LOLOL, take that back hoser!!! I tried to change it to David Thomas which he prefers, but too late...
Cheers!
Howie
It might suprise someone, but beside cargo-cult-science (where strong prior beliefs are apparently already sufficient) one indeed needs propper (means well planned and well executed) listening experiments to find evidence for hypothesises.
To read up on methods of sound sensory tests/methods (especially wrt multidimensional evaluation) prevents scientists from other fields to fool themselves.
But, as the old saying goes about horse, the water and the drinking; these scientiests must be able to accept that they need some additional education.
In the past we have occasionally cited/linked publications that will help to enhance the understanding.
@Markw4,
Isn´t it fascinating?
As a side topic it is interesting to see if Kahneman or Nesbitt are (?more often?) right....
@scottjoplin,
In general that is covered by "certain aspects of stereophonic reproduction....." line.
But, although it needs obviously experience, for example listening to the impuls response of a reproduction system from the next room (or even down the hallway), reveals something that very often will be relevant for the "imaging qualities" of the system, although a listener will only be aible to explore these qualities when using the correct listening position.
@bonsai,
Although scottjoplin got it presumably right, more precise would be to say, "if a modification makes a perceptable difference in the reproduction room, it is not that surprising that a difference can be detected through a doorway or even down a hallway..."
Isn´t it fascinating?
As a side topic it is interesting to see if Kahneman or Nesbitt are (?more often?) right....
@scottjoplin,
In general that is covered by "certain aspects of stereophonic reproduction....." line.
But, although it needs obviously experience, for example listening to the impuls response of a reproduction system from the next room (or even down the hallway), reveals something that very often will be relevant for the "imaging qualities" of the system, although a listener will only be aible to explore these qualities when using the correct listening position.
@bonsai,
Love the logical reasoning - nice, simple.
Although scottjoplin got it presumably right, more precise would be to say, "if a modification makes a perceptable difference in the reproduction room, it is not that surprising that a difference can be detected through a doorway or even down a hallway..."
Last edited:
Which represents a remarkably illustrates the way cognitive distortions are working in a layman if strong beliefs are present.
Getting rid of the whinkers might not be sufficient but is good for starters.
Yep, the noise coming from the 'Creative' desktop PC loudspeakers improved remarkably
Attachments
Last edited:
On the topic of placement and directivity is the issue of coupled woofer spacing. The 6 dB down at 45 degrees off axis occurs at the frequency where the woofers are one half wavelength apart. It tightens up as frequency rises.
At 10' spacing patterns start decreasing at 50 hertz when both woofers have the same signal. This is often the case for live stereo recordings and much less often for studio ones.
At 10' spacing patterns start decreasing at 50 hertz when both woofers have the same signal. This is often the case for live stereo recordings and much less often for studio ones.
Watched an interesting programme on British TV on how Graceland, one of my favourite albums was produced, and probably one of the last vinyl albums I ever purchased new.
Simon and the producer discussed all the sound manipulation required to arrive at the finished product.
I would suggest that all recordings are a product of what the producer and artists prefer?
Remarquably ? Listen to the first link i provided:Yep, the noise coming from the 'Creative' desktop PC loudspeakers improved remarkably
YouTube
Listen to the bass. it's impressive from those litle boxes, but have-you ever heard an electric bass sounding like this in real life? A halo of extreme low frequencies coming from elsewhere without real body nor presence. A dark shadow.
Listen to the drums. Where is the kick ?
The snare drums sound like a piece of thin paper stretched on a hoop. No barrel.
Listen to the cymbals: "pssss" where we are expecting "klings" or "Kaïïsh". A cymbal is a heavy piece of metal, not a thin cristal glass or thin paper crumpled.
And this female voice, coming from nowhere, with the "t" attacks like saturated and again, a huge halo around. A snake in need of oil ?
My Altec little PC speakers are not shining at all, but the body of the instruments are respected and i ask myself no questions when I listen to them. And they had cost < 150$, not 2000 !
Hifi ? Is that you call "hifi" ?
Last edited:
^10 In the early 1990s I patented a hearing test system, but in order to make it salable to professionals had to give away some of the rights to Indiana U. (in lieu of big $$) who ran a series of controlled trials with it. Without peer-reviewed tests, an idea remains just that...it may work, but why, and how applicable it is in different scenarios? A well conceived test regimen will reveal those answers.
Also ^10, I believe I was saying this as far back as JCBP Pt 1. As a matter of fact the record SQ is also affected by the qualities of the control room monitors they used to mix and master. Our main mastering room featured UREI 813 and 815s, and we also gave the option to use Meyer HD1s, Genelecs (can't remember the model), and the ubiquitous Auratones. We had one of the first TEF units and had attended Syn-Aud-Cons and learned how to use it from Richard Heyser, and treated the acoustics of our room accordingly so our mastering suite was quite respectable. I kid you not, I cannot tell you how many musicians and engineers who made a recording in budget studios I have had bring masters to me and say about our monitors: "We have to re-equalize them, the master does not sound right here." Think about what that would do that for a second...
There are well documented cases of recordings with faults due to irregularities in the studio playback system. Too much peak in the bass, the engineer will bring the bass down to flatten it, resulting in a bass-shy recording...a monitor too forward in the upper mid results in recessed female vocals in the recording.
There is no absolute electronic reference recording of acoustic events, they are all predicated by the conditions under which they have been made.
Where is that coming from? did I say HiFi or refer to HiFi or did I ever say (in any way or other) that HiFi is a 'thing'? I was just making clear, in a somewhat cynical way, that judging the quality of a loudspeaker system from/using a 'you tube' video is less then optimal (to stay at the save side of useless).
Last edited:
If the above is correct, then is it possible that most of the discussions here are moot?
Not sure it is a matter of being more often right exactly. Back when Kahneman and Klein collaborated, they realized that they just looked at things in different ways.
However, Nesbitt is taking an interesting path. When I read Mindware, I thought, almost nobody is going to study this seriously and try to integrate it into their thinking, all by way of their own volition. Also, the situation vis a vis Kahneman seems significantly like it was with Klein: there is not disagreement on the underlying facts.
Sure, just like the photo reproduction of a painting for others to see, it would be considered a high degree of fidelity if the reproduction resembles what the artist painted to a high degree.
Everybody is not able to make the difference ? If this king of recording is not able te reveal details, it is, on the contrary, the best way to figure out the defects of a system, hidden under impressive feelings in direct listening at high volume.
It appears that this video, with its loss of all the definition, reveal exactly my discomfort with these speakers.
I notice, by the way, that it is sufficient for me to approach a subject, whatever it may be, for you to find a way to contradict me. It's personal, or just a character trait ?
Then you are wrong as before I just demonstrated that it is not (truly) posible to judge an 'original' sound by listening to it's recording, even when judging a loudspeaker.
Really? So this is (again) where I stop communicating about a subject raised by you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.