That could be another interesting question:
Will a 100% indistinguishable audio copy be the same for everyone ?
Will a 100% indistinguishable audio copy be the same for everyone ?
The most important thing? There is no such thing. Everything in audio is equally important becouse it is like looking in an opposite way as the signal goes to our ears. It is the chain with the links where the whole chain is as weak as its the weakest link is. The first important thing is... LISTENER! Without a good hearing, experienced and engaged listener there is no music enjoyment! Next important thing is the ROOM where the audio system is placed in. Room shouldn't add noise or echoes or resonnances, just provide pure signal decay equal in all frequencies. Without good room there is no use of expensive system at all. Next are the perfect SPEAKERS, becouse perfect room and experienced listener have no fun without proper high fidelity acoustic pressure generated inside. Speakers should play content with live event sound level without distortion and compression, having constant diffraction, phase and power inside frontal hemisphere as well as flat frequency response. Next is the AMPLIFICATION. Without right signal amplification, demanding membranes of the expensive drivers aren't moving well. Here should be nothing which can disturb amplifier from just plain amplification. There should be nothing on power path from amplifier to the speakers terminal. No cable influence or crossover complicity. And next is CONVERSION stage. This is the stage which converts the source or music data to the electric current! I mean CD player, DAC, turntable, tape recorder, etc. It should convert it without any losses being connected ideally straight to the amplifier. And finally - the SOURCE. I mean the music material. It should be sampled as high as possible without compression. This chain unfortunately hasn't got more or less important things. It has the things it should be considered to upgrade first before another. I mean in the order I described. 🙂
Last edited:
I know a lot of people with severe hearing impairment that really enjoy listening to music. My wife can't hear well from one ear, yet she can pick out problem equipment much faster than most. She clearly prefers the better equipment without me saying a word. She just listens and decides.
So much for having to have good hearing.
Several people I know have very unfortunate rooms they have to listen to music in. They all seem perfectly happy and can tell when something is off somewhere.
People are very good at blocking out constants.
-Chris
So much for having to have good hearing.
Several people I know have very unfortunate rooms they have to listen to music in. They all seem perfectly happy and can tell when something is off somewhere.
People are very good at blocking out constants.
-Chris
Well, since it's subjective it's not automatic.
In a logic manner, 100% transparent must be for 100% of the human population.
Hi Jon,
Let's put this a different way. If you hear a sound, or collection of sounds, then if they are played back (reproduced perfectly), it will sound identical to an individual - any individual. You have recreated how they perceived their initial experience exactly.
Now, does everyone hear the same? No. But however they heard the sound, played back perfectly they will hear the exact same sound again. This is true even if you look at 100 people or more. However they heard the event the first time, perfectly reproduced means that they will hear the same thing again. If any single person does not hear the same thing again, your reproduction was not perfect.
Understand? You and I can hear the same sound, but the experience may differ between us. But if that sound is reproduced perfectly, we will each experience the same thing again.
-Chris
You're the one who defined it! See your statement quoted below.
So yes, the "100% indistinguishable audio copy" seals that deal.
Let's put this a different way. If you hear a sound, or collection of sounds, then if they are played back (reproduced perfectly), it will sound identical to an individual - any individual. You have recreated how they perceived their initial experience exactly.
Now, does everyone hear the same? No. But however they heard the sound, played back perfectly they will hear the exact same sound again. This is true even if you look at 100 people or more. However they heard the event the first time, perfectly reproduced means that they will hear the same thing again. If any single person does not hear the same thing again, your reproduction was not perfect.
Understand? You and I can hear the same sound, but the experience may differ between us. But if that sound is reproduced perfectly, we will each experience the same thing again.
-Chris
Conversations like this remind me of how much Harvey Rosenberg ( Dr Gizmo) is missed, and that his prodigious output ( I think he'd appreciate that 😉) should be included in the syllabus for all acolytes in the arcane arts of audio reproduction.
The Doctor may have left the planet, but his legacy endures.
The Doctor may have left the planet, but his legacy endures.
almost certainly not - the 2nd time round we would have already built in expectations, be comparing with memory of the 1st, change our attentional focus based on the memory of what's coming
our perception would be different no matter how exact the sound pressure waveforms on our eardrums matched between the 2 listens
there are even physiologic neural feedback paths that could modify pattern of neural impulses coming back from the ear based on changed attentional focus
Last edited:
Are you stating something that I have thought a few times as a result of this forum...
That 'high-fidelity musical audio reproduction' as presented and practiced by audiophiles is an invalid theory, i.e. it simply is not possible, at least at this time and perhaps any time?
I read your statement, jcx, to be that as long as the listener knows it is a recording, 'being there' hi-fi repro is impossible.
That 'high-fidelity musical audio reproduction' as presented and practiced by audiophiles is an invalid theory, i.e. it simply is not possible, at least at this time and perhaps any time?
I read your statement, jcx, to be that as long as the listener knows it is a recording, 'being there' hi-fi repro is impossible.
sight and sound are similar
do all folks perceive colors the same way? not in my experience as an artist
everybody is different how can their senses be the same, they aren't.
infinia, your reply is irrelevant to the quoted.
"...it will sound identical to an individual..." does not mean all individuals hear it identically.
"...it will sound identical to an individual..." does not mean all individuals hear it identically.
the audiophile "realism" arguments do seem to me to often be naïve, stretched, don't respect recording, sound reproduction limitations
much less the whole of the "artistic choice" going on modern music production even after the mic feeds are recorded - tons of exaggeration, illusion, artificial effects being employed - sometimes for "hyper realism" or culturally established expectations long removed from literal "fidelity"
much less the whole of the "artistic choice" going on modern music production even after the mic feeds are recorded - tons of exaggeration, illusion, artificial effects being employed - sometimes for "hyper realism" or culturally established expectations long removed from literal "fidelity"
Well, with that argument we should all give up and go home?
I stand by what I have said. We all recognize instruments by the sound they make. As far as the mechanics of human hearing is concerned, a perfectly reproduced sound is indistinguishable from the original sound. If your head gets in the way - that's your problem. I'll continue to enjoy reproduction of music even when I know what comes next. Everyone hears (and sees) in their own way, and if the stimulus remains the same, so will the sensations we experience.
-Chris
I stand by what I have said. We all recognize instruments by the sound they make. As far as the mechanics of human hearing is concerned, a perfectly reproduced sound is indistinguishable from the original sound. If your head gets in the way - that's your problem. I'll continue to enjoy reproduction of music even when I know what comes next. Everyone hears (and sees) in their own way, and if the stimulus remains the same, so will the sensations we experience.
-Chris
sure it tastes like coffee but saying everybody will experience the same sensations to the exact same brew is well...
Yes, it's when the system is imperfect that we may have disagreements about flaws in the sound.
In that case, some may pay more attention, or have a more open mind, or have more experience,
or have a more transparent system that makes possible hearing things that some other systems
may not convey.
Last edited:
indeed open minds is all important esp. to technical trained folks
some tend to generalize and put highly nuanced things into tidy compartments.
Hi rayma,
Hi infinia,
If you taste your coffee, if it is recreated perfectly you should taste the same thing again, given there is nothing to interfere with your tasting it the same way. Meanwhile it would maybe taste different to me, but the second would still taste the same as my first as well. Got it?
-Chris
Completely agree with you.
Hi infinia,
That isn't even close to what I said!
If you taste your coffee, if it is recreated perfectly you should taste the same thing again, given there is nothing to interfere with your tasting it the same way. Meanwhile it would maybe taste different to me, but the second would still taste the same as my first as well. Got it?
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.