I think you and some of the others here could learn a lot by reading some of the many studies that have already been done on sound perception.
I suggest you start with "Sound Reproduction" Third Edition by Dr. Floyd Toole. In it you will find that in the many experiments they did at Harmon International they purposely reduced the switching time between speakers to 3 seconds.
As I said before, audio memory is not very good. Particularly when you are trying to compare two products.
Numbers can predict bad sound quality, can't they? If distortion was 50% for a symphony recording, wouldn't that sound bad (at least to most people)?
Its that the numbers we usually measure aren't everything. If they are good enough, then those numbers probably don't represent the worst of any remaining problems.
Its that the numbers we usually measure aren't everything. If they are good enough, then those numbers probably don't represent the worst of any remaining problems.
No, I just gave seriously meant input.
If it's hard to bear, not my problem.
Some people stick to overvalued ideas. HiFi sometimes is the playing field.
After all HiFi is not so important, is it ?
only would like to state that I'm a sceptic. In no way a HiFi expert.
But the human mind is too complex to find generalized consensus answers.
But the human mind is too complex to find generalized consensus answers.
Here is a paper that goes through human auditory system and in "hifi" context so it's relatively easy read. References are plenty so this is just a glimpse.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370537927_The_Human_Auditory_System_and_Audio
For your amusement here is "simplified neural pathways", iow some building blocks that go into audio perception, and it's far more complex than any of the DIY gear stuff this forum is mostly about. So, this is quite a subject.
However, I think there could be some relatively simple listening tests anyone could do to get some understanding about their ability to hear certain stuff. It would also be possible to make some even shorter read than the linked paper regarding common hifi related audible phenomena, with references to the papers that give more info if someone wants to go deep. Proper scientific sources and explanations for audible things could help to reduce confusion around certain aspects. This kind of small info package about auditory system, "common understanding" about it, could reduce some confusion about listening and subjective stuff so that it wouldn't be that mysterious and magical anymore, a bit more grounded so that more meaningful discussion could emerge also for the subjective listening stuff.
Well, we cannot assume everyone would read any of this stuff, but it would be cool to have an ace, a link with information about this stuff, that could be drawn from the sleeve when there is bad communication around the subject, to make it more civil. It's a lot of work though, so, perhaps this paper is enough for now 😀
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370537927_The_Human_Auditory_System_and_Audio
For your amusement here is "simplified neural pathways", iow some building blocks that go into audio perception, and it's far more complex than any of the DIY gear stuff this forum is mostly about. So, this is quite a subject.
However, I think there could be some relatively simple listening tests anyone could do to get some understanding about their ability to hear certain stuff. It would also be possible to make some even shorter read than the linked paper regarding common hifi related audible phenomena, with references to the papers that give more info if someone wants to go deep. Proper scientific sources and explanations for audible things could help to reduce confusion around certain aspects. This kind of small info package about auditory system, "common understanding" about it, could reduce some confusion about listening and subjective stuff so that it wouldn't be that mysterious and magical anymore, a bit more grounded so that more meaningful discussion could emerge also for the subjective listening stuff.
Well, we cannot assume everyone would read any of this stuff, but it would be cool to have an ace, a link with information about this stuff, that could be drawn from the sleeve when there is bad communication around the subject, to make it more civil. It's a lot of work though, so, perhaps this paper is enough for now 😀
Last edited:
Short example from the paper:
There is about 30000 Auditory Nerve Fibers from ear to brain, and they can have about 10^32 different firing patterns even with elderly men that has lost top end of the hearing, and much more for healthy ear. This is amount of data makes Resolution of Detail far surpass anything we can build currently:
"But even if a fraction of this RD is utilized, it may represent a granularity finer than existing audio systems or measurement instrumentation. "
Another interesting number mentioned
"Also the ear’s sensitivity lies within an order of magnitude of the fundamental thermal noise, with a smallest detectable BM amplitude of ~1 picometer [88] [89] [90]—i.e., a hundredth the size of an atom!" BM is Basilar Membrane
Keep on reading though, the auditory system processes this data in various ways. For example, there seems to be a building block in the system that suppresses our own heart beat from perception 😀 all kinds of processing happens to make a sensible perception that doesn't overwhelm us.
So the ear is very very sensitive sensor, and it's the processing, how it all goes to memory, and so on, that results a perception. Basically an individual can learn to listen more of the detail, listening skill.
So listening skill is basically with all of us and I like to think it's just "how much I understand about what I perceive", it just can be bit different in level per person. There is even data that suggests that feminine person has better hearing than masculine, so the manly man might have to do more work with their listening skill to get to "understand" their perception same level as a more feminine person. Weird and fascinating stuff overall.
I think here is some source for the bad communication, it is hard to understand different people perceive different level of detail because all we have is our own. To reduce this confusion one could go and study their own listening skill and improve it and see it improving, to get more familiar with what is important and what is not and that this stuff is real and not just "audiophile golden ear" hubbub. If someone hasn't done this, paid attention on their own listening skill, it could be stated that they just don't know what they are talking about, they are not familiar with their own processor that manipulates the perception. And to cure this is just to pay some attention to listening skill and then try again with some grasp on it, some understanding about state of their own auditory system.
There is about 30000 Auditory Nerve Fibers from ear to brain, and they can have about 10^32 different firing patterns even with elderly men that has lost top end of the hearing, and much more for healthy ear. This is amount of data makes Resolution of Detail far surpass anything we can build currently:
"But even if a fraction of this RD is utilized, it may represent a granularity finer than existing audio systems or measurement instrumentation. "
Another interesting number mentioned
"Also the ear’s sensitivity lies within an order of magnitude of the fundamental thermal noise, with a smallest detectable BM amplitude of ~1 picometer [88] [89] [90]—i.e., a hundredth the size of an atom!" BM is Basilar Membrane
Keep on reading though, the auditory system processes this data in various ways. For example, there seems to be a building block in the system that suppresses our own heart beat from perception 😀 all kinds of processing happens to make a sensible perception that doesn't overwhelm us.
So the ear is very very sensitive sensor, and it's the processing, how it all goes to memory, and so on, that results a perception. Basically an individual can learn to listen more of the detail, listening skill.
So listening skill is basically with all of us and I like to think it's just "how much I understand about what I perceive", it just can be bit different in level per person. There is even data that suggests that feminine person has better hearing than masculine, so the manly man might have to do more work with their listening skill to get to "understand" their perception same level as a more feminine person. Weird and fascinating stuff overall.
I think here is some source for the bad communication, it is hard to understand different people perceive different level of detail because all we have is our own. To reduce this confusion one could go and study their own listening skill and improve it and see it improving, to get more familiar with what is important and what is not and that this stuff is real and not just "audiophile golden ear" hubbub. If someone hasn't done this, paid attention on their own listening skill, it could be stated that they just don't know what they are talking about, they are not familiar with their own processor that manipulates the perception. And to cure this is just to pay some attention to listening skill and then try again with some grasp on it, some understanding about state of their own auditory system.
Last edited:
"Read studies". The memory studies mentioned refer to sounds without a complex comparative context. These should not be considered in the audio, hi-fi sector. The supposed studies mentioned are also only applicable to what they have examined, i.e. not complex sound images that ignite a firework display of contexts.
In addition, everyday experience can be systematized, and that is the result: Sound memory is, depending on the degree of complexity, sometimes for a lifetime.
Thirdly, you should not only have read studies with understanding, classification: what has been investigated, what has not! - but also, since you reacted to my statement, you should have checked it. You did not do that either.
I mean: start with diy audio. Because do is also to be read as a appeal, and audio provides the focus: audire: listen-ing, hear-ing. Not scribbling lines or numbers or looking at lines and citing inapplicable studies - and not even realizing that you are "engineering" past the topic;-)
Last edited:
I mean, it is first and foremost about determining whether devices and parts audibly influence "sound". An objective answer can be found here.
The subjective experience is a different question and a different answer.
My experience is that "hearing" is much more complex than most people think. The whole organism is involved. And since the organism is a vibrational context, sound images are also "incorporated" into the entire organism. And audio (hifi), in the sense of creating 3D sound images, is ideal for investigating the complexity and sensitivity of ear and "hearing".
And the usual, supposedly scientific, notions of hearing, such as frequency response or distortion, lose their importance here, as sound images, including colorations, contours, relationships to each other, rhythm, beat, sizes, shapes, grains and more are constituted. An example: a loudspeaker that has been tuned in a perfectly linear way using complex components sounds discolored.
I would even go so far as to claim that the organism is a "sound image", a frequency context. But that belongs in the category: only everyone can prove it for themselves. Because here, too, there are experiences and interpretations that are not transferable per concept language.
I wanted to edit, but edit time over.
Example on listening skill:
Anyone could think their listening skill is excellent, but that's their own opinion until compared to other people in some measurable way. For example, Harman How to Listen is great starting point to get familiar with listening skill. Anyone can do that at home, and there is no need to publish anything it's just for anyone's personal information about some aspects of listening skill. https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html
If one gets to level 8 or 9 on all the listening tests one could participate to Harman listnening tests in "Trained listener" category. So, if one can get to those levels it would indicate that listening skill is likely around average, perhaps bit above. If you get to max levels you'd be sure the listening skill is way above average, at least in that particular type of listening test. Get nowhere, perhaps your listening skill is below average.
So, if one gets way above average, perhaps one can be rather confident about what they perceive and can now utilize this information to their advantage, no need to second quess about things that much, just trust on your perception. If one got way below, perhaps one should not trust their ears before training a bit more.
Example on listening skill:
Anyone could think their listening skill is excellent, but that's their own opinion until compared to other people in some measurable way. For example, Harman How to Listen is great starting point to get familiar with listening skill. Anyone can do that at home, and there is no need to publish anything it's just for anyone's personal information about some aspects of listening skill. https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html
If one gets to level 8 or 9 on all the listening tests one could participate to Harman listnening tests in "Trained listener" category. So, if one can get to those levels it would indicate that listening skill is likely around average, perhaps bit above. If you get to max levels you'd be sure the listening skill is way above average, at least in that particular type of listening test. Get nowhere, perhaps your listening skill is below average.
So, if one gets way above average, perhaps one can be rather confident about what they perceive and can now utilize this information to their advantage, no need to second quess about things that much, just trust on your perception. If one got way below, perhaps one should not trust their ears before training a bit more.
Yeah problem is when people don't realize this stuff, or have no measure about how sensitive it is, how complex it is. Now someone could attribute great sound to an amplifier, when it could have been just expectation bias 🙂 Perhaps it is the amplifier but is shot down as expectation bias.
Or, swap speakers in room and attribute great sound to the speakers, when the previous pair could have sounded pretty much the same if listening distance was adjusted. Chase of "great detail" for an audiophile could mean rotating systems and spend money, and never realize details get better if listening distance is shrunk. Which is example that some aspects of sound could be mutually exclusive, like having no toe-in with speakers "for impressive width" which ruins the clarity and no amplifier can fix it better than just reducing effects of the early reflections, arranging the system bit differently in the room to maintain spaciousness (and width) and get clarity. Never realizing there is the brain that is one part of the whole signal chain before perception, like clarity is not property of the amplifier, but property of the auditory system. Go shopping new auditory system?😀 no, just learn what it means and how to exploit it to your advantage, listening skill.
edit.
Here is philosophical test one can imagine:
If you walked into an empty room with audio playing but no audio gear visible anywhere (behind curtains or something), and the audio was the "optimal sound", what ever that is to you, would you notice it is that? Would you notice it is the sound, the one you've been chasing for? Or would you just turn around and go to another room with golden speakers on diamond stands? This is exercise how much one actually pays attention to sound over all, and how much to the gear.
Continuing with the same though experiment: can you even imagine the sound that is ideal to you, that is playing in the empty room? If you can't, how that realization relates to your stance with the hobby? Are you chasing a sound without knowing what that is? If you think you know what the sound is, there is a chance you could somehow detect it in the empty room, and also there is a chance you could try and tweak your system towards the goal if only you know how to, how to get your own auditory system aligned to provide the perception, with the gear, the real room you have, and positioning. Conversely, if you don't know the sound, what you are chasing, you'd likely never notice it was the best sound in the world and walk away.
Last edited:
Numbers aren't everything is very true. I expect in the future more numbers will be added which will simplify choices greatly. That being said I believe sound is evolving in a good way partly because there is some way of measuring "good". It would be interesting to have a top sound person that lived 50 years ago listening to a capable movie theatre today and hear their impressions.
My favorite system at the moment is in a garage with a tin roof. During a rain storm especially it's very important to have clean sound ;-).
Hard to bear?
Here?
Maybe you're overestimating "something". 😉
Exactly.
If you're speaking for yourself, please note that out of your 47 total posts, you've posted 18 posts in this thread alone.
It is not so important, right? 🙄
Well, you said it all.
Such a generalization is not even worth considering here.
You must have misunderstood something again, I spoke of constructiveness.
I've never asked for consensus, of course.
If that happens it happens spontaneously.
This (and much else you said) I wish I had said it myself... 👍🙂
Not only does it hit the nail on the head, but it also somehow pertains to the so-called "preferences" in which I have very little faith.
The best sound in the world is the one that has no apparent defects.
The defects are related to the three fundamental frequency bands that are the first things we "analyze" when we put ourselves in judgment mode when listening to a system or a device in a system that we know.
The judge must also have experience in Audio, good health and good faith.
I don't think anyone can like scratchy, strident and dry highs.
Confused mids and booming lows.
Everyone notices this.
It seems that paradoxically what everyone notices is the bad sound.
Even more paradoxically is the fact that it is accepted, while the word "good sound" cannot even be pronounced according to some.
Obviously, good sound exists and if we break it down into the three basic frequency bands then it can also be described.
It is a description whose sharing is worth as much as that of the taste of Coca-Cola.
It may not be an absolute value, but we all know what it is like.
And its chemical analysis, however thorough and accurate, will never tell us what it tastes like.
The world of diamond is probably the furthest thing from the world of Audio that you can think of and yet it is based almost exclusively on human evaluation.
I imagine it is one of the legal sectors that move the most money ever and they are listed daily on a special stock exchange.
With the above I want to say that the same detractors of the validity of discernment of our senses if they have never thought about it could immediately think that a market of this kind is entrusted to complex measurements carried out by complex machinery in order to guarantee absolute consistency of results, given how much they cost.
But it is not like that.
Diamond Grading: How Diamond Quality Is Determined
Diamond Valuation Guide
Natural Diamond Reports & Services
Diamonds are evaluated by expert and trained people who have completed and passed specific courses and almost everything is based on sight.
Which if I'm not mistaken is a sense.
Hearing is also a sense.
Why is the absolute only asked for hearing?
An absolute that not even the specific machinery for Audio can provide.
Like, I don't have numerical tools that tell me how a device sounds and at the same time I prevent you from sharing your listening experiences because they are not absolute.
It's such a short-sighted view that it's embarrassing.
I imagine it is one of the legal sectors that move the most money ever and they are listed daily on a special stock exchange.
With the above I want to say that the same detractors of the validity of discernment of our senses if they have never thought about it could immediately think that a market of this kind is entrusted to complex measurements carried out by complex machinery in order to guarantee absolute consistency of results, given how much they cost.
But it is not like that.
Diamond Grading: How Diamond Quality Is Determined
Diamond Valuation Guide
Natural Diamond Reports & Services
Diamonds are evaluated by expert and trained people who have completed and passed specific courses and almost everything is based on sight.
Which if I'm not mistaken is a sense.
Hearing is also a sense.
Why is the absolute only asked for hearing?
An absolute that not even the specific machinery for Audio can provide.
Like, I don't have numerical tools that tell me how a device sounds and at the same time I prevent you from sharing your listening experiences because they are not absolute.
It's such a short-sighted view that it's embarrassing.
I summarize my experience like this:
"Best" sound: Cleanliness (no "noises") and no distortions that "hurt" the human, or biological, or electro physical, swing organism;-) The supposedly "beautiful distortions" are not necessary. And these too are often a misinterpretation as the cause of "correct" or "best", of clean sound. Tube amplifiers, for example, which produce "measurably beautiful distortions" usually consist of just a few components: these modulate the signal less (per "noises") than many components (high complex transistor amps to get minimal HDs), which is why it sounds "cleaner". It is not the claimed HD;-) This is based on a misinterpretation due to an incomplete, and incompetent, analysis of the causes.
"Best" sound: Cleanliness (no "noises") and no distortions that "hurt" the human, or biological, or electro physical, swing organism;-) The supposedly "beautiful distortions" are not necessary. And these too are often a misinterpretation as the cause of "correct" or "best", of clean sound. Tube amplifiers, for example, which produce "measurably beautiful distortions" usually consist of just a few components: these modulate the signal less (per "noises") than many components (high complex transistor amps to get minimal HDs), which is why it sounds "cleaner". It is not the claimed HD;-) This is based on a misinterpretation due to an incomplete, and incompetent, analysis of the causes.
Last edited:
Intellectualising enjoying good sound faces the same conumdrum as intellectualising love. You cant. Just accept the experience.
Yeah there is lot to it. If a person, that is used to "home hifi" and sound of empty room captures their attention, it's likely good one in the empty room. At least it's different what they are used to as it got the attention. Question now is, whether the next room has it even better? after all it has the golden speakers on diamond stands 😀
So, it comes down to listening skill, or rather experience. Experience of better and worse sounds and memory of them. One has to be quite interested in sounds in general, to make a memory mark of sound in various occasions during their life. If one has heard a good sound before so much so they got excited and got to the hobby, they would likely know it in the empty room. They might know it's better than anything before, or at least as good, tingles the same way as something earlier, brings back the memories. In this sense, there is no need to go into deep analyze mode as the "sound quality" might come through right away.
The deep analyze mode might be the danger zone actually, where lack of knowledge makes one to think why something sounds like it does from the familiar things which might be wrong conclusion. I mean, if sound is good due to good positioning of things, but one has never played with positioning or realized how big of a role it plays, then one might attribute the sound quality to the amplifier, or to diamond cabling, the obvious things that seem plausible based on the knowledge. This means that the less experienced get it statistically more wrong conclusions what is due to what and the more experienced statistically more right, but it's just probabilities. If one is really interested on getting good sounds, then main job is to gain more experience so the propability to get good sounds increases.
Well, yeah, only small portion of hobbyists care what goes into good sound 🙂 Because, what ever it is it's happening! Somebody might be deeply interested on the why is it so, while still enjoying the experience the same.
Like sound, love isn't straight forward either, people have different experience on it and different ideals. Features on a person that one falls in love at first might not correlate with features that are needed for a long term love affair but only experience can teach this stuff. Now, one with the experience in the pocket might consider the deep stuff more interesting than the face value, while both could be as excited about the affair.
I think this thread is about how to communicate this stuff over more effectively. So, eventually it's just how people communicate, which is internet culture and not directly linked to any of the intellectual ponderings.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.