First problem is to define what the phrase "as accurately reproduced as possible" actually means or should mean.
Second problem is illustrated by the great debate over the years, because the different point of views are based on conclusions from a certain set of measurements that confirms (actually or allegedely) the "as accurate as possible" status. That the factual "as possible" is changing over time due to evolving technology is imo obvious, but the debate remains nearly the same over the years.
Second problem is illustrated by the great debate over the years, because the different point of views are based on conclusions from a certain set of measurements that confirms (actually or allegedely) the "as accurate as possible" status. That the factual "as possible" is changing over time due to evolving technology is imo obvious, but the debate remains nearly the same over the years.
Unfortunately it often seems so. That´s one of the reasons why i started the thread about "evidence considered as sufficient" partly to trigger thinking about the "trenches" ......
Thanks for stating our position accurately - it's refreshing to experience this even though you disagree with it
And this represents the issue - one side maintains that "the signal is being as accurately reproduced as possible" - at least you included an IF before this statement which is the crux of the matter - that IF is a big IF which we maintain is actually NOT.
We have given many reasons with backing evidence:
- historic (new measurements discovered in the audio past)
- the complexity of the actual music signal we listen to Vs the test signals used for measurements
- the limitations of the measurements themselves
- the judgement criteria used to dismiss what's audible/not audible in the measurements
- the lack of correlation between measurements & auditory perception
- the complexity of the actual music signal we listen to Vs the test signals used for measurements
- the limitations of the measurements themselves
- the judgement criteria used to dismiss what's audible/not audible in the measurements
- the lack of correlation between measurements & auditory perception
I'm not even sure of what the argument from the other side is apart from this claim of accuracy - maybe someone could outline it without the ad-homs?
Do you fell ashamed in calling a music signal a sound ?
When you've cleared your mind and go ahead in the definition of sound and more precisely a musical sound, these questions would be irrelevant.
It's because of the processation of the brain which gives sense to the matter.Maybe it may seems philosophical but reality has to be faced !
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying?
Sure, if you read my posts you will realize that I understand what auditory processing is about
Accuracy is defined as difference between signal in and out, surely?
Reproduction is certainly getting more accurate, the bottle neck seems to me to be the speakers and room
Easily stated but you need to get into the nitty gritty of how to test this - any idea?
No doubt reproduction is getting more accurate & may be accurate enough now that these secondary issues are becoming evident?
A very important post was made by KSTR earlier in the thread - one I meant to ask him about the details of this "differential testing" he mentions
Curious, my own experience is the opposite. Having spent well over half a decade developing more accurate (transparent) DACs, its now amps which are the main bottleneck. Speakers are only a slight bottleneck, room hasn't figured yet.
That´s one way to define it - especially for certain subsets - but overall another approach related the accuracy to the listeners impression that should be most similar to the impression he/she would have had during the original event.
That assertion is the basis for the "great debate" and that runs for at least ~45 years. A lot of people disagreed back then and a lot of people do still disagree today.
Back we are to individual differences that might be the reason for these diverging opinions.
A reproduction chain used at home is a holistic system that includes the listener.
In our tests we were (most probably 🙂 ) able to differentiate audio gear in controlled listening tests (and sigthed tests as well) although the units were "as accurate as possible" when compared to the thresholds of hearing (for example preamplifiers that met Waly´s example).
@mmerrill99,
I missed KSTR´s post, thanks for repeating it, as it sums it all up. 🙂
I agree & we already had the debate about how distortion in electronics being measured at such low levels are not swamped by speakers (& rooms) which have such high measured distortions, by comparison. Logic would suggest that it's impossible & yet we know it isn't. The only logical conclusion - we are not measuring what is audible
ISTM its a red herring to focus on 'speaker distortions' - yes, measured in the traditional way speakers generally have much higher THD than DACs and amps. Yet subjectively the bottleneck of my own box speakers (now that DAC and amp are so much closer to neutrality) is the box itself i.e. its colourations (internal resonances) not distortion which are detracting from the experience.
I take your point, but that's unknowable, granted we could make a guess based on our own experience
Is it really ? The different parts of a system fulfill different roles and should be assessed for their ability to fulfill their particular role.
Some gear (DACs, amps) are defined by how faithful their output is to the input. That's a relatively straightforward question of measuring electrical signals. In that field, differences between competent gear today are at the level of a fly's fart.
Some other gear (DSP, speakers, room treatment, the whole recording/mixing process,...) are defined by their ability to make us believe in the recreation of the musical event. Considering all the compromises involved and all the different possible approaches, that's where better weighted measurements and a better understanding of the brain auditory functions would help.
imo, a lot of the hifi industry is busy hyping the small differences to be found with the first kind of gear while the big gains in realistic sound reproduction should rather be pursued with the second kind.
jakob2 said:
Yes, & I disagree with Jakob - most music we replay isn't a recording of a live event, it's a studio creation so knowing how it should sound is unknowable but there is a resolution to this 'cone of confusion' as Toole called it
Therefore we don't judge it as such - we judge it according to our internal auditory models of sound objects & their behavior which we have learned & refined through many years of exposure to how sound objects & sound streams behave in the natural world. The closer this match, the more convincing the illusion, the more realistic it is perceived to be & as a result, we often connect with it in a more emotional way. Our higher cognitive abilities have more processing time available because we are not expending our limited processing resources to reconciling the unnatural ambiguities in the sound stream.
So we are judging the naturalness of the sounds themselves & the correct interrelationship between the various sounds - the patterns & sometimes the statistics within the sound stream.
When a replay system allows you to hear the inner detail of gentle brushing of cymbals rather than it sounding like white noise, when a system shows the inner detail of applause - you know that it is reproducing the low level detail needed for this naturalness to be perceived
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.