Not sure if I grasp the actual point here (is it that it must be relevant or interesting to be studied in depth) but I thought I’d mention the more I dial my setup to the music I prefer, I do notice it suffers a bit on some other genres...... that’s ok though
Last edited:
See?
Funny isn't it how Nipper didn't need any special training
I see! Said the blind man to his deaf wife as his two crippled kids walked in the door!
Nipper did notice a SQ improvement when his owner finally upgraded to a thorens ......I’ll try to find the article.
Last edited:
Make the shift (of the hidden image/text) very small and both eyes have difficulty to perceive 'depth' or 3D effect. Increase the shift, but close one eye, and you may/will not be able to see the message.
In audio, a difference can be very small at small signal processing level (i.e. in amplifier level). This is the analogy of the image/text shift in the stereogram. But when processed by (two) speakers and (two) ears, the perceived effect is augmented.
I wish i could demo how a small change (that will be considered as negligible change in measurement and thus inaudible) will create very audible effect.
Not sure if I grasp the actual point here (is it that it must be relevant or interesting to be studied in depth) but I thought I’d mention the more I dial my setup to the music I prefer I notice it suffers a bit on some other genres...... that’s ok though
And what does it say about trying to spot the difference in an ABX blind test by repeating the same piece of music over many trials - you may have started out liking the music but guaranteed you will not want to hear it again for quite a while by the end of such an experience.
I know sometimes my test tracks get rather long in the tooth. much like overplayed tracks on the radio, I can’t stand ‘stairway to heaven’ for that reason.
the more I dial my setup to the music I prefer I notice it suffers a bit on some other genres...... that’s ok though
You have to really know the recording very well. When the treble is not in the recording and you try to dial your system to produce a flat response, imagine what a system you will have
For 'unknown' recordings you should use more than one amplifiers, more than one speaker. Chesky records have recordings with information regarding how it is recorded, where (large church or outdoor), the distance between instruments, what to expect during listening, etc. Having a reference is a must. But even so, you will still make mistake
You have to really know the recording very well. When the treble is not in the recording and you try to dial your system to produce a flat response, imagine what a system you will have
Thanks for the chesky tip, I’ll look into that.
Since diving into the deep end I know why the dedicated have multiple systems......even if the objectivists think they should all sound the same.
Last edited:
We naturally and automatically adjust our focus and R/L angular orientation in concert without thinking. The further away, the more parallel the eyes are.
Stereograms require we align the eyes as if the object is far away, yet we have to focus as if it is close. That is a forced break from what we do naturally.
jn
Just as ‘training your ears’ requires a forced break from what they do naturally.
To me this allows breaking down the components of the sound focusing on aspects that would otherwise be hidden.....just as in the stereogram.
I think it’s an awesome analogy Dan
Yes, we defocus - similar to how we listen casually to music - we allow it wash over us without focus on any particular sound in the music. We may consciously decide, at any time, to focus on one particular musical line or instrument/voice in the soundstream or we may be drawn to a particular sound by the sound itself causing a mismatch response (MMR) in our auditory perception or for other reasons. Another way of listening would be focussed listening where we are analytically trying to hear a difference between A & B - I wouldn't call either of these approaches to listening to be broken, just different ways of using our sense of hearing & we often naturally switch between them.
Maybe it's just semantics but I similarly wouldn't say squinting at an image & defocussing it or standing back from an image or crossing our eyes or focussing beyond the plane of the image to be a breaking of our vision system - it's just using the perceptual machinery in a different way to its usual usage. The rods & cones are still engaged in their normal chemical reactions, nerve impulses are still traversing the optic nerve in a normal way, brain regions are still receiving nerve signals & these signals are analysed according to the normal internal model of visual perception & part of this model is an understanding of how visual objects behave in the world. (If you paint you will vary the way you look at what you are painting - it's not just one way of seeing)
The result of all this is that the best fit model to the signals being received is the perception of a 3D image or floating image. As in all illusions, it's not breaking the perceptual system, it's a demonstration of a certain aspect of the normal working of our perception by presenting it with a nerve stream that it interprets in a way which is not in accordance with reality. It all goes to show that reality is a modelling system which is not 100% accurate but it is what we have & getting to know ho wit works would seem to me to be a big step towards understanding audio reproduction & advancing it.
Last edited:
Training your ears to do what exactly? Aspects that would otherwise be hidden? Such as what? I'm not being funny, I want people to try to be a bit clearer in what they're talking about.
Our ears don't have to be forced to perceive a stereo image if that's what you're saying
Last edited:
If want to want to try training yourself to listen, it might be worth someone trying to coach you. If you just want to learn a description of it rather than learn how to do it, it will just be something else to argue about in the never ending debate. Debates can't solve what are fundamentally scientific disputes. Properly conducted experimental research would have to do that. (You already know all that, right?)
I have been following the discussion. It is great to see many engage, and it makes everybody think.
You had asked what test signal I would try...I mentioned previously the use of two components, a tight drum as center image, and a female vocal which is shifted via ITD/ILD to either side of the central image. The intent is to use the drum as a fixed reference in space, with the listener locating the vocal with respect to it.
jn
I know sometimes my test tracks get rather long in the tooth. much like overplayed tracks on the radio, I can’t stand ‘stairway to heaven’ for that reason.
Like this store?
Oh, that "research". Why should anyone fall for snake oil sales pitch that Jakob(x) tried over at Hydrogenaudio and already got exposed for what it is?
Completely threadbare argument, as usual - I know it may be difficult for you but try, for once, bringing something of value to the discussion
Value for your audio business? Well, my hourly rate is rather high. I don't think you can afford it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.