Even more apparent while watching a foreign movie.
(somewhat peculiar I've noticed is that it also works by reading subtitles, switched on/off)
Possibly on another planet, not on planet Earth.
When sound reproduction isn't transparent, how can one possibly tell if a certain recording is transparent, or not? A recording cannot be listened to without reproduction gear.
Indeed.
Also, it looks like many will agree that one's emotional state influences the appreciation of music.
Any test concerning music appreciation that disregards the testee(s) emotional state and possible impact of the test procedure on the testee(s) emotional state is flawed.
Any test concerning audio reproduction gear which deal with sounds only, not with music, is irrelevant for music appreciation and for the way a sound system reproduces *music*.
Jan,
I really don't understand why you don't like the fact that I posted a subjective opinion about resistors. I never claimed this was objectively verified. I never claimed it was peer reviewed research. I have absolutely no connection to Caddock apart from the fact that I buy their resistors.
Would you really like a rule here that banned such posting in this forum or in this thread ? I am really interested to understand your views on this.
Do you think it is beyond the realms of possibility that some resistors sound better than others ?
I thought sharing opinions and experiences was exactly the kind of thing that is normal and useful in a forum such as this.
Personally I always have time for views posted here that come from anyone's first hand experience.
regards
mike
Last edited:
yeah, because music is completely different to collections of modulated, multitone frequencies...
its possible to create test signals that are far more punishing than music, but you wouldnt want to listen to them.
its possible to create test signals that are far more punishing than music, but you wouldnt want to listen to them.
I dont think it was you specifically he was talking about, but the general and widespread practice of attempting to link subjective response to fantastic anecdotal reports. this is my major problem with it too.
Last edited:
so you believe that 2 waveforms that are identical to WELL beyond the speakers ability to portray either of them can sound different on the same equipment by means of what mechanism? other than psychological/emotional factors that is.
what possible impact could an observer being present have on this?
btw as I stated, I agree the speaker, room, perception area has a ways to go, but I dont see that has any impact whatsoever on the accuracy of what comes before that.
Last edited:
I can confirm this.
Due to my 100% golden ears, in these days, I have to look a person straight at his face in order to understand his words. With women, this is not frustrating at all.
George
We have German TV here in The Netherlands, where the original sound is translated into German. If I watch a German translated movie, it's not difficult to 'read' the speaker and judge whether the translation is correct or not. Without hearing the original sound. Same effect.
jan
Mike, that was not my meaning at all. My meaning was the lack of keeping personal, subjective opinions separated from proven, objective, repeatable events.
I have no problem accepting that different resistors in some circumstances can make the equipment sound different. As long as there is some back up, I will accept it.
BTW, on hearing acuity: since I discovered that nobody seems to be able to hear a complete sousa band at 60dB below a symphony orchestra, I'm pretty sceptic about our ability to actually hear subtle things.
jan
I'm concerned mainly with music, both live and reproduced.
No waveform (existing on our planet, at present) contains the full and exact content of the music which was recorded.
Two waveforms may appear to be identical, to the way we look at them. Neither of them represents the recorded music fully and exactly. As for now, we have no way to see fully and exactly the way(s) those waveforms differ from the recorded music. Those two waveforms may have differences that aren't shown in certain ways of looking at them.
Some people are concerned with waveforms alone.
Others are interested primarily in music, which waveforms suppose to represent.
The psychological/emotional factor is major one, when it comes to music appreciation.
One possible impact is music genre preferences.
Another possible impact is whether the 'observer' has experience of listening a lot to live music, or not.
Recorded music can be evaluated by listening only.
Listening to recorded music necessitates reproduction gear.
When the reproduction gear is inevitably flawed, there is no way to tell whether the recording is flawed in any way, or not.
Of all people, you should know better.
On Linear Audio Volume 4, on the comparison between different voltage regulators, there were big and significant discrepancies between the measurements results and the listening tests. A fact which demonstrates that there is no correlation, not necessarily, not always, between measurements results and listening tests.
It is my view that anyone who seriously and earnestly tries to look at the correlation between measurements result and listening tests should try to find out measurements set that has full correlation to listening tests, or, at least, a very close correlation. As long as we don't have such a measurements set, the existing measurements have very limited value. At least, the existing measurements, when not complemented by listening tests, have no value in evaluating the quality of audio reproduction gear. The existing tests may satisfy some engineers, they do not satisfy people who listen keenly to music.
Possibly some people are immersed in measuring, without bothering to listen and find out the possible correlation, or non-correlation, between the measurements and listening.
No John, to be honest, never got around to it. I am working on an error correction design which calls for precision resistors, and I have put them aside for that project, but it's a work in progress.
jan
You know Joshua, I thought about paying you a compliment because you seemed to make slow progress in understanding the difference between hearing and perception. Too bad you spoil it again by this kind of personal, childish and uncalled for sneers.
jan
A waveform is defined as a two dimentional variable, amplitude vs time. The term waveform has an accepted definition, you may disargee but please present an argument that has some physical meaning or we are at the level of the folks arguing over two bit identical files.
I do agree that the two waveforms of a stereo signal can not represent a full 3 dimentional music event in a live space.
So? We all know that since many decades. What's your point, if there is actually one?
BTW There may be another testing method that shows better correlation to what we hear. Work in progress.
http://www.tech-diy.com/RegPowerSupplies/GreatRegulatotBakeoff/FFTs/RegulatorFFTs.htm
jan
Last edited:
While having little to say other than what's been said already, I would like to mention the typical material I've heard when someone is demonstrating the inaudibility of various brackish and distinctive disturbances played over the main program. Most of the examples are from pop music with rather severely limited dynamic range. It is perhaps not surprising that it masks the disturbing sounds when those are at not-too-low of levels.
When one is fortunate enough to hear music with really high dynamic range, meaning usually live music in real spaces with a very low background noise level, it can be revelatory. Unfortunately this is inaccessible to most people today, particularly those who live in cities. The last time I heard a really good example was many years ago, at a recital of Emma Kirkby, David Thomas, and Anthony Rooley in a medium-sized room at the Huntington Library in Pasadena. The audience was dead still, and the weather had permitted the HVAC system to remain off. This was in the pre-pager/cell era as well. It was simply breathtaking.
I chatted briefly with Emma after the performance and told her such experiences helped remind me how far we had to go with music recording and reproduction. She defended the CD medium, and I hastened to agree that her output was particularly good in this regard. Of course that's just the first part of the chain.
I would have enjoyed seeing what state-of-the-art microphones might have picked up in that room that day and what the real dynamic range was, when the peaks were compared to following the reverberant tails down into the microphone self-noise. My ears were probably a good deal better then as well.
Of course it didn't hurt that the performances and compositions were superb.
Now, if there had been some background disturbance imposed in the quietest passages or during said tails, how low-level might it have been to be unnoticeable? I don't know.
When one is fortunate enough to hear music with really high dynamic range, meaning usually live music in real spaces with a very low background noise level, it can be revelatory. Unfortunately this is inaccessible to most people today, particularly those who live in cities. The last time I heard a really good example was many years ago, at a recital of Emma Kirkby, David Thomas, and Anthony Rooley in a medium-sized room at the Huntington Library in Pasadena. The audience was dead still, and the weather had permitted the HVAC system to remain off. This was in the pre-pager/cell era as well. It was simply breathtaking.
I chatted briefly with Emma after the performance and told her such experiences helped remind me how far we had to go with music recording and reproduction. She defended the CD medium, and I hastened to agree that her output was particularly good in this regard. Of course that's just the first part of the chain.
I would have enjoyed seeing what state-of-the-art microphones might have picked up in that room that day and what the real dynamic range was, when the peaks were compared to following the reverberant tails down into the microphone self-noise. My ears were probably a good deal better then as well.
Of course it didn't hurt that the performances and compositions were superb.
Now, if there had been some background disturbance imposed in the quietest passages or during said tails, how low-level might it have been to be unnoticeable? I don't know.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.