Well, because they put the microphones in a space to pick up optimum sound, if they're doing something like a reasonable job, and usually dump the aircon and bad audiences as well,
.But, they pick up the acoustic clues, the echoes from the spaces in which the recordings are made, and these are then captured in the recording. When a system reproduces cleanly, all this low level information is reproduced with minimal distortion into the listening space, and the ear/brain deciphers it all, makes sense of it - especially the bit about separating the listening room reaction to the sound, from the ambience captured in the recording.
This can only happen if the low level information is not badly mangled in the replay chain, which unfortunately is usually not the case. I've only been through the process hundreds of times, of having a recording sound congested, lacking depth, or a sense of being a musical event occurring in a space I've happened to intrude upon - only for that to turn on its head when I'm able to refine the system to a point where all the low level information encoded in the recording makes sense, at a subconscious level, and the space of the recording opens up ...
Last edited:
The problem of high-quality audio exists on several levels. Here's one of them: assuming that a perfect replay chain exists, is that enough? Probably not. The visual sense is missing, along with the body vibrations of the live venue. 1080P and 4K video is nice, but it's not reality. To completely reproduce the concert experience, leaving out only the sense of smell, is not within the state of the art.
This indicates that the ideal audio experience, in the absence of sight and tactility, should probably be a little exaggerated, to compensate for the missing senses. Since the dominant characteristic of conventional audio playback is grossly unreal sound, sonic exaggeration has to be done with some subtlety. At best, we can hope for an artfully performed magic trick that delivers an expressive experience. Not the same as reality, but reasonably satisfying.
There are far more difficult problems. We have a good handle on the physics and acoustics (although the materials are not as good as we would like), a fairly good handle on auditory perception, but then ... we arrive at consciousness.
Consciousness is where we live. Back when I was in college in the early Seventies, the Skinnerian behaviorists dominated psychology, and they made the absurd assertion that consciousness did not exist; it was a kind of illusion. I grew up in Buddhist cultures, and have Buddhist sympathies myself, and that assertion is absurd on its face.
Of course we are conscious. Something is typing these words, and something is reading them. All that is between my fingers and your eyes is the unconscious machinery of the Internet; but there is human awareness on each end. The primary function of the Internet is to connect human awareness.
Perception is inseparably linked to consciousness; without conscious awareness, it's not that meaningful to speak of perception. Most of us don't listen to hifi in our sleep; we listen when we are awake, and the music itself induces changes in conscious state. One of oldest uses of music, or really drumming, is induction of shamanic states of consciousness. Music has been used to alter consciousness for tens of thousands of years. The link between music and state-of-consciousness is very deep, and one of the strongest attractions of music. It's the reason a lot of us go to the trouble of designing and building artisan audio.
What do we know of consciousness? Almost nothing. The problem is so large it can't be even be scoped, yet it is the most fundamental and irreducible aspect of being human. All we really know is that it exists, people like to change it using music, chemicals, and social experiences, and have been doing so for a long time. Human beings crave experiences that alter consciousness.
We have the physics toolkit, materials science that is almost up to the task (we don't have everyday carbon nanotubes just yet), a fairly decent understanding of auditory perception, and then ... nothing. We don't know how sound translates into experience and feeling. Heck, as somebody suffering from a small amount of tinnitus, we can't even fix a simple unwanted feedback loop in the brain! (Don't worry, it's been gradually improving over the last couple of years, and is absent many days.)
That's why I refer to high-quality audio as a type of magic trick. It's a moderately successful perceptual illusion. At the highest level, the listener can experience states of exaltation and rapture, but the relationship between the technology and what's going on in the listener's experience is not well understood.
This indicates that the ideal audio experience, in the absence of sight and tactility, should probably be a little exaggerated, to compensate for the missing senses. Since the dominant characteristic of conventional audio playback is grossly unreal sound, sonic exaggeration has to be done with some subtlety. At best, we can hope for an artfully performed magic trick that delivers an expressive experience. Not the same as reality, but reasonably satisfying.
There are far more difficult problems. We have a good handle on the physics and acoustics (although the materials are not as good as we would like), a fairly good handle on auditory perception, but then ... we arrive at consciousness.
Consciousness is where we live. Back when I was in college in the early Seventies, the Skinnerian behaviorists dominated psychology, and they made the absurd assertion that consciousness did not exist; it was a kind of illusion. I grew up in Buddhist cultures, and have Buddhist sympathies myself, and that assertion is absurd on its face.
Of course we are conscious. Something is typing these words, and something is reading them. All that is between my fingers and your eyes is the unconscious machinery of the Internet; but there is human awareness on each end. The primary function of the Internet is to connect human awareness.
Perception is inseparably linked to consciousness; without conscious awareness, it's not that meaningful to speak of perception. Most of us don't listen to hifi in our sleep; we listen when we are awake, and the music itself induces changes in conscious state. One of oldest uses of music, or really drumming, is induction of shamanic states of consciousness. Music has been used to alter consciousness for tens of thousands of years. The link between music and state-of-consciousness is very deep, and one of the strongest attractions of music. It's the reason a lot of us go to the trouble of designing and building artisan audio.
What do we know of consciousness? Almost nothing. The problem is so large it can't be even be scoped, yet it is the most fundamental and irreducible aspect of being human. All we really know is that it exists, people like to change it using music, chemicals, and social experiences, and have been doing so for a long time. Human beings crave experiences that alter consciousness.
We have the physics toolkit, materials science that is almost up to the task (we don't have everyday carbon nanotubes just yet), a fairly decent understanding of auditory perception, and then ... nothing. We don't know how sound translates into experience and feeling. Heck, as somebody suffering from a small amount of tinnitus, we can't even fix a simple unwanted feedback loop in the brain! (Don't worry, it's been gradually improving over the last couple of years, and is absent many days.)
That's why I refer to high-quality audio as a type of magic trick. It's a moderately successful perceptual illusion. At the highest level, the listener can experience states of exaltation and rapture, but the relationship between the technology and what's going on in the listener's experience is not well understood.
Last edited:
Oh dear, this thread is getting a bit spooky ... - but seriously, I know where you're coming from - at one stage I was very heavy into meditation, and readings books delving into such areas.
Anyway ... personally, I find I don't need the visual, or other senses being stimulated. If the volume can be raised to a level which matches, or just roughly corresponds to live levels, with the aural integrity of what would be experienced in such an environment retained, then I find it wholly satisfying, I feel replete after hearing an album. As far as I'm concerned there is no exaggeration of the sound field, I don't perceive it as being 'larger than life' - there is no need for such, at least for me ...
- but seriously, I know where you're coming from - at one stage I was very heavy into meditation, and readings books delving into such areas.Anyway ... personally, I find I don't need the visual, or other senses being stimulated. If the volume can be raised to a level which matches, or just roughly corresponds to live levels, with the aural integrity of what would be experienced in such an environment retained, then I find it wholly satisfying, I feel replete after hearing an album. As far as I'm concerned there is no exaggeration of the sound field, I don't perceive it as being 'larger than life' - there is no need for such, at least for me ...
While we keep trying to close the gap with being there, it gets pretty good.
Beethoven Razumovsky quartet being broadcast from a small make do salon, and it sounds marvellous. The instruments sound like Stadivarius, maple, gut, foot tapping on a wooden floor.
It gets to point where the recording medium is too complicated to make 'you are there' recordings, unless you are BBC. etc
I do not tend to buy cd's SACD or any other digital recordings, as I do not feel inclined to listen to them most of the time. Live classical music is a good second best from FM radio. Its real time performance that beats any recording.
Sure I do have old favourites that I like to hear as it occurs to me. Especially real greats in classical, jazz,musicals etc
There are however some pretty nice digital recordings, but each live perfomance is unique and keeps the music fresh, new appreciations. Music liveth.
Last edited:
Lynn;
Whatever consciousness is, we take it wherever we go, even often into our dreams.
Binaural recording made at surface of eardrum reveal capacity of stereo signals to fully capture real sounds and reproduce them with spectacular realism.
Limitations of 1, 2, n channel reproduction with loudspeakers is well understood. Possibilities with stereo as limiting perspective still enables incredible realism for recorded rendering specifically adherent to where this perspective is valid in live or synthesized situations.
To paraphrase Linkwitz; Perception of sound is processing two highly correlated points of fluctuating air pressure at surface of eardrums.
Trick to audio illusions is controlling those pressure points. High levels of control are readily achievable with two loudspeakers, as well as with binaural techniques.
Achieving room response that doesn't distract from typical behavior in range of live sources is highly beneficial in promoting listener to relax into better acceptance of illusion provided by direct response to stereo aperture. Uniform dispersion of all directional cues are required. All simple direct radiator approaches fail; as do virtually all waveguides above about 4kHz, where intensity based directional cues are used.
For stereo based reproduction this requires much more omnidirectional behavior from loudspeakers across useful bandwidth.
Others experiencing this concur; I've built and listened to highly omnidirectional speaker to personally investigate this:
It goes way beyond the Ariel.
Reproduction, and regurgitation of the forward firing speaker paradigm offers little room for improving performance of audio illusions. Perceptions and sound both have ultimate physical basis. Building speakers to better suite perceptual basis is more accepted than hypnosis or consciousness altering chemicals.
Illusionists practice at working with perceptual limitations in performing their art.
Speaker builders must do the same work with audio.
Whatever consciousness is, we take it wherever we go, even often into our dreams.
Binaural recording made at surface of eardrum reveal capacity of stereo signals to fully capture real sounds and reproduce them with spectacular realism.
Limitations of 1, 2, n channel reproduction with loudspeakers is well understood. Possibilities with stereo as limiting perspective still enables incredible realism for recorded rendering specifically adherent to where this perspective is valid in live or synthesized situations.
To paraphrase Linkwitz; Perception of sound is processing two highly correlated points of fluctuating air pressure at surface of eardrums.
Trick to audio illusions is controlling those pressure points. High levels of control are readily achievable with two loudspeakers, as well as with binaural techniques.
Achieving room response that doesn't distract from typical behavior in range of live sources is highly beneficial in promoting listener to relax into better acceptance of illusion provided by direct response to stereo aperture. Uniform dispersion of all directional cues are required. All simple direct radiator approaches fail; as do virtually all waveguides above about 4kHz, where intensity based directional cues are used.
For stereo based reproduction this requires much more omnidirectional behavior from loudspeakers across useful bandwidth.
Others experiencing this concur; I've built and listened to highly omnidirectional speaker to personally investigate this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It goes way beyond the Ariel.
Reproduction, and regurgitation of the forward firing speaker paradigm offers little room for improving performance of audio illusions. Perceptions and sound both have ultimate physical basis. Building speakers to better suite perceptual basis is more accepted than hypnosis or consciousness altering chemicals.
Illusionists practice at working with perceptual limitations in performing their art.
Speaker builders must do the same work with audio.
Nice post, Lynn. 
A bit of perspective.
I have a vivid memory of listening to a nice recording of Bartok on double stacked Quad ESL speakers. Then we all went to the concert hall to hear Leonard Bernstein conduct the same piece. We had superb seats, Bernstein and the orchestra did well, but we all agreed the sound seemed flat compared to the recorded version. We heard the hype first, which made the later reality seem flat.
A bit of perspective.Very much so, and we tend to lose sight of that. It's an illusion, and a darn good one for the most part. It does not have to be the real thing, it just has to fool us enough.
Very much agree. I found this in fine art printing, too. We could make a print that was almost indistinguishable for the original, side by side. (Try that with audio!) But the painters always wanted more than the original. More saturation, more contrast, more pop. Why? A lot of reasons (I asked) but I think some of it was to compensate for lack of texture, lack of some layering and such. IMO, the same thing happens with audio.
I have a vivid memory of listening to a nice recording of Bartok on double stacked Quad ESL speakers. Then we all went to the concert hall to hear Leonard Bernstein conduct the same piece. We had superb seats, Bernstein and the orchestra did well, but we all agreed the sound seemed flat compared to the recorded version. We heard the hype first, which made the later reality seem flat.
Having recently seen a demo of the Smurf movie in 4K 3D, I have to say it seemed more real than real. And I never want to get that close to a Smurf again. Creepy.
Hello,
Removing the bug in a TAD TD2001 seems to have a more pronounced and measurable effect.
The hole around 1700Hz in the response curve of the TD2001 driver is deeper after removing the bugscreen. I was a bit surprised of that but after thinking about that, I became convince that the distance from the bugscreen to the diaphragm has been chosen in order to counteract the effect of the resonance of the cavity located at the rear of the coil which is reponsible of the famous hole around 1700Hz of the TAD TD2001 driver (and explained by Ken Kinoshita in his JAES paper).
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Last edited:
Hi Lynn,
Great post.
I agree and identify with most of what you wrote. It seems to me that you portrayed the state of affairs accurately and eloquently.
There is no need for me to quote what I agree with you on. I'll only refer to and comment on some points.
Indeed, except that when I listen to music, both in concerts and at home, most of the time I close my eyes in order to concentrate on the music itself. So, probably what I miss in reproduced music isn't the visual aspect. That being said, you are absolutely correct that reproduced music, like 4K video, aren't the reality they try to reproduce, or emulate.
I grew up (and still feel affiliated) to Yoga culture, especially the Yoga philosophy. So we aren't far off in this.
A bit off topic, yet, few words.
Usually, most of us, humans, know almost nothing about consciousness.
Consciousness cannot possibly be understood by the mind.
Yet, it can be realized, at times, by a direct experiential realization.
Now, even the person realizing consciousness, at the time of realization, get that one is realizing 'something', or 'nothing', that is beyond one's own mind ability to comprehend.
As much as what consciousness is cannot be portrayed in words in a way that will do justice to the reality of consciousness, at times it is being described in words, for lack of better words.
My description, out of my own experience and observation, is that consciousness is the underlying source and origin of the entire manifest universe. That is, pure consciousness, or consciousness-in-itself – to differentiate from objects of consciousness, or 'things' we are conscious off. At the same time, it is what each and every one of us is, ultimately, beyond the ego, or sense of individual existence. It is 'The One', 'the one and only one', which each of us is, ultimately, at the core of our being.
Great post.
I agree and identify with most of what you wrote. It seems to me that you portrayed the state of affairs accurately and eloquently.
There is no need for me to quote what I agree with you on. I'll only refer to and comment on some points.
Indeed, except that when I listen to music, both in concerts and at home, most of the time I close my eyes in order to concentrate on the music itself. So, probably what I miss in reproduced music isn't the visual aspect. That being said, you are absolutely correct that reproduced music, like 4K video, aren't the reality they try to reproduce, or emulate.
I grew up (and still feel affiliated) to Yoga culture, especially the Yoga philosophy. So we aren't far off in this.
A bit off topic, yet, few words.
Usually, most of us, humans, know almost nothing about consciousness.
Consciousness cannot possibly be understood by the mind.
Yet, it can be realized, at times, by a direct experiential realization.
Now, even the person realizing consciousness, at the time of realization, get that one is realizing 'something', or 'nothing', that is beyond one's own mind ability to comprehend.
As much as what consciousness is cannot be portrayed in words in a way that will do justice to the reality of consciousness, at times it is being described in words, for lack of better words.
My description, out of my own experience and observation, is that consciousness is the underlying source and origin of the entire manifest universe. That is, pure consciousness, or consciousness-in-itself – to differentiate from objects of consciousness, or 'things' we are conscious off. At the same time, it is what each and every one of us is, ultimately, beyond the ego, or sense of individual existence. It is 'The One', 'the one and only one', which each of us is, ultimately, at the core of our being.
My wife is extremely sick right now and is really not up to visitors.
Maybe next spring or summer if you get over to the states.
The body vibrations are very important in the magic trick. That's the main reason why it takes (in my experience, yeah I am a broken record) a large multi way horn system to create the live illussion. AFA visual when I listen live I normally keep my eyes closed
My wife is extremely sick right now and is really not up to visitors.
Thank you.
I'd be delighted, should I be up to flying by then.
My beliefs echo this very closely ...
It's nice to hear.
For me, it isn't a belief, it's my view of reality. It is my way of putting in words that which cannot be defined in words. It's based on my experiences and observations, not on beliefs, neither my own, nor any adopted ones.
It is my view that usually, beliefs, any belief and all beliefs, serve as a kind of veil which comes in the way when we try to observe reality. Yet, neither myself nor anyone else I know first-hand is completely free of all beliefs. The bottom line is that I try not to rely on beliefs which I'm aware of, which I know to be beliefs. I may act upon them, knowing before-hand that I may be proven mistaken.
I'm going back to watch a movie.
At first you didn't make sense to me, they are the one and the same for me. But, on reflection, I think you're distinguishing the intellectual from the instinctive, the thinking mind from 'inner knowing' - ideally they should nicely overlap, and for me they largely do, there's no conflict ...
You mucked up the last line - in this forum, it should have been "I'm going back to listen to some music" ...
,
Hi Frank,
No, I was not referring to the intellectual versus the instinctive. To my view, there is a marked difference between a view based on one's experience and between a belief. It took me many years 'on the path' to make that distinction. Anyhow, neither views nor beliefs are proven facts.
Never mind. Each and every one sees it the way each one sees it. It cannot be any other way, so I don't expect any agreement on this (nor on any other issue).
I only wrote the factual truth. I just finished watching a documentary and I'm going to watch another one. It's a kind of self-education for me right now, because I'm in the process of making a documentary of my own. Also, there is a pre-amp which I'm breaking in, so there is no dedicated listening to music for me until tomorrow night.
No, I was not referring to the intellectual versus the instinctive. To my view, there is a marked difference between a view based on one's experience and between a belief. It took me many years 'on the path' to make that distinction. Anyhow, neither views nor beliefs are proven facts.
Never mind. Each and every one sees it the way each one sees it. It cannot be any other way, so I don't expect any agreement on this (nor on any other issue).
You mucked up the last line - in this forum, it should have been "I'm going back to listen to some music" ...
I only wrote the factual truth. I just finished watching a documentary and I'm going to watch another one. It's a kind of self-education for me right now, because I'm in the process of making a documentary of my own. Also, there is a pre-amp which I'm breaking in, so there is no dedicated listening to music for me until tomorrow night.
You should read one of your countrymen, Prof. Kanneman who spent his life studying beliefs and reality. he won a Nobel prize for his work and his book is the best I have ever read on the subject.
Beliefs are fine as long as they are founded in reality. But it seems to be very difficult for humans to sort out what reality really is. They seem to want to make up what it is to support what they believe. Its a circular logic thing that we all get caught up in, but hopefully we can catch ourselves doing it and correct our course. In reality it seldom happens!
Joshua, it's nice to see a face on the name. We can differ on some views and remain civil and mutualy respectful, more important than anything.
EDIT - You can google my real face anytime one of the disadvantages of not being anonymous.
Last edited:
I remember from one of Alan Watts lectures, the origin of the word belief. The root being 'lief'. Which is middle english for 'wish'. Which is to say, that 'to believe' is 'to wish' or 'hope' for things, or reality to be a certain way. He goes on to differentiate between 'belief' and 'faith', in that belief precludes the possibility of faith. Faith is being open to all possible realities. Open to how things are, rather than how they should or should not be. All you can do is trust, not hope, that reality merely is, rather than being a certain way. Taking into account the limits of our conscious attention. And the resultant fragility of our subjective perceptions. One is about letting go, while the other is about clinging.
This is an interesting subject. The first time I was surprised by body vibrations was when a was in a fruit shop while a parade went by, they had drums, and there was only one drum that would cause my chest to vibrate. This I have never felt in audio systems. I always wondered why.The body vibrations are very important in the magic trick. That's the main reason why it takes (in my experience, yeah I am a broken record) a large multi way horn system to create the live illussion. AFA visual when I listen live I normally keep my eyes closed
Once I also went to a chamber music session in an apartment complex, we had live performance and also a really expensive audio system in the same room. As the live performance commenced, there were a few notes in the cello that also start to vibrate. This feeling became one of the import ques of good audio reproduction.