No, but I've had some reception problems before.
They let you do that down there?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Our perception of audio
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
No, but I've had some reception problems before.
They let you do that down there?
Yep, you can get a special licence to go on the roof, and swing the aerial around a bit - pretty nifty, really ...
Blue tack! Or what ever fund owns it...
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Actually, I'm not familiar with that at all, but we switched to cable tv when I was a little kid.
We do have over-the-air HDTV in my house now (no cable, everything is streaming), but it's digital and when it has issues it gets pixelated.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
That's Blu-Tack(tm)
Damn I must of been using cheap knock off Chinese stuff...
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Nowhk
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 15
Sometimes I feel that the whole world of audio, pro equipment and audiophiles become a paradoxal vicious circle.
I've tried many times to express myself also here, discussing in public and in private, but it seems I'm not able to show you my uncertainties, or trying to understand why you don't feel the same "pain".
Than I read phrases like these:
Isn't the whole concept of pro audio given the most accurate/fidelty/quality/transparent system?
Since every time you place an addition it changes the way you will hear the sound, isn't this basically the proof that you will never get a total clean system and that in reality you are choosing your own sound? (i.e. color in any case).
Thus, isn't this a paradox? Being "audiophile" researching transparency and to achieve you are simply coloring sound as other people do with their "non-transparency" gears? (just in different ways and dose).
I've tried many times to express myself also here, discussing in public and in private, but it seems I'm not able to show you my uncertainties, or trying to understand why you don't feel the same "pain".
Than I read phrases like these:
Isn't the whole concept of pro audio given the most accurate/fidelty/quality/transparent system?
Since every time you place an addition it changes the way you will hear the sound, isn't this basically the proof that you will never get a total clean system and that in reality you are choosing your own sound? (i.e. color in any case).
Thus, isn't this a paradox? Being "audiophile" researching transparency and to achieve you are simply coloring sound as other people do with their "non-transparency" gears? (just in different ways and dose).
Not all of us listen attentively to each new addition to our systems. I am 100.0% confident that changing a cable isn't going to colour the sound in my system, nor changing the DAC(s), and I have interchanged amplifiers recently without worrying about whether the sound has been changed (except for wishing to verify that a secondhand amp is not broken in some way). If I changed speakers I would have to go through the rigmarole of setting them up (with DSP), and that would set me on a slightly traumatic 'verification' process - but I think I have even managed to shorten that in recent months.
Maybe neutrality is a mental crutch for me - allowing me to hand over some of the audiophile's natural pain to an objective formula and to stop imagining stuff that doesn't exist. At the same time I can rationalise that neutrality is the way to maximise clarity objectively and the only 'formula' that doesn't involve arbitrary subjective experience-based tweaking. If, after that, I find that the experience of listening to the system is amazing, and that other people not privy to the details also think it sounds great, maybe I can relax at last. Indeed despite having complete control of everything to do with my system (I could insert chunks of code to play with crosstalk cancellation, valve simulation, room correction, etc.) I am not tempted to change it in the least. Count me as similar to the Kii Three reviewers who perceive a 'window' onto the recorded scene.
Yes, exactly what I perceive in my head will vary all the time as I listen (how much coffee, temperature, humidity, mood, etc.), but I have handed that over to 'the fates'.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,690
- Likes
- 37,415
The great majority of pro audio is not accurate fidelity. It is coloring to please. Maybe I misunderstood and this is the same thing you are saying. Even in recording people are coloring sound. You hear about a great mike for vocals. One that has some mojo, one that enhances the voice. Hand them a measurement flat mike and they call it flat, dry, uninteresting, merely an honest reporter of the voice. Same for microphone preamps. A clean pre is easy, but not beautifying. They want something with good color.
You can't un-colour a coloured preamp, but you can colour a neutral preamp with deliberate effects. Why would anyone want a permanently coloured preamp?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,690
- Likes
- 37,415
So they can reliably get the color they want for no effort I suppose. I would approach the way you stated it in this day or age. Much color could be added later. Any color. But what I have described is something of the norm in the pro world. Maybe it'll change in time.
I have an interface that has simulations of complete hardware in it. Works well from what I can tell. So why wouldn't I want clean and pick my plug in for the color later?
One of my favorite microphones is a favorite because it nearly is flat in response like a measurement mike. Not quite, but flatter than most. Some people praise it for its versatility and the fact it takes EQ so well for later processing. The general consensus on it is the mic sounds dead, lifeless and doesn't cut thru the mix well.
Here is the response of a revered microphone from a European source.
Here is the microphone I have and like.
Without those larger bumps around 2 khz and 10 khz you don't have the favored (flavored?) sound of the legendary microphone up top. Some preferred microphones are worse than the one up top. The bottom one in a review was said to be, "nice enough in isolation. But not useful in complex recording as it will not cut thru the mix on vocals."
Non of this is understood by science, you can’t measure it you have to trust your ears ..So they can reliably get the color they want for no effort I suppose. I would approach the way you stated it in this day or age. Much color could be added later. Any color. But what I have described is something of the norm in the pro world. Maybe it'll change in time.
I have an interface that has simulations of complete hardware in it. Works well from what I can tell. So why wouldn't I want clean and pick my plug in for the color later?
One of my favorite microphones is a favorite because it nearly is flat in response like a measurement mike. Not quite, but flatter than most. Some people praise it for its versatility and the fact it takes EQ so well for later processing. The general consensus on it is the mic sounds dead, lifeless and doesn't cut thru the mix well.
Here is the response of a revered microphone from a European source.
Here is the microphone I have and like.
Without those larger bumps around 2 khz and 10 khz you don't have the favored (flavored?) sound of the legendary microphone up top. Some preferred microphones are worse than the one up top. The bottom one in a review was said to be, "nice enough in isolation. But not useful in complex recording as it will not cut thru the mix on vocals."
OP
- Thread Starter
- #75
Not in this context. What I am describing there is NOT that your system became better. But that your brain hears more detail that may have always been there so nothing is improved with respect to the new gear. By using blind testing where you don't know whether something has or has not changed, we eliminate that factor from your perception.
Now if you are talking about speakers there, then sure, there is coloration there by default. Even then it is good to rely on blind testing, as hard as that might be for consumers to perform.
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
This is a comment on the opening post #1:
I think understanding statistics is key. And by understanding I don’t mean formulas, tables and so on. Statistics is a state of mind where we replace magic by observations and observations by simple arithmetics, heuristics.
I have encountered so many cases where people of higher level education were not able to use practical statistics. Which makes me wonder if statistics is innate in some people and not a university course.
I think understanding statistics is key. And by understanding I don’t mean formulas, tables and so on. Statistics is a state of mind where we replace magic by observations and observations by simple arithmetics, heuristics.
I have encountered so many cases where people of higher level education were not able to use practical statistics. Which makes me wonder if statistics is innate in some people and not a university course.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,690
- Likes
- 37,415
And this before you bring Reverend Bayes into it!
Last edited:
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
An old story to remind us of the dark ages:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_points
EDIT: And here’s a more surprising, «savant» twist to statistics and observations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
I agree. But, aside from the math, which ain't necessarily so simple with all those funny Greek letters, it is the concept of probability based on sampling of larger populations that seems to throw people. Many think that science deals in immutable laws, and some branches of science appear to do that. Hell, Einstein didn't need no bloomin' statistics.
But, other branches of science can only deal in probabilistic statistical inferences based on empirical data. "Not science", say many about the latter.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
