I think it is a statistical thing. A 2 standard deviation from normal covers 95.44% of population. The rest 4.56% are those beyond 2 standard deviation from normal, half of of which (2.28%) are exceptionally good while the other 2.28% are exceptionally bad.
Pouring much resources into research targeting the most difficult to satisfy 2.28% of population would be foolish. Expect to find very sparse hard data beyond that applicable for the 95.44% and learn to patiently sift through the mountain of anecdotes and snake oil.
Thank you Indrawan. That is most probably what Earl was referring to and makes most sense of all the blah blah so far on the subject. Interesting that our resident statistician Jakob hasn't mentioned that fact
I was trying to point out that Neve "phenomenon" has nothing to do with nostalgia. Just look at the number of its clones out there, used by the bedroom producers and big names every day and in France too
. Now, why is that? Do you think they all are def suckers sold on antiques? I doubt so.What gets you "closer to the music" is, most probably, minimum transistor count gain blocks with less higher order distortion products than typical 072/5532 console designs.
(And yes, I've dealt with both, the clones and the real 1073s and have compared them to what "comes out" of stock mic preamps in various consoles, SSL 4000 G+ included).
Last edited:
So we agree from the beginning and you misunderstood my words ? "Or may-be, indeed a special character ?" (sometimes, please, read my lips ;-)I was trying to poin out that Neve "phenomenon" has nothing to do with nostalgia. Just look at the number of its clones out there, used by the bedroom producers and big names every day and in France too
A perfectly balanced and magical combination of warmth and precision, big sound and shine. Easy to detach the instruments with a lot of presence. It submits to all desires with rare elegance, sometimes rolls, sometimes Ferrari. And it saturates pleasantly when needed. Well, it is not perfect either, it sound a bit "compressed" (the transfos) and sometimes lacks some lightness than other preamps can offer, can't have everything.
But I persist that there is a form of nostalgia of the 70 sound and the music that came with. Your reference to Sound City was talkative. And that many home studios use clones of its preamps by pure snobbism.
The digital age requires digital writing which, in my opinion still remains to be invented.
By the way, in which country are-you from ?
Last edited:
Well said.
5% is considered as the threshold of statistical significance for a reason. No mythical population there.
IMHO “EMI Classics” had the portfolio with the highest artistical level but the technical level of the CD releases were in general very low.
George
That’s the one! Decca also did some great recordings during that period - I have the VSO Sibelius 5th and 7th vinyl (conducted by Maazel) that’s also very good plus a 9 CD set of most of Maazel’s Decca VSO recordings. Got it off Amazon for about £45.
Last edited:
Paying attention is an area of difference and unrelated to the sensitivity of the ear to an extent as vast amounts of brainDSP are thrown at the issue.
Surely if you are lost in the music you are NOT paying attention?
No word game intented, but of course you're right, I should use (should have used) the term "member".
I've speculated about that in the past, as it could be (ok it is IMO) an important part in the evaluation process.
If a listener is in a state of general awareness chances are higher to get unconscious impression of a reproduction first; call it emotional response, or overall quality assessment.
We know from the experiments wrt inattentional blindness/deafness that directed attention leads to (often) neglecting the whole picture.
Of course it is a matter of experience too, as said before we all have to learn how to listen (as usual, some natural supertalents may exist) and what to listen for, so that some difference might be detected more easily.
But generally, it helps to get a feeling for the whole picture first before kind of "zooming in" to find out, what the reason in detail for any perceived difference could be. And later on what the technical reason could be.
Thank you Indrawan. That is most probably what Earl was referring to and makes most sense of all the blah blah so far on the subject. Interesting that our resident statistician Jakob hasn't mentioned that fact
Which is an interesting assertion as you've quoted yesterday (sic!) one of my remarks about the distributions in the population often being a normal one. And of course I've pointed before to the fact, that from a statistical point of view there must be a small percentage that performs much better than the average (and of course a lot that perform much worse), mentioned the lower bound due to the physiology of our hearing apparatus and so on.
And I posted in the past some one or two examples where large scale listening tests for one of the parameters indeed showed the expected spread in the distribution.
Statistically it seems to be the case that the percentages that perform much better and much worse than the average are similar.
Not sure that matches the anedotes though. For cases of tiny (and on paper impossible) differences being detected then very short samples are being listened to. Focussing on one event in isolation. So I do wonder if this could be noted whilst actually listening to a whole track.
Oohashi let his subjects listen for the full 200sec to just Gamelan music between switching.
He started with 13 and ended with 5 candidates afair, 8 had probably to be hospitalised with severe hearing damage
Talking about statistics !
Hans
Last edited:
Mark has done the first part to his satisfaction, but refuses to attempt to find out what the technical reasons could be, I'm presuming that stage involves measurements, but who knows? I'm guessing "later on" is always going to be later on judging by the evidence so far.
As usual, it depends.
Ask yourself, what a lower bound given by the physiology and the fact that a similar barrier only exists if people are deaf, could mean for the "sameness" of performance.....
It is comparable in this regard as it faces the multiple comparison problem too.
Hans, PET scanners have produced images since 1980's at least. The images are noisy due to minimal isotope dosages used for patient safety. The images are also blurred due to the mean free path in tissue of an emitted positron before it is annihilated which is about 3mm. Due to the poor quality of the images they are often fused or registered with images from other imaging modalities, commonly CT, or MRI, depending on medical considerations.
And the reason is? Its because 5% is estimated to be the chances of a study being wrong on statistical grounds only, nothing to do with being wrong for other reasons. It means if every study is designed and conducted perfectly, then we should still expect 1 out of 20 to be wrong simply because of random chance.
Sobering thought, IMHO.
Matt,
To respond, I think we do need measurements. IMHO, we need measurements of linear distortions that are as sensitive as FFTs are when used to detect non-linear distortions. Then maybe be can measure what it is some people hear in different capacitors, etc.
PMA knows for himself that people can hear smaller phase shifts than is supposedly possible.
And, please take note DPH expresses doubts about all existing perceptual research for other reasons.
I agree, IMHO there is plenty of reason for concern and doubts.
Last edited:
half of of which (2.28%) are exceptionally good
learn to patiently sift through the mountain of anecdotes and snake oil.
Actually 2% makes more sense.
Yup.....It’s even harder now that the good old fashioned brick and mortar audio shops with listening rooms have all but disappeared.
I know you can order/trial/return with certain online stores but more of a pita.
Being cognizant of the possibilities is maybe a better way to put it......open minded, unbiased (yah I know).
You ever get so involved in something you don’t have to think? Letting go completely and just be in the moment, it takes a bit of mindfulness and self control but you can go there and pay attention at the same time.
It wasn't my impression that this is a right or wrong issue and who has established what we should or should not be able to hear?
Even assuming this is true (sounds like a made up argument to me) we can measure “linear distortions” (aka phase shifts) to incredible resolution and precision. You need to find something else to hide behind.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.