What I mean is a certain level of tolerance in the world of audio design. The awareness that we have different design goals and different methods.
An Italian friend always says; "Il mondo e bello perchè è vario”.
Such an attitude could make this forum so much healthier and fruitful...
Reacting to comments made by people with different perceptions can be done in various ways. The aggressive and egocentric ways that we have seen lately are very counterproductive IMHO.
Wow, what a great job!
Here in the Netherlands this would be very difficult because of all the regulation in this overcrowded small country...
I understand and agree, I think only very few objectivists have an issue with "liking" of different audio equipment. But, what is the point of a subjectivist saying "better" and/or "accurate" etc and then attempt to shut down further, possibly constructive discussion?
A whole new can of worms! One that I have spent lots of time commenting on in a number of other of threads here (if anyone cares to read), but one whose omission demonstrates perfectly the folly of much of the hi-fi industry and any subjectivist's entrenched position in this debate.
The other experimenters in this forum are not employing "esoteric" techniques, but implementing something like the original stereo specification for maximising reproduction fidelity. The deletion of "stereo shufflers" from audio equipment and the emphasising of "dual mono" designs with practically infinite channel separation is bizarre indeed if one cares to find out how he stereo illusion is actually produced.
The application of linear phase corrections is not new and the delay term appears readily from a theoretical examination of stereo reception [see Edeko's seminal AES paper from the 1980s for example]. Such delay terms were not able to be accurately compensated in the early days of stereo and it is possible the efforts to implement (minimum phase) shufflers caused more problems than they solved (which is possibly why they have for the most part ceased to be).
The use of a third loudspeaker is also an exceptional means to improve the reproduction of stereo material that is also conspicuous by its absence in many "audiophile" systems. (A simple passive summing circuit won't do it well, however). But I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who seeks reproduction to produce an illusion of "being there" explores (at least) three loudspeaker stereo and stereo shuffling techniques.
Indeed, such are the errors apparent in normal stereo reproduction, I would go as far as to say that without (at least) a third loudspeaker and without an appropriately optimised stereo shuffler, any subjectivist report is inherently unreliable.
Last edited:
Science is ever evolving. Latin scientia (knowledge), it forms testable explanations and predictions.
How many times throughout history has science ‘changed’ on one subject or another?
If one is part of the entire process from start to finish are you saying it’s still impossible to grasp a reasonable perception/facsimile of the original event? I’m sure your going to say, only your own perception of it! ......well if my perception is accurately reproduced in studio (as well as possible) by my direction, and there were six bystanders throughout the entire process would their experience upon playback (although perceived differently) end up in the same accurate representation (accurate to themselves ,as it was me) That is if I was good at my craft. A parallel perception if you will.
Maybe some are less hysterical than others?
😀
As a ‘subjectivist’ the apparent fallibility is what drives me towards accuracy. 😛
I tried to set up a new thread for this but seems it’s happily embedded here.
Last edited:
Agreed
This was my point when I said 'esoteric'. I am not aware of anyone else picking this up in this century using FIR. But I don't get out much!
Also agree, even if a ferdamned piano stops me at the moment.
And yet some still fuss about stuff 120dB down on their DAC! And OK my obsession is soundstage illusion.
If you get inspired by subjective reports to investigate and maybe find new ways for measurements, then that is a great stimulus.
I agree that we can risk false perceptions through our hearing apparatus and the subsequent brain processing, and we all will experience this from time to time, no matter how experienced we are in listening.
I also believe that without taking these inherent risks, we wouldn't have arrived where we are. Just sitting on our laurels and letting only measuring equipment decide where we're heading to, would be a very unwise thing to do IMHO.
It is good to regularly question the outcomes of our subjective listening tests, and to repeat them in a wider context from time to time.
It is also good to question our established way of measuring audio, otherwise we would have probably never started to look into things like time response etc.
As an example, there are quite a few well sounding digital amps nowadays, and a lot of research and development has taken place. Brands like Devialet have certainly raised the bar. They get a lot of praise on the test bench and in subjective listening tests.
The problem with these digital amps IMHO is that I have never heard any of these giving a believable representation of ambience. That is what my subjective ears tell me. You won’t find this criticism in any magazine or web review, so it doesn’t seem to bother others that much.
Despite the many advantages of digital amps, it is still a deal-breaker for me.
I would very much like to find any sort of “scientifical” explanation for the shortcoming that my ears inform me of. One experiment I did, is inserting a waveform with a short gap. A conventional amplifier will show that gap on its output, but a digital amp will “repair” this hole in a interpolating way due to the nature that these amps reconstruct an analogue signal (may we use the term synthesizer here?).
I still cannot be certain that their shortcomings on ambience retrieval is directly linked to this phenomena, but our subjective impression may at least stimulate us in extending and improving our ways of measurement.
Personally, I still think that we have a very long way (if ever) to go to make listening obsolete when designing audio.
Your perception of me reacting is entirely accurate in that respect but you have no idea what it sounded like here in my room when I voiced it. As I posted previously, in a well-engineered recording, even being sat in the "hot seat" will not likely not provide a good reference.
I will assume that is a joke but make it clear for others that I am talking about the hysteresis required to accurately model our perceptual learning capabilities that means we cannot be objectively assumed to have the same listening acuity as we did in a previous moment.
I will assume that is a red rag! 🙂
If there is the theoretical chance of a “possible constructive discussion” in these threads, then it would probably have unfolded itself in such a way. In practice it has nearly always lead to obstruction and frustration with all parties involved, because it sucks the live out of the impetus to go ahead and exchange ideas on a subject. That is why it is so much better to have these discussions here in the lounge. Maybe this very discussion here can make people more willing to let others go ahead in the way they like to go ahead within the normal forums.
Discussing grammar and spelling is a very useful activity when dealing with language lessons. It can become very annoying and paralyzing when having a conversation outside the language lessons.
Maybe the element of "fun" has not been brought up before, but yes, IMHO fun is a neccesary ingredient for all things concerning audio. If it were not part of designing audio, we might as well do research on quantum physics...
The constant challenge of reconciling subjective notion in audio with objective testing is a source of "fun" for me.
A good place to start for what you describe might be looking at noise floor modulation as by chance I referenced earlier. But then you might also consider that the "ambience" you seek was due to an artefact of the reproduction system you are referencing?
It will always likely be the starting point.
A perception that is reliably supported by the opinions of many and the reason why I am limited to having to imagine Andrea Corr and Susanna Hoffs are actually sat here with me 😀
...and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle relating to the analysis of signals time and frequency.
Just don't forget the music! 🙂
It’s a final frontier of sorts, quite interesting to you, me, and a handful of others.....but dismissed as hoodoo by most. Maybe just for the sake of laziness!
Ambience is one one of the things I find dial-able with dsp phase manipulation.......I really think the time envelope blurring is what makes digital so sterile to some, if you get all the stars and planets to align like I seem to have stumbled upon (I’ll also reference wesayso again, and not in a direct comparison to myself Bill!) It’s really quite impressive, and the interesting part is it doesn’t seem dependent on $$, just that it is correct (whatever that might be!)
It was discussed a month or so ago, in connection with this thread I believe, and made some good progress but just petered out in a plausible state near as I could tell.
Yes it might, but here again we have to make (subjective) choices where to start and where to stop questioning our subjective impressions, because otherwise we would end up in total nihilism and achieve nothing, because we wouldn’t know where to start at all.
In this case, I do trust my ears in that something is missing that is present (in different degrees) in non-digital amplifiers. If I feel uncertain about my impression, I can ask some colleagues that I respect. If they have the same impression, I may feel a little bit less uncertain, but I will never have any proof or certainty.
If I would adhere to the total scepticism that seems to befit some objectivists, then this lack of certainty could completely destroy my motivation to do any further investigation...