SY mentioned soundstage being different for different people before as it is an illusion. This is what makes it difficult, queues in the recording/reproduction trick our brain into believing that there is a soundstage (but different peoples hearing mean it will be different for different people). He certainly didn't say there was no such thing
ok here is the relevant post http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/166411-measurements-when-what-how-why.html#post2177844
Tony.
Last edited:
Conrad, I agree that sound stage, instrument timbre, sonic tails, etc have no scientific definition but according to SY anything that can be heard can be measured!
I said I had scope shots of the differences of the SPDIF output before & after a modification which resulted in an improved sonic. He said only an analogue plot would suffice as this is what we hear. I believe this is a complete red herring as you have rightly pointed out & his line of argument is completely fabricated & based on a fallacy. If he can produce the analogue shots that show these effects the I will profusely apologise & change my world view!
I said I had scope shots of the differences of the SPDIF output before & after a modification which resulted in an improved sonic. He said only an analogue plot would suffice as this is what we hear. I believe this is a complete red herring as you have rightly pointed out & his line of argument is completely fabricated & based on a fallacy. If he can produce the analogue shots that show these effects the I will profusely apologise & change my world view!
Only see him talking about imaging being an illusion there. But all of our visual and auditory world is an illusion in the sense that its a construct. Talk about 'what's really there' is moot.
This is what makes it difficult, queues in the recording/reproduction trick our brain into believing that there is a soundstage (but different peoples hearing mean it will be different for different people). He certainly didn't say there was no such thing
'Trick' might not be quite the right word here - or we're all being tricked, all of the time by what we perceive. And also its erroneous to say that we believe there is a soundstage - belief is a red herring here. We hear a soundstage, we hear depth and width, sometimes even height.
Sure he didn't say there was no such thing there, but in another thread on mains purity I remarked on how RF noise affected soundstaging and I got the impression he was a 'disbeliever'. But its only conjecture, I have no wish to put words into his mouth.
Thanks wintermute, I was looking for this thread but couldn't find it in a search - I'll go have a read & maybe a post
Saying that it's different for different people is not really good enough! Is there an underlying change to the sound that different people perceive differently? If so then this underlying difference to the sound should be measurable & demonstrable! if he is saying that there is no underlying change in the sound & that different people are just imagining it then that's a whole separate argument!
Does anybody believe that we hear a sound stage at a live concert? What are you hearing then? The signals are usually processed through audio equipment. Is this a trick? I would love to hear his elucidation on all this as he seems to be the main protagonist in the pure empirical approach?
Saying that it's different for different people is not really good enough! Is there an underlying change to the sound that different people perceive differently? If so then this underlying difference to the sound should be measurable & demonstrable! if he is saying that there is no underlying change in the sound & that different people are just imagining it then that's a whole separate argument!
Does anybody believe that we hear a sound stage at a live concert? What are you hearing then? The signals are usually processed through audio equipment. Is this a trick? I would love to hear his elucidation on all this as he seems to be the main protagonist in the pure empirical approach?
Last edited:
Agree there jkeny. How long can this go on?
All of 'reality' is different for different people - there's no reason to make an exception for auditory reality over and above visual reality as brain research simply cannot provide a shred of support for such a position.
In that case he was talking about how two different people perceive different things from the exact same source, due to differences in their hearing. I think that this is a critical point with regards to measurements.
Yes it can be shown that there is a correlation between measurements and what "the majority" of people percieve or prefer. However a correlation is all there is. It is not black and white proof.
It is my own theory that due to anatomical differences, and the learning process of how to hear, that every persons perception of sound will be subtly (and in some cases not so subtly) different. Due to these differences in hearing I postulate that certain people will be more or less sensitive to different types of reproduction errors.
Jkeny note that thread I posed about is specifically a loudspeaker measurement thread, not the electronics chain
abrax, I was more pointing to a thread that shows that SY does believe in soundstage, contrary to what you might have thought
Tony.
Yes it can be shown that there is a correlation between measurements and what "the majority" of people percieve or prefer. However a correlation is all there is. It is not black and white proof.
It is my own theory that due to anatomical differences, and the learning process of how to hear, that every persons perception of sound will be subtly (and in some cases not so subtly) different. Due to these differences in hearing I postulate that certain people will be more or less sensitive to different types of reproduction errors.
Jkeny note that thread I posed about is specifically a loudspeaker measurement thread, not the electronics chain
abrax, I was more pointing to a thread that shows that SY does believe in soundstage, contrary to what you might have thought
Tony.
Last edited:
Ok, wwenze, I think I follow you. I have SPDIF output scope plots that show a definite difference between before & after a mod, OK? These were rejected by SY as not of use before I showed them (I can't until the review is published) - he wanted analogue plots, as this is what we listen to. Ok, fair enough! I wanted him to show me analogue output shots of the particular audio improvements I hear due to the mods - sound stage, instrument timbre, sonic tails & others. if he would do this then this whole thread is redundant. But he has not. It's really that simple!
Now one issue is, can these SPDIF differences be correlated with the perceived improvement in analogue sound quality. I couldn't purport to show this exactly as I can't interpret digital waveforms into analogue sound but I have some idea of what represents a better digital waveform for sound reproduction.
Anyway, the point being that I wanted to hear what people thought of the idea that all that we hear can be measured? I don't believe so but I'm have an open mind & am always willing to learn!
Now one issue is, can these SPDIF differences be correlated with the perceived improvement in analogue sound quality. I couldn't purport to show this exactly as I can't interpret digital waveforms into analogue sound but I have some idea of what represents a better digital waveform for sound reproduction.
Anyway, the point being that I wanted to hear what people thought of the idea that all that we hear can be measured? I don't believe so but I'm have an open mind & am always willing to learn!
Last edited:
abrax, I was more pointing to a thread that shows that SY does believe in soundstage, contrary to what you might have thought
Sure, I just didn't find it convincing that it was about soundstage, rather than imaging.
FWIW, here's the posting I was basing my impressions on:
Mains quality variation
When I remarked on the effect that mains noise can have beyond clicks and buzzes - on soundstaging and imaging for instance, SY's reply was 'The other stuff is fanciful'. When I asked for clarification, none was forthcoming so its clear to me that SY doesn't wish to be pinned down too much on this particular point.
Perhaps by 'fanciful' he meant it was an illusion? Or perhaps his claim was that the effects of noise on soundstaging were fanciful. If so, then I'm happy to stand corrected.Yes but forgetting about the perceived differences between people - is there a measurable difference in the analogue signal? How it's interpreted is another thing!
If there is a repeatable measurement difference then there is a black & white proof - how it is perceived sonically is another matter!
Yes, there will be different perceptions between different people - some people are colour blind when it comes to visual perception & I'm sure there are other finer, more subtle differences
Thanks, that's why I hadn't read it alreadyJkeny note that thread I posed about is specifically a loudspeaker measurement thread, not the electronics chain
abrax, I was more pointing to a thread that shows that SY does believe in soundstage, contrary to what you might have thought
Tony.
abrax, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between sound stage and imaging, I thought they were just two different phrases for the same thing
jkeny, I've got protanopia (no red colour receptors) whilst I can't see a lot that other people can, I can also see things that "nornal" visioned people can't. One of the side effects is being much more sensitive to differences in tone. I can pick differences in intensity (of the same colour) that a "normal" visioned person cannot.
Tony.
jkeny, I've got protanopia (no red colour receptors) whilst I can't see a lot that other people can, I can also see things that "nornal" visioned people can't. One of the side effects is being much more sensitive to differences in tone. I can pick differences in intensity (of the same colour) that a "normal" visioned person cannot.
Tony.
Interesting, wintermute, so do you think that your lack of red receptors cones has resulted in a higher number of other colour perception cones & therefore a heightened perception in other visual areas?abrax, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between sound stage and imaging, I thought they were just two different phrases for the same thing
jkeny, I've got protanopia (no red colour receptors) whilst I can't see a lot that other people can, I can also see things that "nornal" visioned people can't. One of the side effects is being much more sensitive to differences in tone. I can pick differences in intensity (of the same colour) that a "normal" visioned person cannot.
Tony.
However, despite your lack of red perception it can still be demonstrated that red exists & it's wavelength can be shown. I'm presuming the same applies in audio - why any different?
Hi Jkeny, the thing I find most freaky is looking at the spectrum though a spectrascope. Where the red should be is completely blank.
Whilst not terribly scientific an example of me being able to see something others can't is when I detected that the terminal emulator we were using had a slight tone difference (in a blue background) where some areas were slightly lighter than others. When I pointed it out, 4 other people could not see it at all. Bringing up a colour picker I could move the mouse to the points where the colour was different and show the rgb values were in fact different, reliably showing where the transition point was. Even after showing this the others could not see the difference. I think it is more likely that I have more rods or that the rods are more sensitive in the area where there are no red cones. Not really sure, but I know from talking with other colour vision deficient people that they have said that they tend to be able to see better in the dark than normal visioned people as well.
I believe also that colour vision deficient people have been used by the military for detecting camouflage in arial photographs as it just doesn't work on them.
I think maybe you are not getting my point. Of course because *I* can't see red doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, the point is that as a result of me not being able to see red, my eyes are more sensitive to other things (luminosity?) and hence I can detect things that others cannot. Similarly I would think the shape of one persons ear, or the way that persons brain processes the information, may amplify an error in a signal more than for another person.
If a signal is a perfect replica of the original sound in every respect then it doesn't matter what the physical (or mental) attributes of one person to the next are. The reproduced sound should be indistinguishable from the original. If however there are subtle corruptions in the reproduction, it is these that I am saying may be more prominent to some people than others due to their anatomy or the way their brain processes sound information.
Tony.
edit: just for interests sake, I've attached an image that shows a colour chart. The right is as I see it. To me I can't distinguish between the two images when side by side. If I overlay and switch between I can see some very subtle differences, so the simulation isn't perfect, but it is close enough
Whilst not terribly scientific an example of me being able to see something others can't is when I detected that the terminal emulator we were using had a slight tone difference (in a blue background) where some areas were slightly lighter than others. When I pointed it out, 4 other people could not see it at all. Bringing up a colour picker I could move the mouse to the points where the colour was different and show the rgb values were in fact different, reliably showing where the transition point was. Even after showing this the others could not see the difference. I think it is more likely that I have more rods or that the rods are more sensitive in the area where there are no red cones. Not really sure, but I know from talking with other colour vision deficient people that they have said that they tend to be able to see better in the dark than normal visioned people as well.
I believe also that colour vision deficient people have been used by the military for detecting camouflage in arial photographs as it just doesn't work on them.
I think maybe you are not getting my point. Of course because *I* can't see red doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, the point is that as a result of me not being able to see red, my eyes are more sensitive to other things (luminosity?) and hence I can detect things that others cannot. Similarly I would think the shape of one persons ear, or the way that persons brain processes the information, may amplify an error in a signal more than for another person.
If a signal is a perfect replica of the original sound in every respect then it doesn't matter what the physical (or mental) attributes of one person to the next are. The reproduced sound should be indistinguishable from the original. If however there are subtle corruptions in the reproduction, it is these that I am saying may be more prominent to some people than others due to their anatomy or the way their brain processes sound information.
Tony.
edit: just for interests sake, I've attached an image that shows a colour chart. The right is as I see it. To me I can't distinguish between the two images when side by side. If I overlay and switch between I can see some very subtle differences, so the simulation isn't perfect, but it is close enough
Attachments
Last edited:
I wasn't aware that there was a difference between sound stage and imaging, I thought they were just two different phrases for the same thing
Perhaps other people use them interchangeably, but for me there is a difference.
Imaging for me is about lateral positioning (left-right) - lateral positioning can be obtained simply by panning a mono signal on a mixer (intensity stereo). Its relatively robust against poor electronics quality.
Soundstaging on the other hand is more about depth and can't be reliably achieved without a real acoustic environment captured in stereo. It includes perception of the boundaries of the recorded ambience. Soundstaging to me is one of the most fragile aspects of a recording, its the most easily corrupted by poor circuit layout.
ok that makes sense. I've only rarely experienced depth with my own system, and mostly when watching movies. I've had a few occaisions where I could have swarn there was a helicopter overhead (outside) and it turned out to be in the recording, and also have turned to look over my shoulder because I thought someone said something behind me. All with 2 channel stereo. With music My old speakers really didn't cut it unless I sat on the floor between them, and my new ones have not yet had their chance to show what they can do, as I need to sort out my source.... htpc with on board sound doesn't really cut it, and my DV-18 has a problem with my integrated amp (which isn't working anyway) so I need to make my B1 based crossover /source selector before I'll be able to make any real judgements.
Tony.
Tony.
Hi Jkeny, the thing I find most freaky is looking at the spectrum though a spectrascope. Where the red should be is completely blank.
Whilst not terribly scientific an example of me being able to see something others can't is when I detected that the terminal emulator we were using had a slight tone difference (in a blue background) where some areas were slightly lighter than others. When I pointed it out, 4 other people could not see it at all. Bringing up a colour picker I could move the mouse to the points where the colour was different and show the rgb values were in fact different, reliably showing where the transition point was. Even after showing this the others could not see the difference. I think it is more likely that I have more rods or that the rods are more sensitive in the area where there are no red cones. Not really sure, but I know from talking with other colour vision deficient people that they have said that they tend to be able to see better in the dark than normal visioned people as well.
I believe also that colour vision deficient people have been used by the military for detecting camouflage in arial photographs as it just doesn't work on them.
I think maybe you are not getting my point. Of course because *I* can't see red doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, the point is that as a result of me not being able to see red, my eyes are more sensitive to other things (luminosity?) and hence I can detect things that others cannot. Similarly I would think the shape of one persons ear, or the way that persons brain processes the information, may amplify an error in a signal more than for another person.
If a signal is a perfect replica of the original sound in every respect then it doesn't matter what the physical (or mental) attributes of one person to the next are. The reproduced sound should be indistinguishable from the original. If however there are subtle corruptions in the reproduction, it is these that I am saying may be more prominent to some people than others due to their anatomy or the way their brain processes sound information.
Tony.
edit: just for interests sake, I've attached an image that shows a colour chart. The right is as I see it. To me I can't distinguish between the two images when side by side. If I overlay and switch between I can see some very subtle differences, so the simulation isn't perfect, but it is close enough
wintermute, that's very interesting information on protanopia (I never knew this term before - who said there's noting to learn here
? And thank you for telling us the details of how you experience colour. Very interesting about the advantages of the protanopia.
That is indeed correct. That is a very different thing than, "Anything to which someone puts a poorly-defined name can be plotted on a graph."
Just so you're completely clear on this concept, if it is demonstrated (that means "by ear, no peeking") that someone can hear the difference between electronic device A and device B, there will be easily measurable differences between them (level, frequency response, phase, distortion, overload, recovery, crosstalk, separation). Transducers are somewhat different in that they will still measure differently, but the results are more complex (unlike electronics, not single-valued!) and many of the measurements are non-trivial; a diyer can easily measure level, frequency response, phase, etc, etc, but very few of us have, for example, Klippel testers. Transducers which sound different ALWAYS measure differently, but the devil is in the interpretation, as witness the debates between smart folks like Earl Geddes, Floyd Toole, et al.
Yeah, I agree the devil is indeed in the detail. So what's the detail on 'easily' as in 'easily measurable' ? We currently have no measurements for the kinds of differences jkeny and his followers are hearing, so when we do get measurements to deal with them, how can we tell if they're 'easy' or not?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.