Great, it explains how the ear works but what does that have to do with audiophile conclusions.
The article really does not disconnect the ear from the brain, Do you really think the brain has no control over the functionality and the ear handles everything on its own sending the final signal to the brain??
Are you saying there is more processing in the ear then in the brain when it comes to audio?
The article really does not disconnect the ear from the brain, Do you really think the brain has no control over the functionality and the ear handles everything on its own sending the final signal to the brain??
Are you saying there is more processing in the ear then in the brain when it comes to audio?
My bigest beef
is that the attention to detail in the recording of music is taken for granted. Most CDs I buy are over-compressed like the battle for loudness has permeated everything our ears are competitively engaged to hear. Looking back at my record and CD collection of over 55 years, I seem to prefer recordings that were recorded in a period of from 1957 to about 1966 and some newer digital recordings when digital first appeared on the scene as sounding the best to my ears. The best sounding records I have are painstakingly re-mastered Gold CDs from Mobile Fidelity of stuff recorded in the late 60s. I think muti miking and multi tracking actually hurt or destroyed the 3D image of placing instruments or voices in a sound stage depth plane. All this control hasn't given us much except LOUD and LOUD isn't very compfortable to me. I went to a rock concert and had to leave in fear of my hearing being damaged. It was downright painful! So QUALITY is out the window IMHO. QUALITY evidently doesn't sell. Ray
is that the attention to detail in the recording of music is taken for granted. Most CDs I buy are over-compressed like the battle for loudness has permeated everything our ears are competitively engaged to hear. Looking back at my record and CD collection of over 55 years, I seem to prefer recordings that were recorded in a period of from 1957 to about 1966 and some newer digital recordings when digital first appeared on the scene as sounding the best to my ears. The best sounding records I have are painstakingly re-mastered Gold CDs from Mobile Fidelity of stuff recorded in the late 60s. I think muti miking and multi tracking actually hurt or destroyed the 3D image of placing instruments or voices in a sound stage depth plane. All this control hasn't given us much except LOUD and LOUD isn't very compfortable to me. I went to a rock concert and had to leave in fear of my hearing being damaged. It was downright painful! So QUALITY is out the window IMHO. QUALITY evidently doesn't sell. Ray
Yes that's also my experience. Mid 90-ies, it went downhill after that fast.
I once heard a story by a recording engineer that he recorded an album for a band, doing his best to get a well balanced, dynamic album.
The band loved it!
Except that they came back two days later asking him why their album wasn't as loud as the other ones that were played on the radio....
jan didden
"Goes bad" by what criterion? There's always ringing on top (for vinyl, from the tip resonance and/or cutter resonance; for CD, from the bandwidth limiting).
yep, Going through it there is probably 30,000 I would never listen too.
Yeah, I can see how two questions are just hard to answer.
1. Do you really think the brain has no control over the functionality and the ear handle everything on its own sending the final signal to the brain??
2. Are you saying there is more processing in the ear then in the brain when it comes to audio?
Doug20, if I may have a shot at these two questions? It will be a summary of an excerpt, so there is much more to say about it.
Question 1: It is a two way street between the brain and the ear when you look at neuron pathways, with the brain receiving about 10 times more inputs from the ear than the other way around. It is also known, that the inner ear contains tiny muscles, which contract to avoid damage at high SPL. Furthermore, it is known that the inner haircells, tiny band path filters, may have very steep slopes, up till 1000 dB per octave. If you would try to replicate such a high Q filter with man made technology, this could not be done without considering amounts of ringing. Yet, this does not happen inside the ear. So, in short, a lot of processing is done by the ear, but at a low level; to tidy up the signal, so to speak. As to the question how this biological/neurological system works, much remains unanswered. However, we do have a fair understanding of what comes out of the ear subsystem. Unfortunately, they found out by tapping into the auditory nerve in live cats with tiny needles, but thanks to that, we know that what comes out is like a flat cable, with each individual wire connected to an array of bandpath filters (the ear). See my earlier post. And all this is not linear. The frequency response of the ear is like a banana, belly up. And we also know that the banana gets flatter at higher SPL.
So, this is what the ear subsystem basically does, and all further processing takes place in the brain.
Which brings me to your point 2. Although the ear is not a linear transducer, and also performs a Fourier analysis on incoming sound, the main processing takes place in the brain. The auditory nerve weaves a path through the brain. On this path, it is connected to a series of sub processing centres, which all do very different jobs. It may excite a startle response when it passes through one of the oldest parts of the brain, the pons or brainstem. In the superior olives (some brain parts have odd names), intensity and frequency matching between both ears allows us to locate sound in space. When it goes through the thalamus, it may trigger an emotional response. In Wernecke's area, it may be decoded into intelligeable speach.
All this happens more or less in parallel, and in music, it sometimes leads to an integration at all levels.
My definition of audiophile quality is when this integration can take place, without intervening artifacts. I have only my own brain to decide whether this happens to me, or not.
At the same time, much research has taken place to find out what such intervening artifacts could be. Ringing or non-flat frequency reproduction are known issues that lead to audible artifacts, and so is distortion. We also know that dynamic range is a factor. Noise is more complicated; the ear itself is never silent; it even produces its own sounds which can be picked up from the outside!
I personally can live with some noise in a system, so I partly share the earlier comment that the brain can compensate for imperfections inherent to the LP. Alas, my brain is very unforgiving when it comes to scratches or static. Others may have brains that are able to filter those out better than mine, and for them vinyl might still be an option.
Thank you Vacuphile, there's also seems to be a compression taking place inside the ear reducing the 120dB auditory range that the ear is sensitive to into a range of vibrations (30–40dB) suitable for transduction by the inner cochlear hair cells - this is an important factor for audio & also demonstrates the non-linear processing taking place in the ear. Also the model is by no means complete as yet & there is more to be discovered!
@jkeny,
Yep, there is more to be discovered. Perhaps it could be interesting to open a thread along the lines "sound processing by the human auditory system and it's relevance for audio reproduction". But I am new to this site and the subject may have been mulled over a quadrillion times already.
Yep, there is more to be discovered. Perhaps it could be interesting to open a thread along the lines "sound processing by the human auditory system and it's relevance for audio reproduction". But I am new to this site and the subject may have been mulled over a quadrillion times already.
Nice idea - it would be good to get some experts to post on it - I would like to learn more about the field - I don't think it has been done before but maybe I'm wrong - others might be able to say?
EDIT: I've only seen JJ Johnston (the psychoacoustics master) mentioned a couple of times here - I think he might post on Stereophile, don't know if he still does. You seem to know a fair bit about the area?
EDIT: I've only seen JJ Johnston (the psychoacoustics master) mentioned a couple of times here - I think he might post on Stereophile, don't know if he still does. You seem to know a fair bit about the area?
Last edited:
+1 I just received a 500GB drive with 50,000 songs
I assume those are MP3s - or else really short songs.
G²
SY, interesting that you totally ignore my points on psychoacoustics & introduce your own red herring about reproduction & yet you also state this
You've obviously completely reversed your stated position - care to say what caused this?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...le-distortion-micro-diodes-40.html#post285138
You've obviously completely reversed your stated position - care to say what caused this?
Last edited:
Let's Recap
After almost 1600 posts, no one is budging - at least not those who are posting.
And the arguments have devolved into silly bickering. (The usual suspects)
How do the opposing camps line up?
What does this tell us?
After almost 1600 posts, no one is budging - at least not those who are posting.
And the arguments have devolved into silly bickering. (The usual suspects)
How do the opposing camps line up?
- Those who favor the CD mostly cite its technical superiority, with a smaller, but significant, number of subjective preferences for its sonic qualities. Also a good number of votes for its convenience.
- Those who favor the LP overwhelming cite its superior sonic qualities, at least to their own ears. The technical arguments are present, but minor in comparison to the sonic arguments.
What does this tell us?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.