hermanv said:
Talk about incoherently confusing a whole bunch of issues.
The reasons why your home HiFi doesn’t sound like a live performance are a bit beyond cryoed PCBs and supply rail fuses.
On wine
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/147/story/28307.html
Who is going to suggest that this effect is absent from audio tastes?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/147/story/28307.html
Who is going to suggest that this effect is absent from audio tastes?
fredex said:
My opinion, the less someone know about good quality sound, the more he will be influenced by price.
I've heard expensive equipment that sounded pathetic and I've heard cheap equipment that sounded pathetic. I never heard cheap equipment that sounded exceptional though.
syn08 said:
Among philosophers, for example:
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
The most important rules to make a HiEnd product:
1. hide the exact circuit. Just give interesting sounding hints,
but avoid to reveal hard facts.
2. Don't use a circuit topology that leads to repeatable results.
In particular, feedback is mega-out. Since it cannot be avoided
completely, call it a servo or error correction and pretend that
it's very special and strictly local.
3. Use selected parts. The potential customers thinks they must
be somehow "better". Don't tell them the selection criteria,
let alone that you need them to kinda hit the operating point.
4. because of (2), the operating point is a moving target.
Tell them that the unit requires burn-in and should never be
switched off.
5. Use parts that are hard to get. Obsolete types are great.
Maybe you have a leftover reel from a car radio production run
20 years ago.
Communicate this as "I was so wise to buy a lifetime supply."
6. Keep the reviewers happy. They may expect that they
can keep the device under test. In the newspaper that reads as
"The xyzzy amp is so fantastic that we choose it as our new reference"
regards, Gerhard
Many wine lovers like me do blind drinking of wines. Wine tasting sessions are taken place all the time, and often we then do not know what wine it is we are drinking. We do try to find out by tasting and using our knowledge and experience. Some are more "lucky" than others.
We can define what a wine tastes and what the aromas are and we are pretty much agreeing on this,
but which one is the "best" is more to one's own preferences.
Often, however, we can agree that one or two wines are the best from say six different wines used during a wine tasting tasting. The bad ones are also most often also agreed upon.
However, the better quality wines one is tasting, the harder it becomes to pinpoint the best ones and the badest ones.
I see this as an analogy to high end audio listening tests: the higher the audio quality, the harder it is to agree on what is the best (and badest).
Doesn't wine and audio go nicely hand in hand?
Sigurd
We can define what a wine tastes and what the aromas are and we are pretty much agreeing on this,
but which one is the "best" is more to one's own preferences.
Often, however, we can agree that one or two wines are the best from say six different wines used during a wine tasting tasting. The bad ones are also most often also agreed upon.
However, the better quality wines one is tasting, the harder it becomes to pinpoint the best ones and the badest ones.
I see this as an analogy to high end audio listening tests: the higher the audio quality, the harder it is to agree on what is the best (and badest).
Doesn't wine and audio go nicely hand in hand?
Sigurd
G.Kleinschmidt said:
I don't think most wine fanciers would put up a concerted, blinkered, career-long protest against DB testing.
Obviously I was unclear, I meant to reply to fredex who asked: "How can we know it's not all in our heads?" Answer: because with a known good (live) sound, almost anyone can hear a difference.G.Kleinschmidt said:
No visitor to my home nor during my visits to another's home has there been confusion about whether or not a live group was performing in the other room. For this test, suddenly everyone seems to have golden ears. So when you say it's a bit beyond cryoed PCBs and supply rail fuses is the problem inclusive of those issues?
When serious discussions are held to explore what this difference between live and reproduced might be, some people quickly bury their heads in ABX sand and refuse to allow the discussion to move forward. The ABX group suddenly needs to pretend that they can not hear that difference.
For the sake of complete disclosure, Sigurd told me once that his basement system fooled a delivery person.
Hermann,
I think you couple two issues that really can't be coupled. I'm with Glen in that comparing live with reproduced music is an exercise in futility.
In my opinon hi-end reproduction audio should anyway not be compared with live music. Audio reproduction is an (art) form on it's own. Most music is specifically produced for CD or DVD and is generally FAR better in terms of spacing, placement, clarity, S/N ratio, channel separation etc than live event. You go to a live event to experience the music in a specific setting, including the great music hall, the fine lady-dresses, the ambiance, the champagne during the interlude, whatever. It's the integral event that makes it so attractive. If you are 'just' interested in the music, a 'canned' reproduction is usually far better.
When we discuss DBT (or not to DBT) we usually mean comparing two instances of reproduced music, and compare that with two different speakers, or amps, or whatever.
Those people that try to argue with the phrase 'you probably never listen to live music' haven't got it at all.
Jan Didden
I think you couple two issues that really can't be coupled. I'm with Glen in that comparing live with reproduced music is an exercise in futility.
In my opinon hi-end reproduction audio should anyway not be compared with live music. Audio reproduction is an (art) form on it's own. Most music is specifically produced for CD or DVD and is generally FAR better in terms of spacing, placement, clarity, S/N ratio, channel separation etc than live event. You go to a live event to experience the music in a specific setting, including the great music hall, the fine lady-dresses, the ambiance, the champagne during the interlude, whatever. It's the integral event that makes it so attractive. If you are 'just' interested in the music, a 'canned' reproduction is usually far better.
When we discuss DBT (or not to DBT) we usually mean comparing two instances of reproduced music, and compare that with two different speakers, or amps, or whatever.
Those people that try to argue with the phrase 'you probably never listen to live music' haven't got it at all.
Jan Didden
hermanv said:
I actually asked, "Are the problems we hear in the gear or in our heads?" It is never all in your head except when the HiFi is turned off.
If you hear a problem whilst listening it is either the recording, your equipment or it could be in your head, it is a possibility.
As for the live sound thing, janneman is right.
gerhard said:
The Hitchhiker's Guide could be as well an ultimate guide to the Audio High End philosophy. From the same character:
"I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"
Depending on circumstances, of course.
hermanv said:
When serious discussions are held to explore what this difference between creationism and the theory of evolution might be, some people quickly bury their heads in theory of evolution sand and refuse to allow the discussion to move forward. The theory of evolution group suddenly needs to pretend that life poofed into existence from nothing.
😱
Please read:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/strawman.htm
Sigurd Ruschkow said:
This is because they sound very similar which is as it should be. Blind testing would confirm this.
janneman said:
Assuming you are talking about unamplified acoustical music, I would say the ultimate goal for hi-end reproduction should be to make it sound real. If not, what is the meaning of high fidility reproduction? Surely we can not recreate "being there" but there is no reason for not trying to make it sound the same or at least believable.
André
fredex said:
It is in the recording, AND in the equipment, AND in your head.
Look up cross-modal matching. It's the neurological equivalent of signal xtalk in audio.
Your senses have xtalk in your brain. You can never completely separate sound, vision, touch from impacting on each other's perception.
For example, it is known that your sensitivity for low-frequency sound is generally higher when the sound is associated with a large, dark object, and lower when it is associated with a small, bright object.
(I think you can understand the evolutionary advantage this has).
So, say, as an example, you have two speakers, one large and dark-colored, the other small and bright-colored. Set them up so that at the listening position each has exactly the same loudness for a specific low-frequency tone. Then ask listeners which one is louder. Due to (amongst other effects) cross-modal matching the large, dark one is perceived as louder.
Interestingly, the xtalk in your nervous system not only works with inputs, but also with outputs. That is why you clench your teeth when trying to loosen a stuck screw.
Jan Didden
Jan, interesting indeed!
I do not want to derail this preamplifier designers symposium too much, but I would nevertheless like to comment a little anyway.
Reality. (Fearing to start some 2-channel vs. 5.1 vs. Ambisonics vs Wave Front Synthesis vs Quadraphonic vs reality discussions...)
It is a worthwhile, albeit futile, goal to recreate reality. One could ask whether one should bring the orchestra/performers home or mimic the concert venue acoustics in ones own living room. Or the third possibility to create some completely artificial soundscape. Bringing the illusion of the orchestra playing in our living rooms requires some front speakers. The living room itself "takes care of" the spatial things. (So, very few of us have rooms large enough to hold a symphony orchestra.)
Contrary, if one would like to transport oneself into the concert hall, one would need a very dead room with front and rear speakers - surround speakers. The speakers ideally should then recreate the original acoustics. (Here comes the discussion what system is best suited for this.)
I would think the latter approach is the best if one strives for "reality".
So, one may continue to discuss the preamplifier design - focused on 2-channels - but I believe that to recreate "reality" two channels is too few. But of course - an n-channel preamplifier should also be of the highest possible quality.
Regds
Rolv-Karsten
I do not want to derail this preamplifier designers symposium too much, but I would nevertheless like to comment a little anyway.
Reality. (Fearing to start some 2-channel vs. 5.1 vs. Ambisonics vs Wave Front Synthesis vs Quadraphonic vs reality discussions...)
It is a worthwhile, albeit futile, goal to recreate reality. One could ask whether one should bring the orchestra/performers home or mimic the concert venue acoustics in ones own living room. Or the third possibility to create some completely artificial soundscape. Bringing the illusion of the orchestra playing in our living rooms requires some front speakers. The living room itself "takes care of" the spatial things. (So, very few of us have rooms large enough to hold a symphony orchestra.)
Contrary, if one would like to transport oneself into the concert hall, one would need a very dead room with front and rear speakers - surround speakers. The speakers ideally should then recreate the original acoustics. (Here comes the discussion what system is best suited for this.)
I would think the latter approach is the best if one strives for "reality".
So, one may continue to discuss the preamplifier design - focused on 2-channels - but I believe that to recreate "reality" two channels is too few. But of course - an n-channel preamplifier should also be of the highest possible quality.
Regds
Rolv-Karsten
We do blind tasting all the time to see if differences are real, as I've pointed out a few hundred times. No biggie.
Nice straw man.
On preamps: how many people have actually bypassed their preamps to hear what the system sounds like without one? If so, did you achieve Nirvana?
R-K Rønningstad said:
Rolv_Karstens,
All good points. But we should never forget that this can *only* recreate the music part of the live event, at best. And the total event is made up of many other perceptive inputs. I am not sure that it is even in theory possible to judge the music-only part of such an event for accurate reproduction. It would require that somehow you could mentally call up the memory of the live event, isolate everything but the sound inputs, and compare that to the reproduced sound. I don't think it is possible at all.
Jan Didden
G.Kleinschmidt said:
I don't think most wine fanciers would put up a concerted, blinkered, career-long protest against DB testing.
Yes some do with equal energy.
john curl said:People who question whether they hear audio improvements or not, should probably refrain from commenting on people who do. It would be like me criticizing SY or Scott W. for liking and comparing fine wine. I don't find the difference worth the price, but they do. Do I comment about them about the potential waste of money, and demand that they submit themselves to double blind testing, or revert to three buck chuck?
I have participated in literally 100's of them. The analogy falls apart rapidly as there is no "reference" to which one might compare as in live music. Though I have never found any system at any price or quality level that ever approached the live experience.
I never saw a good electronics on live performances except on my concerts. Usually it is a cheap crap that can be bought in Guitar Center. Home setups are usually much better, but live records are unfortunately colored by a PA equipment and by work of professional audio engineers who use consoles with many class AB opamps and don't hesitate to use compressors, limiters, noise gates, and EQs to "Make a sound".
So, it is hard to tell, what is better: live performance, or home listening...
So, it is hard to tell, what is better: live performance, or home listening...
Talk about lively discussion, now if we could just eliminate name calling and an assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot.
This is a forum, discussions are typically snippets not white papers. Demanding rigid structure and proofs just obfuscates the discussion.
This is a forum, discussions are typically snippets not white papers. Demanding rigid structure and proofs just obfuscates the discussion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.