The only reference that comes close to meeting criteria about high quality reproduction would be a dummy head recording played back via headphones. That delivers the same auditory signals as you would get sitting in the recording space. But, that automatically excludes pop/rock recordings which are not created in real acoustical spaces.
And although it would be applicable for classical music performances, there are substantial problems: (a) commercial dummy head recordings are pretty much non-existent and (b) people like to listen at home using loudspeakers. So (b) brings in the whole speaker/room challenge which seems intractable as to how we could ever duplicate the original recording acoustic in a typical lounge room.
That is the reality when we have an audio system in a room.This is the real point where many have to understand that forbiden words like synergy,personal taste,hearing ability status......are not only part of the game but mandatory elements of it.Who needs a "perfect system" that he cannot enjoy?
Choosing the correct pieces of music for any test is important. But they do exist, so its not impossible.
Everything up to the speakers is easy to test with a solid reference - the unmodified signal - but speakers get tough. In my mind thats why they have stagnated so badely, because they hasn't been much valid testing done with them. And as pointed out, its virtually always preference based. But there are some things that can be done, its not a total loss.
For example, we did tests of compression drivers on plane wave tubes where the driver was in and out of the loop, just as one might test a DAC for example. This was quite telling, because it was very hard to hear the driver itself. It was almost as good as a good amplifier. What we expected to find, we did not find at all. But other drivers would be hard to test this way, and it doesn't get to the room influence which is huge. But there are certainly things that you can "take-away" from tests like this. (i.e. THD was inaudible, even up to some 25%.)
I don't completely agree, but there is a point that I have often made: As the reproduction becomes better and better then taste/prefernce has to become a lessor and lessor factor, because, if the reproduction is perfect, then taste and prefence are irrelavent.
The information is out there but you can't make peole read it. Believing is so much easier than cogitation.
Jakob, what "categorical conclusion" and data are you talking about?
There are the simple tests for clipping etc. but Floyd and I have found that Tracy Chapman, for example, is very telling. He and I have both found these to be good sources. A bad source will tend to yield a null result while a good source converges on an answer with fewer trials. In the end the researchers tend to tell each other what source materail they have found to be useful and what to stay away from. And of course a range of source material is always a good idea.
Don't you think you are going a little too extreme?? Let's see Steely Dan Asia comes to mind. There is plenty of "well recorded" music out there that everyone agrees is "well recorded". I don't see why we have to reinvent the wheel for a DBT evaluation of wires.
Rob🙂
OK, that's interesting - but I don't really understand the test. I don't understand the driver "in and out of the loop". Can you tell us more or point us to a paper explaining the test? Thanks!
Boconner - agreed that the headphone type recordings are a good reference. I've done a few and liked them. But no surprise as they where done on MY head! So HRTF was set right for me. Other dummies never sounded as good to me, tho they were OK. You're right, must folks want to hear music over speakers. Although with the iPod generation, that may be changing.
Electronic components have a sound, er...they all have some resistance anyway, whether that manifests itself as a detectable influence on 'sound' or the electronics is a matter of application...and depends on...what it depends on...
Choose the components you like the sound of...I don't think I've ''heard'' any good cables. Not influencing the sound when they're sitting still, some are better than others at supressing noise when handled or when slapped against a floor for instance.
The whole things a compromise.
I thought it through, and like the cables I have, I believe they are very high performance to the point where I take them for granted [by informed decision, testing], and look elsewhere for a decrease in component influence to sound.
I have Monster, ProSound, Planet Waves, RS, some other stuff, old stuff, old crusty stuff, stiff stuff, cables that work fine unless you slap 'em around a bit...
The thinking is this: "Fully improved", if not, figure it out and improve it, then shop for cables in a ''what is it exactly, and what are they chargin' for it'' approach..buy some nice competitive cables.
Brand names don't matter to me unless there is a thread of tangibility between the name and the performance, including more than one posts about cable complaints of abused cables, the abuse part left out of the scenario description.
Sure cables matter, and so do other components. Connecting, once understood, hasn't been too troublesome...a bit more expensive than it used to be, these fine factory cables are ~a drag to purchase a joy to use...compared to whatever I come up with. I can make good speaker cables, and have made good input cables...I just can't do all the features of a finer [preferred] cable, here.
Choose the components you like the sound of...I don't think I've ''heard'' any good cables. Not influencing the sound when they're sitting still, some are better than others at supressing noise when handled or when slapped against a floor for instance.
The whole things a compromise.
I thought it through, and like the cables I have, I believe they are very high performance to the point where I take them for granted [by informed decision, testing], and look elsewhere for a decrease in component influence to sound.
I have Monster, ProSound, Planet Waves, RS, some other stuff, old stuff, old crusty stuff, stiff stuff, cables that work fine unless you slap 'em around a bit...
The thinking is this: "Fully improved", if not, figure it out and improve it, then shop for cables in a ''what is it exactly, and what are they chargin' for it'' approach..buy some nice competitive cables.
Brand names don't matter to me unless there is a thread of tangibility between the name and the performance, including more than one posts about cable complaints of abused cables, the abuse part left out of the scenario description.
Sure cables matter, and so do other components. Connecting, once understood, hasn't been too troublesome...a bit more expensive than it used to be, these fine factory cables are ~a drag to purchase a joy to use...compared to whatever I come up with. I can make good speaker cables, and have made good input cables...I just can't do all the features of a finer [preferred] cable, here.
Last edited:
You all acknowledge audio's circle of confusion but in the end you too ignore the implications. I'm not talking about THD or compression - these things can easily be controlled in recordings. I'm talking about the impact of the speaker-room-system. What is the reference? There is none. Each setup I've heard sounded different. It's not just a huge number of systems that sound more or less the same with two extreme ends. There are fundamental differences between numerous systems.
Stereo or multichannel will never be able to recreate the soundfield of the original event. Binaural recordings can. The promise of stereo/multichannel is that it is able to deliver cues that are good enough. I highly doubt that - not for all possible aural spaces at once. We probably could create some kind of framework that defines aural reference spaces but we're seriously lacking knowledge to do so.
Hello Markus
What does this have to do with the DBT test in this thread?? Of course there is a reference. His system is the reference. It doesn't matter if it's an absolute reference or not. It's his reference that counts in this instance. You are looking to see if he can hear changes DB that he claims he can hear sighted. He is using source material he is familiar and comforatble with so he has that covered as well.
My personal references are clone speaker systems I have built and my main active speaker DIY set-up. Yeah in the big picture I can see where you are coming from but in this instance it sounds like you are saying there is no point in doing this becasue there is no reference. I don't agree.
You can choose any speaker system as a reference as long as it has enough resolution to let you hear what you are trying to test for. I this case we already know he can hear sighted cable changes. So his system meets the requirments for the test we want to conduct.
Rob🙂
I'm in 100% agreement with this 😉
Ok, i'll no go as far as Death Metal, but the range of musical tastes (or should i say what you wouldn't switch off) increases dramatically once things become close to "rightness". The closer to perfection the more this become evident.
Well, there you have it.
I knew there was a perfectly logical, rational explanation for this sort of "gating" process. Thanks John.
John must be a youngster. Floyd Toole gave up critical listening when he reached 60 (I think that was the age he told us....it could have been younger...it was at CEDIA a couple years ago). By the way, which amps haven't you designed "right"? I would assume that those haven't made it to market.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.