roddyama said:
Rodd:
I have no trouble agreeing that we thoroughly know the principles that enable us to make good sound reproduction. What I was hoping to know is, do we know all the principles that apply to sound reproduction yet? Are people hearing things out there that cannot be explained by our present scientific understanding, but might be explainable by scientific principles or effects yet to be discovered?
There are a lot of threads here where, if someone makes an assertion that something sounds good, he is challenged by someone else to show the scientific principles that make it hearable. The argument is, if you cannot produce the scientific explanation for a phenomena, then presumably it doesn't exist, and the listener is fooling himself.
Unless we can be sure that we presently know absolutely all the scientific principles that apply, how can we know if some listeners are not in fact hearing some differences that cannot be explained by the present state of knowledge?
Are A/B tests of a group of listeners necessarily the conclusive proof?
rant rant rant...
IIRC, one time when these motoring writers were road testing what locally known as a Chrysler (later Mitsubishi) Galant. The running-in instructions (cars at least need burning-in ) stipulated that it should not be driven over X mph until Y miles had been covered. One of the issues was that the pinion bearing, being a tapered roller, has a certain amount of preload applied, in the knowledge that in the first few hours of use the bearing would bed-in after which the previously tight preload would reduce to a correct figure for a long and useful life.
Now these motoring journalists simply got the car and not realising the accelerator pedal was an adjustable device, proceeded to give the car heaps. Sure enough, a few hundred miles down the road the diff pinion bearing failed. Naturally this got written up in the magazine review and I can't remember the details except that the factory engineers bowed to ill-formed opinion and set pinion bearings much looser from then on.
This then meant you could now lay rubber out of the showroom door even before the oil pressure light had gone off (well not really) and drive it like a maniac motoring journalist without the diff conking out. Of course, the journo can give the car back at the end of the week and not give it a second thought, but what about Fred Bloggs' car he bought that starts to get a whining diff 3 years down the track because the pinion gear doesn't engage to the correct depth in the crown wheel teeth anymore? The engineers did their homework and if it had been followed there would have been no problem, but because of these self-appointed guardians of the-way-they-think-things-should-be, what was an end-to-end engineered package gets corrupted because of the sway these scribblers have over the buying public. The comparison with hifi reviewers is obvious.
I first became aware of people with this attitude back in the mid seventies when reading some roadtests of then-current cars written by these motoring journalists. Their usual style was to thrash the daylights out of the car and hang it sideways on every dirt road they could find and generally treat it as if it were a purpose-built rally car. They then derided the poor behaviour of the car despite the fact they were driving it in a manner for which it was obviously not designed. There seemed to be this unspoken attitude that if they could break it or at least cause it to behave poorly then this would, among other things, stand as further testament to their drivings "skills" and general "right" to dictate to the reading public what was approved by them therefore ok to buy.kelticwizard said:
IIRC, one time when these motoring writers were road testing what locally known as a Chrysler (later Mitsubishi) Galant. The running-in instructions (cars at least need burning-in
) stipulated that it should not be driven over X mph until Y miles had been covered. One of the issues was that the pinion bearing, being a tapered roller, has a certain amount of preload applied, in the knowledge that in the first few hours of use the bearing would bed-in after which the previously tight preload would reduce to a correct figure for a long and useful life.Now these motoring journalists simply got the car and not realising the accelerator pedal was an adjustable device, proceeded to give the car heaps. Sure enough, a few hundred miles down the road the diff pinion bearing failed. Naturally this got written up in the magazine review and I can't remember the details except that the factory engineers bowed to ill-formed opinion and set pinion bearings much looser from then on.
This then meant you could now lay rubber out of the showroom door even before the oil pressure light had gone off (well not really) and drive it like a maniac motoring journalist without the diff conking out. Of course, the journo can give the car back at the end of the week and not give it a second thought, but what about Fred Bloggs' car he bought that starts to get a whining diff 3 years down the track because the pinion gear doesn't engage to the correct depth in the crown wheel teeth anymore? The engineers did their homework and if it had been followed there would have been no problem, but because of these self-appointed guardians of the-way-they-think-things-should-be, what was an end-to-end engineered package gets corrupted because of the sway these scribblers have over the buying public. The comparison with hifi reviewers is obvious.
Music reproduction- Art or Science?
In my opinion, with the technology that we are currently using there is no way that we can talk about accurate reproduction with a straight face. There are WAY too many variables involved to consider it a scientific process. Too much of it resolves to personal preference.
For example:
An orchestra recorded with only a spaced stereo pair of microphones. Do you place them close to the group, or back in the room where you or I would sit? There are two actual points that are collecting ALL the musical and ambient data. Two points, out of virtually infinite options. Which two points are correct? When you play it back, are your speakers sitting in exactly the same place as where the microphones would have been, and at exactly the correct angles? Do they have the opposite and complementary frequency response to compensate for the microphones flaws? The fact that the room itself is responsible for what we are hearing in a live performance is the part that we can never get "right". we don't have an microphone with infinite position, and we don't have a speaker that will do the same. We can never render the same acoustic space. It is all about good taste... like painting with just the right color scheme, cooking with just the right combination of ingredients.
The question as to whether we can reproduce accurate sound is pretty much ridiculous. Not a chance.
The purest way I could think of would be using a "dummy" head stereo mic (made from a mould of your own head) and a pair of headphones calibrated to the microphones, and used to re-create one person's experience. Even then, there are an infinite number of variables.
I say we should just enjoy it to our taste, and not try to describe the shape of air.
Steve
In my opinion, with the technology that we are currently using there is no way that we can talk about accurate reproduction with a straight face. There are WAY too many variables involved to consider it a scientific process. Too much of it resolves to personal preference.
For example:
An orchestra recorded with only a spaced stereo pair of microphones. Do you place them close to the group, or back in the room where you or I would sit? There are two actual points that are collecting ALL the musical and ambient data. Two points, out of virtually infinite options. Which two points are correct? When you play it back, are your speakers sitting in exactly the same place as where the microphones would have been, and at exactly the correct angles? Do they have the opposite and complementary frequency response to compensate for the microphones flaws? The fact that the room itself is responsible for what we are hearing in a live performance is the part that we can never get "right". we don't have an microphone with infinite position, and we don't have a speaker that will do the same. We can never render the same acoustic space. It is all about good taste... like painting with just the right color scheme, cooking with just the right combination of ingredients.
The question as to whether we can reproduce accurate sound is pretty much ridiculous. Not a chance.
The purest way I could think of would be using a "dummy" head stereo mic (made from a mould of your own head) and a pair of headphones calibrated to the microphones, and used to re-create one person's experience. Even then, there are an infinite number of variables.
I say we should just enjoy it to our taste, and not try to describe the shape of air.
Steve
Marketing weasels...
From a radio standpoint, the more compressed the music, the farther the music can travel without the static overtaking it. Hence, extreme compression.
Mostly caused by marketing weasels and the uninformed Station Managers. The bane of station engineers everywhere.
This is such a common complaint amoung engineering staff that the jokes are all known by numbers. Left alone, the engineers will work carefully to constuct a compression scheme that maximizes the quality of the sound coming out of your radio, often adjusted during the different parts of the day, where the program changes. For example, a great number of NPR stations actually go to mono for the news magazines - spoken word usually works best in mono. They still transmit stereo signals, but the two sides are the same. If they broadcast classical music at night, they will have more dynamics and less filtering.
On pop stations, the reality is that few new CD's have more than 10dB of dynamics left in them. But that is another rant.
From a radio standpoint, the more compressed the music, the farther the music can travel without the static overtaking it. Hence, extreme compression.
Mostly caused by marketing weasels and the uninformed Station Managers. The bane of station engineers everywhere.
This is such a common complaint amoung engineering staff that the jokes are all known by numbers. Left alone, the engineers will work carefully to constuct a compression scheme that maximizes the quality of the sound coming out of your radio, often adjusted during the different parts of the day, where the program changes. For example, a great number of NPR stations actually go to mono for the news magazines - spoken word usually works best in mono. They still transmit stereo signals, but the two sides are the same. If they broadcast classical music at night, they will have more dynamics and less filtering.
On pop stations, the reality is that few new CD's have more than 10dB of dynamics left in them. But that is another rant.
Many hear differences which most engineering types would defend to death as being impossible. What one needs to define are the conditions under which said difference is heard. As long as I hear a difference in any manner then there is a difference. That is for sure. Whether or not that is an audible difference is easily tested for in numerous inarguable ways. Null tests, DBLT's, anechoic chamber measurements, etc. will all yield repeatable dependable results of audibility claims.
What the real crux of the matter is that when I hear a difference, and subsequently that difference can not be heard in a DBLT or seen in a null or whatever, I am not fooling myself per se, I am adding enjoyment of the music through psychological improvement. It is, I think a pretty complex matter. I remember reading an article on psycho acoustics and the statement that if you simply pan a jet or helicopter from right to left it will sound as if it's overhead. Your brain knows that sound, and will put it in the air where it belongs. That is completely real, but will not show up on any measurement of the reproduction gear. You are not fooling yourself, there is no conscious thought involved.
Where the danger lies, is when one fails to recognize this and goes on a quest for a principle of physics to explain it. On such a quest, people are want to dig up any principle no matter how poorly applied or ill understood in order to reenforce such a belief.
In answer to the question at hand, I think that for all parts of the reproduction chain, the principles at work are understood to such an extent that we can test for any audible differences with a great degree of accuracy. Distortion for example, is one thing which even the most subjective of listeners gives over to the measuring community. There is not a reviewer out there who would claim to be able to tell you what the distortion of an amplifier was just by listening to it, yet that same reviewer will turn around and claim to hear things that cannot be measured at all.
Someone a few posts back mentioned a very accurate tweeter vs. his ESL's which he preferred. To me this is an area which is not nearly as well understood as the rest of the chain. ESL's are notoriously difficult to compare measurements with dynamic speakers, so how the sound is dispersed is very important. It would be folly to say we completely understand the reproduction of music in all it's aspects, but to say we are 99% sure we know the design parameters for an amplifier or interconnect that cannot be bested I think is completely reasonable. Accomplishing these goals is simply a matter of engineering.
So to answer the question, are all the aspects completely understood? Of course not. Can we say that under controlled conditions, if someone can hear a difference we can measure it? I'd say yes.
Chris
Christopher said:
Exactly. Then one falls into the same pseudo-science realm as the so-called "creation science" bunch.
If someone TRULY wants to get to the bottom of these issues, they need to take a wholly dispassionate approach and refrain from dogmatically adhering to one belief or another.
se
I resemble that remark!
The problem is that the evolutionist scientists have taken the scientific method and thrown it out the window. It is a stretch of faith either way. At least the creation scientists are confident enough in their faith to openly admit that!
Likewise, any audiophile who says that they're on the path to sonic perfection isn't being honest about their own understanding, or lack thereof.
The problem is that the evolutionist scientists have taken the scientific method and thrown it out the window. It is a stretch of faith either way. At least the creation scientists are confident enough in their faith to openly admit that!
Likewise, any audiophile who says that they're on the path to sonic perfection isn't being honest about their own understanding, or lack thereof.
Koinichiwa Eddy San,
Ahhm, is that bunch of pseudo scientists not that "evolution science" bunch, or do I get something wrong (or did you?)?
I mean I can think of at least halve a dozend of issues before breakfast, that I have to take, on most fundamental, chemcical and physical levels with the view of evolution advanced by those pseudo scientists as fact and each single one interrupts their line of proof on fundamental levels, I mean VERY fundamental (no point going into details if the foundation they are build on has such a low probability to for all intents and purposes be indistinguishable from a nice, round zero).
I must note that the "creationists" AT LEAST have Occams razor (I occasionally shave with it and am very familiar with it) in their favour - they explain all the huge holes gaping in either approach to the finding the question being answered by "42" with - "Jesus", "God" (some mistake the two for the same), "Elohim", "Shiva/Shakti" or to put it in more "scientific" terms a deliberate, concious act of "creation" and require NO further thesis, theory or the like to explain the rest.
That having been established they do not NOT need to postulate more exceptions to fundamental "physical laws" (an oxymoron if there ever was one - there are no laws, just probabilities) and heap one on top of the others (making the Tower of Babel a small thing indeed in comparison - and that was before bombing its remains in 1991 and 2003) untill the "proof" is complete for a case so special that it would take billions of universes all as old as ours to get anywhere near percentages of chance I bother to even note.
There is an inherent advantage to simplicity after all.
Of course, neither case is "proovable" beyound reasnoble doubt (as any Hume'an would tell you), so I would (as usual) recommend to anyone reading not take anyones word (including mine) as a doctrine.
But instead, if the subject is interresting enough to warrant attention (next to such more important things like getting laid [read having sacred sex], getting high as a kite [read to open your third eye] and stewed as an Owl [read to be temporarily less depressed about the human condition] as well as elevated by music [read the deep spiritual experience of something like the "Messiah" Chorus]) go ahead and do the homework.
Investigate yourself and if you find that after studying the subject in theory (Rules 8 & 10) and learning the origin of the metals (Rule 5) and taking great caution of charlatans of either doctrin (Rule 6) and after attempting the practice (Law 1 & Rule 2) you still find only a hollow ring, consider the matter closed to you.
Yet if you find more than just the empty ring of deceit and self deceit, act upon your experience and science (science from the greek word of knowledge) and not upon the word(s) and ideas of those who "teach their own ideas and commandments as doctrine".
Sayonara
PS, paraphrasing and semi-quotations from many sources, including Michael Maiers "Laws of the mostn laudable fraternity RC" and of course the sayings of YsHVH
PPS, I am on many fundamentamental levels in support of both the ideas of Darwin as well as the fundamental concept of evolution, starting with base hydrogen and continuing way past us. (Can you remember when you where a tree?).
I simply cannot accept as "holey" a proof for a specific "evolution" on this "Dirt" (or is it called "Earth"? - I can never remember) that moreover cheerfully not only ignores holes you can drive a whole tank brigade through and not in single file either but also denises the (to a Hume'an arguably rather questionable) concept of first cause by applying really bad statistics.
Steve Eddy said:
Ahhm, is that bunch of pseudo scientists not that "evolution science" bunch, or do I get something wrong (or did you?)?
I mean I can think of at least halve a dozend of issues before breakfast, that I have to take, on most fundamental, chemcical and physical levels with the view of evolution advanced by those pseudo scientists as fact and each single one interrupts their line of proof on fundamental levels, I mean VERY fundamental (no point going into details if the foundation they are build on has such a low probability to for all intents and purposes be indistinguishable from a nice, round zero).
I must note that the "creationists" AT LEAST have Occams razor (I occasionally shave with it and am very familiar with it) in their favour - they explain all the huge holes gaping in either approach to the finding the question being answered by "42" with - "Jesus", "God" (some mistake the two for the same), "Elohim", "Shiva/Shakti" or to put it in more "scientific" terms a deliberate, concious act of "creation" and require NO further thesis, theory or the like to explain the rest.
That having been established they do not NOT need to postulate more exceptions to fundamental "physical laws" (an oxymoron if there ever was one - there are no laws, just probabilities) and heap one on top of the others (making the Tower of Babel a small thing indeed in comparison - and that was before bombing its remains in 1991 and 2003) untill the "proof" is complete for a case so special that it would take billions of universes all as old as ours to get anywhere near percentages of chance I bother to even note.
There is an inherent advantage to simplicity after all.
Of course, neither case is "proovable" beyound reasnoble doubt (as any Hume'an would tell you), so I would (as usual) recommend to anyone reading not take anyones word (including mine) as a doctrine.
But instead, if the subject is interresting enough to warrant attention (next to such more important things like getting laid [read having sacred sex], getting high as a kite [read to open your third eye] and stewed as an Owl [read to be temporarily less depressed about the human condition] as well as elevated by music [read the deep spiritual experience of something like the "Messiah" Chorus]) go ahead and do the homework.
Investigate yourself and if you find that after studying the subject in theory (Rules 8 & 10) and learning the origin of the metals (Rule 5) and taking great caution of charlatans of either doctrin (Rule 6) and after attempting the practice (Law 1 & Rule 2) you still find only a hollow ring, consider the matter closed to you.
Yet if you find more than just the empty ring of deceit and self deceit, act upon your experience and science (science from the greek word of knowledge) and not upon the word(s) and ideas of those who "teach their own ideas and commandments as doctrine".
Sayonara
PS, paraphrasing and semi-quotations from many sources, including Michael Maiers "Laws of the mostn laudable fraternity RC" and of course the sayings of YsHVH
PPS, I am on many fundamentamental levels in support of both the ideas of Darwin as well as the fundamental concept of evolution, starting with base hydrogen and continuing way past us. (Can you remember when you where a tree?).
I simply cannot accept as "holey" a proof for a specific "evolution" on this "Dirt" (or is it called "Earth"? - I can never remember) that moreover cheerfully not only ignores holes you can drive a whole tank brigade through and not in single file either but also denises the (to a Hume'an arguably rather questionable) concept of first cause by applying really bad statistics.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
"Creation science" is a somewhat broad term to describe (and self-describe) what amounts to a group of Christian fundamentalists who take every word written in the Bible as literal and resort to junk science in order to "prove" the literal interpreation. It goes beyond issues of creation and includes such things as evolution, the age of the earth, etc.
Here, try these guys: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.icr.org/">Institute for Creation Research</a>
se
Koinichiwa Eddy San,
Oh. Allright. Must be a Midwest Bible Belt US thing. Never heard about it here.
But then, I hang out in esotheric circles where the whole point is that a literal interpretation is not what (and how) the good book was written for in the first place (certainly not the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, also not the prophetic books of the Xtian Greek scriptures).
ThanX for the heads-up.
Sayonara
Steve Eddy said:
Oh. Allright. Must be a Midwest Bible Belt US thing. Never heard about it here.
But then, I hang out in esotheric circles where the whole point is that a literal interpretation is not what (and how) the good book was written for in the first place (certainly not the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, also not the prophetic books of the Xtian Greek scriptures).
ThanX for the heads-up.
Sayonara
You know, my wife recently attended a seminar on the statistical cultural differences between the U.S. and Canada, and while you say thankfully it's a minority SY, church attendance is on the rise in the U.S. and decline in Canada. (our new weed laws kick butt too) Fundamentalism is a scary thing no matter what the core.
Note: war on ANYTHING=very bad idea.
Getting back to the subject at hand, on the closed thread, things were just getting interesting, from a technical standpoint, and Andy mentioned G (conductance), I'm doing a bit of reading to come up to speed but was wondering if one of you guys could give a quick definition. That will at least enhance my understanding of the principles involved in audio reproduction. Plus, from a technical point of view, is there any advantage at all to go beyond lamp cord for speaker cable, or sheilded twisted pairs for interconnects? Please no 'sonic signature' answers, just practical theory.
Chris
Note: war on ANYTHING=very bad idea.
Getting back to the subject at hand, on the closed thread, things were just getting interesting, from a technical standpoint, and Andy mentioned G (conductance), I'm doing a bit of reading to come up to speed but was wondering if one of you guys could give a quick definition. That will at least enhance my understanding of the principles involved in audio reproduction. Plus, from a technical point of view, is there any advantage at all to go beyond lamp cord for speaker cable, or sheilded twisted pairs for interconnects? Please no 'sonic signature' answers, just practical theory.
Chris
Nothing new there, G is just 1/Z. Lamp cord works just fine (technically, not sociologically) as long as its series resistance is low compared to the speaker's minimum Z, say 5% or less. Calculating the effect on the frequency response is pretty straightforward. BUT.... lamp cord (or fancy speaker cable) with clear insulation should be avoided for reasons of long-term stability.
FWIW, I'm using the thick orange extension cord used for construction tools. Three conductor 12 gauge, works great.
As for weed laws, I'm pretty close to Mendocino, which is California's version of Amsterdam. Myself, I prefer Pinot Noir, but...
FWIW, I'm using the thick orange extension cord used for construction tools. Three conductor 12 gauge, works great.
As for weed laws, I'm pretty close to Mendocino, which is California's version of Amsterdam. Myself, I prefer Pinot Noir, but...
Actually, recent scientific findings indicate the that the evolution of the loudspeaker began some 3.8 billion years ago when three rocks containing the ores of aluminum, nickel and copper respectively were pushed together by a great landslide, were suddenly struck by lightning, and....
Oh, never mind.
Oh, never mind.
Pinot Noir huh? You rich or do you have a source which is way under priced? Seems I have to pay like a half
a weeks wages to get anything close to 'nice' in a Pinot. I've had quite a few disappointments with that one.
But I do keep trying, when it's nice, it's very nice.
Orange power cord? Boy that's heresy in many circles! Put it in a nice black jacket and some gold spades on
the ends, then it'll sound much better. I'm guessing you chose a pretty hefty gauge so's to get lots of
current for the bass when needed? I do feel like such a fool now, as I learn more, it just makes no sense. I'm
not actually using zip cord as I had said in previous posts, I made up a set from 50 conductor ribbon cable,
as a Valhalla copy. The nice side benefit is they lay very nice on the floor. No audible difference from my
Cardas Quadlinks which are going up for sale once I've blind tested them for posterity. Not spending on
cables certainly frees up coin for other projects. And Pinots. I'm going to come up to speed on TEM just so's
I know, but I don't think I'll be 'designing' any interconnects soon. I've got some good 20 ga. shielded
twisted pair used as signal wire on aircraft, it's good quality and I've terminated the shield in such a way I
can ground it to circuit or earth depending on noise.
So keeping in the spirit of the original thread, I think we can safely say we don't know everything but some
things we know well enough that only casual thought needs to be devoted to the subject. It seems to me
that there are a lot of educated and intelligent people on this thread and those less informed could learn
alot.
Here's a proposition, how about a general technical discussion on each of the major audiophile 'truths' from a
purely engineering point of view?
Exotic Capacitors
Bypass Capacitors
Power line conditioners
Point to Point vs. PC board
Isolation and damping
Tube rolling
Class A vs. AB
Resistor composition.
I'm a little afraid that it might degenerate into a "your deaf" "you're stupid" debate so if one is to participate,
cool and minimal response to any comments that are not supported by engineering principles would be
prudent. We've all been through the condescending and insulting remarks over the past few weeks, but within that there was some good discussion.
What do you guy's think? Start a new thread for each topic. Keep them all on the everything else
forum, make only cursory response to the 'I don't care, I can hear a difference crowd' and share information and ideas. I'll start a new thread this afternoon if I get some time on the capacitor sound issue.
It could be fun
Chris
a weeks wages to get anything close to 'nice' in a Pinot. I've had quite a few disappointments with that one.
But I do keep trying, when it's nice, it's very nice.
Orange power cord? Boy that's heresy in many circles! Put it in a nice black jacket and some gold spades on
the ends, then it'll sound much better. I'm guessing you chose a pretty hefty gauge so's to get lots of
current for the bass when needed? I do feel like such a fool now, as I learn more, it just makes no sense. I'm
not actually using zip cord as I had said in previous posts, I made up a set from 50 conductor ribbon cable,
as a Valhalla copy. The nice side benefit is they lay very nice on the floor. No audible difference from my
Cardas Quadlinks which are going up for sale once I've blind tested them for posterity. Not spending on
cables certainly frees up coin for other projects. And Pinots. I'm going to come up to speed on TEM just so's
I know, but I don't think I'll be 'designing' any interconnects soon. I've got some good 20 ga. shielded
twisted pair used as signal wire on aircraft, it's good quality and I've terminated the shield in such a way I
can ground it to circuit or earth depending on noise.
So keeping in the spirit of the original thread, I think we can safely say we don't know everything but some
things we know well enough that only casual thought needs to be devoted to the subject. It seems to me
that there are a lot of educated and intelligent people on this thread and those less informed could learn
alot.
Here's a proposition, how about a general technical discussion on each of the major audiophile 'truths' from a
purely engineering point of view?
Exotic Capacitors
Bypass Capacitors
Power line conditioners
Point to Point vs. PC board
Isolation and damping
Tube rolling
Class A vs. AB
Resistor composition.
I'm a little afraid that it might degenerate into a "your deaf" "you're stupid" debate so if one is to participate,
cool and minimal response to any comments that are not supported by engineering principles would be
prudent. We've all been through the condescending and insulting remarks over the past few weeks, but within that there was some good discussion.
What do you guy's think? Start a new thread for each topic. Keep them all on the everything else
forum, make only cursory response to the 'I don't care, I can hear a difference crowd' and share information and ideas. I'll start a new thread this afternoon if I get some time on the capacitor sound issue.
It could be fun
Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.