 16:10:57
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 >> Nice snarky remark. >>

> That is your terminology, not mine.>

Has nothing to do with the terminology.

>> Is that "less realistic" sound IYO?>>

>If a recording... >

Who said anything about a recording? I asked you a very simple question. Let's see if you can answer the question I actually asked. So I will restate it as simply as I possibly can. Should be really easy to understand.

> Scott, by now we all get your preference. Repeating the concept of your ideal is really unnecessary.>

Clearly you don't get it. Now let's see if you can answer the questions. We are comparing the sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room to that of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall.
1. Are these "live experiences" equal in sound quality? Are they just as good as each other?
2. Is either one more or less *realistic sounding* than the other?

When you can honestly answer those questions then you might be alble rightfully claim to understand my concept of ideal sound and how it relates to audio. Until then I remain skeptical that you really do understand any of this. Of course you may be obfusecating on purpose. I don't know. But IMO it's one or the other.

Really simple questions for anyone with meaningful experience with live acoustic sound. Good luck.

 

I'm going to end, posted on December 1, 2016 at 16:21:16
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 participating in your odd diversion of the original topic here.

Carry on!

 

I figured as much, posted on December 1, 2016 at 16:36:22
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Once you've been called on your BS there is nowhere left to go but through the exit door.

 

Once you turned , posted on December 3, 2016 at 06:33:34
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 into SM with your "audiophile" rants, I failed to take your opinion seriously.

 

Still dodging the questions. Nice try, posted on December 3, 2016 at 09:01:37
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Now you want to make it about me. You were in the conversation until you were faced with questions that if you answered honestly would destroy your assertions. So to stay on point I will ask the questions again.

We are comparing the sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room to that of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall.
1. Are these "live experiences" equal in sound quality? Are they just as good as each other?
2. Is either one more or less *realistic sounding* than the other?

Do you want to talk about audio and live sound as a reasonable and useful reference here or do you want to keep dodging that subject and continue to try to make it about me?

 

I couldn't care less about your question, posted on December 3, 2016 at 09:42:18
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 You've beaten your dead horse enough already.

Perhaps you'll find someone who agrees with your position elsewhere. Best of luck to you. :)

 

Then why do you stay in the conversation?, posted on December 3, 2016 at 10:03:46
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 You continue to post and yet you continue to avoid the actual subject. Why is that? (rhetorical question we both know why) Let's face it. It's not that you don't care about my questions. They are the subject of the very heart of your audio philosophy so clearly you do care about the subject. You just don't want to face the fact that they expose the nonsensical aspects of that philosophy. So feel free to keep up the hand waving and continue to avoid the subject. But just for kicks I will ask the questions again.

We are comparing the sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room to that of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall.
1. Are these "live experiences" equal in sound quality? Are they just as good as each other?
2. Is either one more or less *realistic sounding* than the other?

The idea that an audiophile who believes that live acoustic music is the reference for judging audio sound quality would not be interested in these questions is plainly absurd. You just don't like the answers. So you won't answer them.

I look forward to your next dodge. Keep on posting about something you are so disintered in. The irony of that speaks for itself. Be very careful to continue to avoid the subject.

 

Remind you, posted on December 3, 2016 at 10:19:29
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 that ongoing repetition of your point serves no useful purpose.

All three of us got it the first time around. And disagree. Maybe eventually, you'll be able to let that go. :)

 

Yet another post and no discussion about the subject. I admire your commitment to avoiding the subect, posted on December 3, 2016 at 10:34:05
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 So to stay on subject...


We are comparing the sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room to that of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall.
1. Are these "live experiences" equal in sound quality? Are they just as good as each other?
2. Is either one more or less *realistic sounding* than the other?

I look forward to your next post insisting that you are either not interested, that I'm a bad guy or you have already addressed these questions (you haven't) It's almost a point of curiosity what lengths you will go to to avoid answering such simple questions that speak to the foundation of the idea that live acoustic music is the reference for audio playback.

What's your next excuse?

 

Subject was over long ago!, posted on December 3, 2016 at 10:40:54
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002

 

and yet you keep posting and keep avoiding it at the same time, posted on December 3, 2016 at 10:52:01
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 We are comparing the sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room to that of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall.
1. Are these "live experiences" equal in sound quality? Are they just as good as each other?
2. Is either one more or less *realistic sounding* than the other?


I look forward for your next post. No doubt it will be more of the same. anything to avoid dealing with the reality these questions pose.

 

I enjoy humor!, posted on December 3, 2016 at 11:06:30
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 "For several days, he is locked in a sweat box with AS."

 

I enjoy humor too. , posted on December 3, 2016 at 11:34:26
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 thank you for providing it.

I also enjoy music and am very interested in the subject of sound quality.

so speaking of music and sound quality, what do you prefer? The sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room or the sound of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall?

And as this question relates to audiophilia and the belief that *any* live acoustic music is the reference for audio playback because the goal is "realism," which is more realistic? The sound quality of a live piano that is overloading a room or the sound of a top flight concert grand piano, just tweeked by an expert technition, played by a world class pianist in a world class concert hall and heard from an excellent seat in that hall? Or are they equally realistic?

 

RE: I enjoy humor too. , posted on December 3, 2016 at 12:03:23
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 so speaking of music and sound quality, what do you prefer?

Clearly stated here several days ago.

I have also spoken about audio show quality here.

I'll be happy to repeat anything else I've posted if necessary.

 

That is simply wrong, posted on November 26, 2016 at 23:45:58
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 stereo recording and playback was never designed for "accurate reproduction of an original acoustic event." The inventors and developers of stereo recording and playback knew that from the get go. The three dimensional waveform of the playback of a stereo recording of a live acoustic event bares virtually no resemblence whatsoever of the orignal three dimensional waveform of the original acoustic event. How could it? Do you really think the waveform from two speakers in one's listening room is going to look anything remotely like the waveform of a 100 piece symphony orchestra in the concert hall? It's ridiculous. And if "accurate REPRODUCTION" is the goal then that is what it would have to look like. Again, short of holodeck Star Trek technology that is not only impossible but completely unreasonable. Stereo recording and playback is an aural illusion.It is NOT a literal recreation of an original acoustic event. Once audiophiles wrap their head around this fundamental fact of audio they can get over this tail chase of seeking "accuracy."

 

RE: accurate reproduction?, posted on November 26, 2016 at 22:55:43
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Accurate reproduction of what. The recording to begin with is not an accurate reproduction of what is happening in the studio. Every mike has its own colorations Every mike input is equalised, maybe compressed, has reverb added to it. So you might as well have a system that pleases you the most.
Alan

 

Psychoacoustics , posted on November 25, 2016 at 17:16:37
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Is the scientific study of human sound perception. What have you been reading to make you think otherwise?

 

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Page processed in 0.070 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]