Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[ahofer]

Modern amplifier design is the way it is, not because of measurements but because the current ideas about architecture focus on sound more than in the past. I remember when intermodulating distortion was not a thing. But people (engineers) heard something that was unpleasant with many MOSFET designs. It was described as mosfet haze. If I remember correctly it was eventually identified as intermodulation distortion. These kinds of things in design of audio equipment literally happen all the time because the final step of evaluation in modern amp design by any company in existence today is listening.

If a great many people say they hear it, you cannot doubt it. This isn't some kinds of mass hallucination. I have recorded and mixed a lot of bands from my college days and one thing I learned relatively quickly is that people hear different things and people brains process what they hear differently. So you have two things going on that right away destroy the premise that "people are not actually hearing it". If you are a manufacturer, you ignore this at your own peril which is why they do not ignore it. They don't just blindly jump on the bandwagon though, they listen and see if they hear it first.

The largest exception to that in audio history however was when Sony and Philips acknowledged that 16bit 44khz 20-20khz did not capture everything and there was more going on.

I’m sorry, but almost nothing you say above is true. I think you are going to find you know a lot less than you think. Lots of people sharing a delusion, or forming impressions without sighted controls or level-matching, does not make it fact. When you have evidence, based on controlled testing, for your assertions of audible differences, post it. Otherwise, ‘that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence’.

 

[JSmith]

Why do people actually like some kinds of distortion but not others?

You're missing the point here... much music is made with distortion on purpose;

Distorted Reality: Your guide to different types of distortion

Discover the most common distortion types in music production and how they work

www.loopcloud.com

The goal of hi-fi audio reproduction is to ensure as much as possible that the recorded music itself is not altered along the way, unless on purpose. Sure one can have a device with a baked in sound, but that can't be altered and isn't high fidelity reproduction of the source.


JSmith

 

[NattyLumpkins]

Well, yes I can doubt it, and yes it is some sort of mass hallucination.

I could show you a youtube vid (if I could be bothered to look it up) of an audio illusion of a recorded sound of the syllable "ba-ba-ba-ba" repeated over and over, shown together with a ba-ba-ba-ba mouth shape, and then an fa-fa-fa-fa mouth shape.

For the vast majority of people, even though the sound is always ba-ba-ba-ba, they hear fa-fa-fa-fa when seening the fa-fa-fa-fa mouth shape. They even show the ba-ba-ba-ba and fa-fa-fa-fa mouthshapes simultaneously side by side on the screen, and you can hear the sound change depending on which one you choose to look at.

This is how cognitive bias works. It is subconscious filtering done by the auditory systems in the brain before the signal ever reaches your conscious auditory processing. And EVEN WHEN YOU KNOW IT IS HAPPENING - you still hear it. It can be influenced by information from other senses (such as sight in this case) or by what you know or believe about what you are listening to. And because it is subconcious, it is unpredictable - for example just because you conciously believe something will sound a particular way doesn't necessarily bias the syetem in the direction you conciously expect. The "expectation" in expectation bias is a subconscious expectation based on your years of experience and learning.

THIS is why blind testing is needed. Without it we can't know if what we think we are hearing is in the actual sound waves, or have been changed by our cognitive biases based on what we can see, what we think, or what we believe.


EDIT : I Found it, it's called the McGurk effect.:

They did blind testing in the example I gave you. The point I wanted to make really is that manufacturers do blind testing all the time that wasn't the best video I suppose but it just made a point. Audio reviewers do not do blind testing all the time. I understand cognitive bias and negative outcomes bias. People not only hear different things, their cognition is actually different too; the process information differently. There are some reviewers that actually do blind testing and they do it say 10 times and take the average of that number.

I saw, I think it was on Nova that public TV science program years ago about phantom limb phenomenon and there were probably 50 other examples like that where our brains are so ruled by expectations and memory. So I agree where you're coming from it indeed is the way it is. In philosophy their is the concept of reality and pseudo reality and because every single sense we have is subjective, they are all predicated upon memory and expectation. So we exist in this pseudo reality, not objective reality and everything is this way because that is who we are.

My point in all this rambling is that if someone says they hear something, you have no basis to be able to disagree because you yourself are ruled by the same constraints. So I gave up arguing a long time ago. I only really dig in to argue that someone does indeed hear something, even if I don't, when their are physical or electrical changes made to the power supply, signal path or signal processing; so some change within the actual electronics. I certainly do not abandoned science and measuring though, I just see if I can hear it or measure it. I respect this forum because there needs to be a place where nothing is subjective, I get that. But I don't think you can tell someone they don't hear something, it just doesn't work that way. Anyway, fun chat I enjoy these discussions because it informs me and tests my own beliefs which keeps me honest and I appreciate it. Cheers.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

You're missing the point here... much music is made with distortion on purpose;

Distorted Reality: Your guide to different types of distortion

Discover the most common distortion types in music production and how they work

www.loopcloud.com

The goal of hi-fi audio reproduction is to ensure as much as possible that the recorded music itself is not altered along the way, unless on purpose. Sure one can have a device with a baked in sound, but that can't be altered and isn't high fidelity reproduction of the source.


JSmith

I agree I used to record and mix while in college. I was referring to odd harmonic distortion vs harmonic distortion. We cannot explain why people prefer one over the other. We can look at music theory and come up with very good ideas, but that is not scientific. It is undisputable that musicians overwhelmingly use tube amps for guitar because that distortion is pleasing. Why? we don't know.

The other piece is that no recording of pop/rock after sometime around 1995 is true to the source. That master tape does not exist unless it is a purposeful attempt to remain true to the source. The reason for this are the loudness wars. Today mastering engineers that work for the label are handed the master from the mixing engineer to be finalized. The engineer for the studio automatically clips the waveforms of the final mix. They use a variety of tools, take your pick. Waveform clipping produces unpleasant distortion in the form of intermodulation distortion. The idiotic reason is the label wants it to "sound like that" which is the sound of a hit song that is clipped to hell. They want the sound levels to be high and the waveforms clipped so the song plays louder. Louder gets the song noticed despite the fact that the listener has this thing called a volume control to adjust the sound to their preference.

Never mind that we have all this equipment with vanishingly low distortion and SNR ratios in the stratosphere, we throw all that out the window and end up with something that is 0.1 THD or higher in the final master for pop/rock music today. This is why pop/rock after the 1990's has very little dynamic range compared to pop/rock recordings in the 1980's.

This has been going on so long that new engineers don't even know how this whole thing began or why it is bad. They came up as engineers and were taught that this is just the procedure that we now follow.

Many speculate that this is one reason some people are constantly trying to "get the right sound" because intermodulation distortion is an unpleasant thing. Who knows. It is quite ironic.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

For healthy people, here's what it boils down to:

1) If there's something that can be heard, people can either hear it or not hear it, depending on the circumstances, their hearing capabilities or the frequencies involved.
So in this case, some people might say, "I can hear it!" while others say, "I don't hear a thing." Both are correct, although where I would fall in that spectrum is uncertain; I don't have really good hearing.

2) If there's nothing there that can be heard, no one can hear the sound. Some people may think they heard the sound, and some people may convince themselves that they heard the sound, and some people may even convince others that they hear the sound (the power of suggestion). Hurt feelings may abound, and some people may be angry as a defense mechanism, but the truth is, no one can hear the sound that does not exist.

3) The existence of sounds is measured using scientific instruments. If the sound exists, the microphone will show it via electrical output. If the sound is a complex combination of waveforms, the microphone will show that, too.

This describes an analysis of the existence of a sound, but it is not an analysis of a person's subjective opinion of the qualities of a sound. That is impossible, because it takes place inside the hearer's mind. However, the sound still needs to exist first for that to happen.

The reason I noted "for healthy people", is that some tinnitus sufferers hear phantom sounds. To the person suffering from the malady, the sound was definitely real. Fortunately, that is rare.

Jim

Nicely articulated and said. I completely agree 100%. I wish this was printed on every album.

 

[JSmith]

true to the source

The "source" is the final mix done by the sound engineer for commercial release at the time, or any other subsequent "remastering" attempts.

Please, I don't need lesson on the loudness wars.


JSmith

 

[Chrispy]

Personal grooming. I take my hair very seriously. I encourage you to do the same.

Hair? Head hair? Not much of that left....everywhere but there....

 

[NattyLumpkins]

For healthy people, here's what it boils down to:

1) If there's something that can be heard, people can either hear it or not hear it, depending on the circumstances, their hearing capabilities or the frequencies involved.
So in this case, some people might say, "I can hear it!" while others say, "I don't hear a thing." Both are correct, although where I would fall in that spectrum is uncertain; I don't have really good hearing.

2) If there's nothing there that can be heard, no one can hear the sound. Some people may think they heard the sound, and some people may convince themselves that they heard the sound, and some people may even convince others that they hear the sound (the power of suggestion). Hurt feelings may abound, and some people may be angry as a defense mechanism, but the truth is, no one can hear the sound that does not exist.

3) The existence of sounds is measured using scientific instruments. If the sound exists, the microphone will show it via electrical output. If the sound is a complex combination of waveforms, the microphone will show that, too.

This describes an analysis of the existence of a sound, but it is not an analysis of a person's subjective opinion of the qualities of a sound. That is impossible, because it takes place inside the hearer's mind. However, the sound still needs to exist first for that to happen.

The reason I noted "for healthy people", is that some tinnitus sufferers hear phantom sounds. To the person suffering from the malady, the sound is definitely real even though it does not exist. Fortunately, that is rare.

Jim

BTW - there are people who say that they can hear sounds that a readout does not show. That is correct .... depending on the type of readout. FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) can detect signals hidden in complex waveforms.

Microphone noise - The basics about self-noise in mics

With more than six decades of world-class microphone design experience, DPA creates mics with exceptional sound, consistency and durability.

www.dpamicrophones.com

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way, to a section entitled "Can we hear any signal buried in the noise?". (Believe me, FFT is marvelous!)

That is cool. Fourier transform is just stupid useful. You can pretty much use it for analysis of anything with a wave or a number array. I'm surprised it is not used in audio more often. Maybe it is used a lot in the design phase of huge companies like Harmon. I had an engineer buddy that worked for Raytheon and even though there were other mathematical ways to solve things they always used FFT "just because" if it was at all possible.

 

[Sal1950]

But I don't think you can tell someone they don't hear something, it just doesn't work that way. Anyway, fun chat I enjoy these discussions because it informs me and tests my own beliefs which keeps me honest and I appreciate it. Cheers.

I don't believe anyone here ever has.
Only that if you can hear it with your eyes open, you should be able to hear it with your eyes closed..
Take the blind challenge, it may revise your opinions.

The millions of people around the world all swore they saw David Copperfield make a 747 disappear right off the run-way.
They saw it with their own eyes !!!

 

[Galliardist]

I only really dig in to argue that someone does indeed hear something, even if I don't, when their are physical or electrical changes made to the power supply, signal path or signal processing; so some change within the actual electronics.

But that is the whole point where things go wrong. Someone "hears a difference" and attributes it to the sound waves having audibly changed, when in fact they haven't.

You can make any number of changes to the power supply, signal path or signal processing, a change in the electronics, that do not result in an audible change to the sound waves: up to and including replacing the entire electronic component chain. If you are aware that a change has been made, there is a chance that you will "hear" the difference.

So if you do hear a difference, what do you then attribute it to? Quantum, nano, cryo, Sooty and his magic wand? Maybe let the marketing department or a design guru suggest something, or now we can ask some "AI" application.

The truth is we've all been there, from end users like me up to the serious experts in the field. You can't ever assume that you have heard a real change in the sound waves without proper controls.

 

[Galliardist]

The millions of people around the world all swore they saw David Copperfield make a 747 disappear right off the run-way.
They saw it with their own eyes !!!

That particular exercise has a lot to teach us in the audio world, because the trick is entirely about controlling reflections.

 

[antcollinet]

They did blind testing in the example I gave you. The point I wanted to make really is that manufacturers do blind testing all the time that wasn't the best video I suppose but it just made a point. Audio reviewers do not do blind testing all the time. I understand cognitive bias and negative outcomes bias. People not only hear different things, their cognition is actually different too; the process information differently. There are some reviewers that actually do blind testing and they do it say 10 times and take the average of that number.

I saw, I think it was on Nova that public TV science program years ago about phantom limb phenomenon and there were probably 50 other examples like that where our brains are so ruled by expectations and memory. So I agree where you're coming from it indeed is the way it is. In philosophy their is the concept of reality and pseudo reality and because every single sense we have is subjective, they are all predicated upon memory and expectation. So we exist in this pseudo reality, not objective reality and everything is this way because that is who we are.

My point in all this rambling is that if someone says they hear something, you have no basis to be able to disagree because you yourself are ruled by the same constraints. So I gave up arguing a long time ago. I only really dig in to argue that someone does indeed hear something, even if I don't, when their are physical or electrical changes made to the power supply, signal path or signal processing; so some change within the actual electronics. I certainly do not abandoned science and measuring though, I just see if I can hear it or measure it. I respect this forum because there needs to be a place where nothing is subjective, I get that. But I don't think you can tell someone they don't hear something, it just doesn't work that way. Anyway, fun chat I enjoy these discussions because it informs me and tests my own beliefs which keeps me honest and I appreciate it. Cheers.

Not just blind - also controlled.

We don't tell someone they didn't hear something - we ask them to test correctly so we know where what they heard came from. When I watch that video I actually hear FA FA FA when the sound is BA BA BA.

If they did blind testing, let them publish the method, controls, and results which demonstrate what they say they hear are actually in the sound waves reaching their ears, rather than from the processing of that sound in the brain.

Then we'll have something we can discuss that isn't just conjecture and hand waving.

 

[solderdude]

It is undisputable that musicians overwhelmingly use tube amps for guitar because that distortion is pleasing. Why? we don't know.

Because people like that particular instrument to be distorted in certain ways. Ways that can easily be simulated digitally b.t.w.
Also there is an emotional thing going on with musicians that like the way the old guys sounded and want that too.

Never mind that we have all this equipment with vanishingly low distortion and SNR ratios in the stratosphere, we throw all that out the window and end up with something that is 0.1 THD or higher in the final master for pop/rock music today. This is why pop/rock after the 1990's has very little dynamic range compared to pop/rock recordings in the 1980's.

The whole dynamic range thing does not mean we can get by with crappy gear. While pop music is often poorly mastered there are plenty of excellent recordings around, mostly in other genres.
Having 'audible amounts' of distortion added to a complete recording is not desirable at all. The fact that some people don't hear it or are not bothered by it and or take it as 'belonging to the recording' and get a kick out of modifications to the sound in other aspects is an entirely different thing. This is done on purpose and not caused by 'something we don't know about yet' or 'something we can't measure yet' or only known to certain individuals with guru alike status.

Many speculate that this is one reason some people are constantly trying to "get the right sound" because intermodulation distortion is an unpleasant thing. Who knows. It is quite ironic.

That certainly is not my speculation.

 

[bodhi]

These last few pages allow Mr. Lumpkins to report back to any subjectivist den that the debate is still very much ongoing on the subject of audibility. Consensus has still to be reached!

They only rational response to this muddying the waters is to repeatedly demand evidence with "Give me all you got!" in Al Pacino style.

 

[Galliardist]

These last few pages allow Mr. Lumpkins to report back to any subjectivist den that the debate is still very much ongoing on the subject of audibility. Consensus has still to be reached!

They only rational response to this muddying the waters is to repeatedly demand evidence with "Give me all you got!" in Al Pacino style.

Are you claiming that audibility is completely solved? "Give me all you've got!"

The point is that Mr Lumpkins and his ilk are ignoring the century plus of good engineering and scientific work that gives us a near complete picture. It dooms such people to fiddling around in the dark with endless variations of non-solutions and poor experiments. The last few pages demonstrate that clearly, at least.

 

[bodhi]

Are you claiming that audibility is completely solved? "Give me all you've got!"

The point is that Mr Lumpkins and his ilk are ignoring the century plus of good engineering and scientific work that gives us a near complete picture. It dooms such people to fiddling around in the dark with endless variations of non-solutions and poor experiments. The last few pages demonstrate that clearly, at least.

I'm implying that claims need something to back them up. I just don't see any point keeping the debate going if the other side has not brought anything new to the table. This creates the illusion that there is an actual debate going back and forward when in fact nothing has changed.

 

[Sal1950]

The point is that Mr Lumpkins and his ilk are ignoring the century plus of good engineering and scientific work that gives us a near complete picture. It dooms such people to fiddling around in the dark with endless variations of non-solutions and poor experiments.

Maybe they're getting exactly what they deserve for not heeding the simple advice
to do some listening with their eyes closed. Bring some basic controls into your religon of
"I hear it, so it is so".

I'm implying that claims need something to back them up. I just don't see any point keeping the debate going if the other side has not brought anything new to the table.

What can you do when the believers keep coming, preaching their gospel of "everything matters" ???

 

[Galliardist]

I'm implying that claims need something to back them up. I just don't see any point keeping the debate going if the other side has not brought anything new to the table. This creates the illusion that there is an actual debate going back and forward when in fact nothing has changed.

Every time, what changes is the person bringing the argument. Sometimes we may get through, or at least sow a seed of doubt or a grain of reality.

 

[Mulder]

It is undisputable that musicians overwhelmingly use tube amps for guitar because that distortion is pleasing. Why? we don't know.

But what has this this to do with signal fidelity? Why would anyone want stratospheric amounts of distortion in a HiFi amplifier? Are you suggesting distortion adds fidelity compared to no distortion at all?
Besides, as a guitarist I can tell you that the debate about Solide state and Tubes are very much a matter of person and which tone is desired. Jazz guitarist, as an example, often prefer solid state. Same with heavy metal these days. (All those Marshall Stacks you se behind some heavy rock music guys are in many cases just empty backcloth) Amp modellers are becoming increasingly common, not at least because for many musicians it offer better control over tone in different situations.

 

[bodhi]

What can you do when the believers keep coming, preaching their gospel of "everything matters" ???

Provide link to FAQ and inform that debating somebody's subjective experiences is useless unless that person has a hypothesis of why the current theory (biases) is insufficient in explaining why difference is heard when it cannot be measured and should not exist.