Frank. first, less YouTube references would help a lot. I think no-one takes it seriously and it's perceived as trolling because it's wasted energy on the "opponent's" part.
second. you seem to mention realism a lot. IMO, many if not all records are not engineered to sound real. for instance, when you artifically add glare to the voice in the studio, where's the realism? do you often hear voices with glare in real life? I don't, ever. upon my first contact with serious hi-fi, my first reaction was "so this is what they were talking about?". because I had read a lot about it, before experiencing it and it shaped my perception. all this talk about realistic sound stage and what not made me have... unrealistic expectactions 🙂 IMO, very few recording engineers try to make music sound realistic and I'm not even sure they should. for instance, I'm not sure I'd like dry sound like is sometimes heard in real life.
second. you seem to mention realism a lot. IMO, many if not all records are not engineered to sound real. for instance, when you artifically add glare to the voice in the studio, where's the realism? do you often hear voices with glare in real life? I don't, ever. upon my first contact with serious hi-fi, my first reaction was "so this is what they were talking about?". because I had read a lot about it, before experiencing it and it shaped my perception. all this talk about realistic sound stage and what not made me have... unrealistic expectactions 🙂 IMO, very few recording engineers try to make music sound realistic and I'm not even sure they should. for instance, I'm not sure I'd like dry sound like is sometimes heard in real life.
Well if that is your intention instead of doing a critical DBT then congrats. The human brain is able to fool ourselves if we want it to. You tried to fool your brain into making it hear both passages as the same and did so but I think it took a lot of effort on your part.Would you do the same while really wanting to compare two different components of an audio system? How about redoing the video test and try hear a difference instead of trying to make them sound alike in your mind?Perhaps those that don't want to believe that there is no audible difference between a $200 and $10,000 amp will also do so , try,but will they be able to hear a difference when they can't tell which amp is which? Have you seen any DBTs results where some one could reliably pick which amp was which that frequency, phase or distortion measurements could not show a difference?
Some people are honest enough to admit that they prefer some distortion. Most vehemently deny it. So you believe that secretly they think they prefer distortion yet at the same time publicly deny it?CopperTop said:
Preferring distortion and preferring valve amplifiers are not the same thing. It is possible to have one without the other. People who prefer both usually have to resort to circuit techniques such as omitting feedback, poorly chosen bias or low supply rail voltage to get what they want.
Neither. As I said, I think that many choices may be made on non-sonic grounds. I would bet that most people cannot hear distortion until it is at quite high levels - which is what the DB tests seem to say - so their choices probably have nothing to do with distortion at all. The idea that everyone chooses their equipment based on sonic grounds is a 'narrative' that may have nothing to do with reality. People become fixated on audio hardware for a variety of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with music or sound.
As I said about myself, I suspect that I choose my setup mainly on non-sonic grounds. Even if active DSP didn't blow passive speakers out of the water sonically, I would still aim to use them where possible, because to my mind they are 'right'. I suspect many people are similar to me in their reasons for the choices they make.
Last edited:
I agree C.T. A lot of people buy or build what they "think" sounds better. They don't necessarily hear a difference. E.G., tubes are warm therefore I buy tubes for a warm sound, now I have a warm sound.
I know I've bought and built stuff on the basis of what I "think" it will sound like, only to be sorely disappointed.
I know I've bought and built stuff on the basis of what I "think" it will sound like, only to be sorely disappointed.
Sorry, people can't it both ways. A YouTube 1080p video has audio encoded in AAC/192, which is considered to be "transparent". Just because YouTube = "low quality" in most people's minds doesn't mean it always has to be such, even though it may sound so through the normal means of replaying those videos. I would suggest that if transferred to WAV format and replayed through a high quality system that most people in, yes, a DB test, would fail to distinguish an original track from one that has passed through the YouTube high resolution chain ...
That 'glare' is distortion contributed by the playback system, it's precisely what I'm talking about when I refer to audio working correctly -- because then the glare disappears, it's an artifact, a distortion generated by the system not performing as well as it should.
Try this one,......."In Iraq, The bomb detecting device that didn't work, except to make money" Businessweek.com
Truly pathetic!
__________________________________________________Rick........
Truly pathetic!
__________________________________________________Rick........
I tried to fool my brain, and it took a lot of effort? I find that a rather strange concept, since what I'm interested in is the differences ...
I don't really follow what you're trying to say in this post ...
I call autotune artifacts 'glare' because I can't think of a better way of describing them. I hear that 'glare' a lot these days and I'm not talking about autotune used as an effect like on that Cher song or stuff released by T Pain.
You could conceivably tune that out of your system but it will be very far from accurate or realistic once this is achieved.
Basically unless you know exactly how something was recorded and which tricks were employed (which is difficult because a lot of artists and producers simply won't tell the truth about this when asked) it is almost impossible to tell if glare originates from a bad system or from the recording itself.
In general I keep away from recordings done over the last fifteen years or so, so I guess I've been spared most of the worst excesses ... 😉
Adele 21 is one that I deliberately bought, because of the vast quantities of poo that were dumped upon its style and quality of mastering, by the audio crowd. Yes, this is a hard one to 'tame', only to be tried when one is fully confident that a system has been sorted out fully - otherwise the sound is extremely aggressive, very exhausting to listen to.
Frank, if the amount of energy wasted on this forum explaining obvious things could somehow be recycled and stored, we'd move the Earth from its orbit.
I was talking about intentionally added glare and/or other voice FX in the studio. take this song from the "audiophile favorite" Best Audiophile Voices compilation:
SALENA JONES - "WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN." - YouTube
what's that effect they use on the voice, I don't know. maybe it's a reverb chamber. but it's rather obvious that the engineer never intended the singer's voice to sound natural. unamplified concerts are rare around here but there were some occasions. in a normal room that's not purposely built for concerts the voice is dry and I wouldn't want most records to sound like that.
I was talking about intentionally added glare and/or other voice FX in the studio. take this song from the "audiophile favorite" Best Audiophile Voices compilation:
SALENA JONES - "WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN." - YouTube
what's that effect they use on the voice, I don't know. maybe it's a reverb chamber. but it's rather obvious that the engineer never intended the singer's voice to sound natural. unamplified concerts are rare around here but there were some occasions. in a normal room that's not purposely built for concerts the voice is dry and I wouldn't want most records to sound like that.
The sound of the Adele album is naturally aggressive and exhausting, that's the result of the Loudness Wars (overcompression) and possible albeit fairly judicious use of autotune. Almost everybody uses autotune these days, even live and by people you'd never think to steep that low also it has been making inroads into classical and jazz but these people are the most likely to tell fibs about its use.
If the Adele album sounds great on a system there is something seriously wrong with the system from an accuracy point of view.
If the Adele album sounds great on a system there is something seriously wrong with the system from an accuracy point of view.
Most definitely reverb, but 'glare' could also include plain old EQ and compression, double tracking, chorus, harmonising, autotune, 'aural exciters' and others. I would bet that most recordings are subject to varying degrees of it.
You're still saying that every recording can be "tamed" by playback through a suitable Aldi TV etc.? What if, for artistic reasons, the performers and recording engineers had deliberately tried to make the record sound ear-gratingly unpleasant? Would your system know that, and turn off the de-aggressivisation?
this discussion on glare, EQ, compression, double tracking and other "horrors" made me remember of this song:
Peter Gabriel - We do what we're told - YouTube
...and think "THANK GOD" for all those horrors. I don't think there's anything unprocessed there and I'm glad it's that way. that eerie athmosfere would be impossible to create naturally.
Peter Gabriel - We do what we're told - YouTube
...and think "THANK GOD" for all those horrors. I don't think there's anything unprocessed there and I'm glad it's that way. that eerie athmosfere would be impossible to create naturally.
I discovered the same long ago in the context of listening for the effects of mild compressor settings (Aphex Compellor). Knowing in advance which feed was altered wasn't enough avoid confusion after a few trials. That's not to claim DBT is ineffective in principle, just the short span way it's typically used. It's hard to see how adding in 'challenges', 'shootouts' or peer pressure increases the test sensitivity.
Last edited:
Thumbs up! I've suggested the same here in the past; that a fervent, passionate belief a change can't possibly make a difference could be as distorting an influence on perception as its opposite.
I don't expect a DBT to ever end a debate, just as I don't expect a sighted evaluation to accomplish the same 🙂
on the effects of repetition on sound perception:
http://philomel.com/asa156th/mp3/Sound_Demo_1.mp3 (to be played from start to finish)
http://auditoryneuroscience.com/streamingandjitter
more interesting stuff:
http://deutsch.ucsd.edu
Last edited:
The 1st arguement was whether curvature/sphericity can been seen visually.
Which has been confirmed by two at this thread.
2nd arguement was whether it could easily be observed.
For which a tall mast suffices : main reason why oldies had a crow's nest, main reason why sport-fish boats have a tuna tower.
That the earth is a ball-shape can be easily observed this way, by moving further away from the equator : a mast will sooner dissapear.
Aka, the 3 mile visibility rule of a 6' tall person is at the equator.
Try observing how long it takes for a mast to dissapear at the same ship's velocity and also heading either East or West, e.g. in the arctic ocean.
3d arguement was whether sphericity could be accurately calculated.
You single-handedly ammended this by adding that it should be through visual cues. (and nothing added about a singular observation requirement)
Please pardon my lack of comprehension of the English language, in my opinion, the above is also not identical to what SY wrote.
The position of the sun at noon (or the stars at night) has nothing to do with the earth being round or flat, a pancake would also fit the bill.
Navigational techniques, by use of sun or stars positions, is prior knowledge that dates back thousands of years.
For visually observing sphericity at a static moment, I refer you to my earlier post.
Instead of posting endless armchair philosopher lines about reflection and atmospheric pressure, you could have taken the answer for granted, or taken your barometer for a boat ride.
(hint : some folks have spent many hours staring through a stereoscope, at duo-images taken from an airplane at high altitude. Some were also taught on reflection and atmospheric stuff during a BSc program in radiology, a masters curriculum in physical geography, and an MSc in naval junk)
- I did not twist your words, merely quoted them between brackets, and underlined a few words. Which qualifies as an objective observation.
- I also read every word you posted on the subject.
- By your own saying, you're annoyed by it.
Objective ? Doubt it. (I'm amused, and you're not)
Last edited:
And I'm happy with my ancient Sabatier fish knife for the same reason: proper sword-steel sharpens sharpest, for longer. After 40 years of daily use, it's not pretty but works just as good. S/H prices are holding up too.
Tradition drains away the snake oil eventually.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.