What to trust ear or measurement?

[Vuki]

I wanted to ask about that. So does this result reveal that the old stories about, for example, British, German and American hi-fi buffs liking different kinds of sound as bs? Maybe they just bought what was best marketed to them.

Answer

 

[snapsc]

Interesting. If that is true, then it does auger for the idea that humans have some innate sense of how music sounds, or should sound. I don't know why that would be the case.

It could be that when it comes to unamplified instruments such as a trumpet, drums or piano, our brains quickly develop a sense of what is accurate after hearing these instruments a few times and as a result, can discern differences when listening to home audio.

When it comes to amplified instruments such as electric guitar, keyboard or electric drums, the reference standard (accuracy) is muddied by the speakers/pa system and therefore the brain develops a sense of what sounds good vs what is accurate and as a result, uses the "sounds good" standard when listening to home audio.

 

[Inner Space]

I wanted to ask about that. So does this result reveal that the old stories about, for example, British, German and American hi-fi buffs liking different kinds of sound as bs? Maybe they just bought what was best marketed to them.

My recollection is that in the 1950s and 60s, audio markets were overwhelmingly domestic. Then at the start of the 1970s we all raised our heads and looked around. I remember the impression that e.g. the U.S., UK, Japanese and German markets had evolved toward different sounds. E.g. the Brits were mellow and midrange-y, the Americans were bassy, the Japanese were trebly, the Germans liked what was called boom-and-tizz, which now we would call a smiley EQ.

To some extent these impressions were absolutely true and absolutely measurable. LPs were overwhelming the majority source; LPs required RIAA de-emphasis and re-emphasis; the RIAA curve, despite the best of intentions, was never properly established as an international standard. At first, each record company used its own best guess; soon, de facto national standards emerged; but always each market was measurably different.

Thus a U.S.-cut LP played through a Japanese phono stage sounded different than if played through a Fisher. No illusion. Was the "national sound" demanded by local customers and hence supplied, or was it merely supplied and hence unthinkingly accepted? Impossible to say. But it wasn't until 1983 that the whole audio world was listening to the same thing.

 

[Inner Space]

Homo sapiens is Homo musicus.

I'm not sure. I think neither musical appreciation nor certainly musical ability is sufficiently widespread or baked-in to represent an evolved survival behavior. Not like detection of motion in the peripheral vision, for instance. I think attraction to music is a common but fairly take-it-or-leave-it mutation.

On the other hand, I wonder if a certain 20th century cultural construct still influences us today. People first got home radios in the 1920s and 30s. It's easy to forget what a huge thing that was. Unlimited news, information and entertainment in the home! As always, the leap from nothing to something is the biggest and most important. People loved their radios. Their emotional involvement was immense.

Due to contemporary technology, radios sounded warm, chesty, and midrange-dominated. I think people instinctively internalized the feeling that radios should sound like that. My grandma was proud of hers. "A lovely tone," she would say. A generation later, my mother set up home, and despite (what we would call) better alternatives, she went for the same sound. "A lovely tone!"

It's as if most people think along two parallel tracks. Talking to a friend across the kitchen table sounds one way; listening to a guy on the radio sounds completely different. Most people think that's entirely natural and correct, because of some kind of longstanding cultural inheritance. I think it explains Bose's success, for instance. Bose tapped into that strand of warm, chesty familiarity. A lovely tone!

 

[Wes]

I have the same idea or feeling; Homo sapiens is Homo musicus. Dina Kirnarskaya even insists Homo musicus is older than Homo sapiens.
The Natural Musician: On abilities, giftedness, and talent
Dina Kirnarskaya
Russian Gnesins' Academy of Music, Professor of Psychology and Musicology, Moscow, Russia
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/v...o/9780199560134.001.0001/acprof-9780199560134
Chapter-11
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/v...134.001.0001/acprof-9780199560134-chapter-011
"Homo musicus — Musical Man, who creates, performs, and listens to music — is older than Homo sapiens."
Man made music of a sort even when he did not know how to measure things or count them properly, and the very concept of numbers was still but a glimmer in his brain. He made music when he could not find the reason for natural phenomena, the rain, hail, and drought around him....

What about parrots?

 

[MattHooper]

Matt, you started by saying you think drilling down through chains of assumptions and justifications can be enlightening. Yours or mine?

Both, of course. That's why I answered your questions too. (As I enjoy philosophy, I do a lot of drilling down through my own assumptions FWIW).

If you mean mine, a more cynical man than I might worry you're setting yourself up for confirmation bias.

That we can all suffer confirmation bias is one of my (defensible) assumptions. Though I don't follow how you think I'm setting myself up for this in particular, in this conversation.

Re: what is the "everything" being crippled:

The answer, obviously, is what every mastering engineer believes is a decent example of his work.

How would you determine what 'every mastering engineer believes is a decent example of his work?'

(FWIW: I can actually go some way in that direction: I often have musician friends bring over their work to check various masters on my system. They find the system quite suitable for this purpose. But of course knowing out "every engineer" would think is beyond anyone's capability it seems).

Answer: Every other mastering engineer's work.

I'm afraid I'm not feeling too enlightened, yet.

You talked about tube amps: "My tube amps *seem to me* to produce a certain coloration in my system: a slightly fuller sound, slightly softer ... Let's just for sake-of-argument presume the tube amps are coloring my system, altering it slightly toward my preference. What exactly is lost or "crippled?"

Answer: plenty of work already mixed and mastered warm and syrupy. Why don't those guys get a fair shake too? I want clear glass in my window. You want a warm tint. That's fine. If you want me to say it's equally valid, I will. Hey, it's 2020.

This implies that my system's coloration is such that I can not tell between a "warmer more syrupy" master vs another that is less so. That's not the case. As I said, those differences remain easy to hear: while the coloration can be heard when switching between an SS amp and the tubes, in musical terms the characteristics of different tracks overwhelm the coloration in my system. (Which is why my musician friends can easily note the differences between the various versions of their masters when comparing them on my system).

Cheers.

 

[MattHooper]

Sure, if you love music, but are unpleasantly sensitive to part of the musical spectrum, then by all means notch it out or shelve it down. But surely that's a special case. At best a preference. Valid on every level except the scientific.

Er...if we accept the fact someone DOES have a preference it just as valid on a scientific level. It would be a "fact" just like the preference for something more neutral. When you imply his preference is not "valid" scientifically, you are appealing to your own preference for speakers that measure in a certain way (scientifically described).

 

[Inner Space]

Er...if we accept the fact someone DOES have a preference it just as valid on a scientific level

Matt, that simply isn't true. If your preference is to go birdwatching with rose-tinted binoculars, why would the ornithological community accept your reports of bird colors as meaningful? Your viewing might be pleasant to you, absolutely, but it represents no scientific currency. It would have to be accepted as an empirically observable "fact" that Mr. Hooper personally prefers to view birds through a chromatically distorted lens, but such an observation doesn't bless Mr. Hooper with the same scientific credibility as Mr. Audubon or a thousand others. Actually it rules it out completely. "Don't listen to old Hooper," the scientists would say. "He thinks everything is pink."

 

[Wes]

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/7395...oll, Vogue A new study,And Body Rolls On Beat

 

[richard12511]

Matt, that simply isn't true. If your preference is to go birdwatching with rose-tinted binoculars, why would the ornithological community accept your reports of bird colors as meaningful? Your viewing might be pleasant to you, absolutely, but it represents no scientific currency. It would have to be accepted as an empirically observable "fact" that Mr. Hooper personally prefers to view birds through a chromatically distorted lens, but such an observation doesn't bless Mr. Hooper with the same scientific credibility as Mr. Audubon or a thousand others. Actually it rules it out completely. "Don't listen to old Hooper," the scientists would say. "He thinks everything is pink."

I hate to speak for other people, but I believe that @MattHooper is just trying to say that it's scientifically valid for those for which that preference is true. I don't think he's trying to generalize it to the majority(he can correct me if I'm wrong), which I agree with.

If, under multiple blind listening tests, person A consistently prefers a loudspeaker with 3db more output above neutral from 8-12kHz, then it's absolutely valid to say that a speaker with 3db more output in that region is a better speaker than a neutral speaker(for person A).

What's not valid is to say that speaker is a better speaker(in general), but I don't think Matt is trying to say that. I could be wrong, though.

 

[dualazmak]

What about parrots?

That is a very nice question! Could be a very attractive and interesting theme for another Ph.D. theses...

 

[SIY]

What about parrots?

Only the Norwegian Blue.

 

[Inner Space]

If, under multiple blind listening tests, person A consistently prefers a loudspeaker with 3db more output above neutral from 8-12kHz, then it's absolutely valid to say that a speaker with 3db more output in that region is a better speaker than a neutral speaker(for person A).

I don't like to speak for other people either, so let's postulate a theoretical Mr. X, who prefers a colored and inaccurate playback chain because overall he kinda likes the mellifluous and euphonic sound it makes. That's humanly valid, societally valid, possibly musically valid, possibly valid in many, many other different ways, but a deliberate and whimsical departure from accuracy can never be scientifically valid. Suppose Mr. X works in a medical lab, but doesn't like the image in his microscope, so he defocusses it a little, and changes the backlight to orange, and loses sight of some bacteria, but the ones he can still see are now more pleasantly rounded, and so on. Is that scientific? Would you trust Mr. X with your blood work?

Now I know lab work carries responsibilities and obligations that listening to records doesn't, and that all we're really doing here is counting angels on the head of a pin. But honestly, I feel that if Mr. X wants to claim scientific validity for deliberate inaccuracy, he isn't making any kind of cogent sense.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't like to speak for other people either, so let's postulate a theoretical Mr. X, who prefers a colored and inaccurate playback chain because overall he kinda likes the mellifluous and euphonic sound it makes. That's humanly valid, societally valid, possibly musically valid, possibly valid in many, many other different ways, but a deliberate and whimsical departure from accuracy can never be scientifically valid.

^^^ Of all the things ever said that were True, that isn't one of them ;-)

Suppose Mr. X works in a medical lab, but doesn't like the image in his microscope, so he defocusses it a little, and changes the backlight to orange, and loses sight of some bacteria, but the ones he can still see are now more pleasantly rounded, and so on. Is that scientific? Would you trust Mr. X with your blood work?

You are missing the point.

If what you are studying scientifically happens to be (for instance): the physical nature of the coronavirus, and your goal is to describe it accurately, then yes de-focusing the microscope is a fact that thwarts that scientific goal.

But if your scientific goal is to study a PREFERENCE, in this case perhaps the type of image some person prefers, then you can establish THAT fact scientifically (e.g. by testing whether subject X selects as "preferable" the unfocused image in a statistically significant manner).

You are aware that preferences can be examined and quantified scientifically? See the work of Floyd Toole et al.

Matt, that simply isn't true. If your preference is to go birdwatching with rose-tinted binoculars, why would the ornithological community accept your reports of bird colors as meaningful? Your viewing might be pleasant to you, absolutely, but it represents no scientific currency. It would have to be accepted as an empirically observable "fact" that Mr. Hooper personally prefers to view birds through a chromatically distorted lens, but such an observation doesn't bless Mr. Hooper with the same scientific credibility as Mr. Audubon or a thousand others. Actually it rules it out completely. "Don't listen to old Hooper," the scientists would say. "He thinks everything is pink."

Which is missing the point and begging the question.

It is assuming the particular value of some group of people - "the accurate description of birds" - and simply pointing out how a deviation from practices (e.g. tinted binoculars) doesn't serve that value. Well, obviously. That's the same as saying that someone who prefers a colored hi-fi system isn't serving the value of those who prefer a neutral hi-fi system. Obviously.

The point was that preferences can be valid "on a scientific level" because preferences are "facts" which can be studied scientifically.
That's the whole point of the research so many people applaud here: the scientific research documenting and quantifying preferences in loudspeaker designs, which many here use to choose their speakers.

 

[richard12511]

I don't like to speak for other people either, so let's postulate a theoretical Mr. X, who prefers a colored and inaccurate playback chain because overall he kinda likes the mellifluous and euphonic sound it makes. That's humanly valid, societally valid, possibly musically valid, possibly valid in many, many other different ways, but a deliberate and whimsical departure from accuracy can never be scientifically valid. Suppose Mr. X works in a medical lab, but doesn't like the image in his microscope, so he defocusses it a little, and changes the backlight to orange, and loses sight of some bacteria, but the ones he can still see are now more pleasantly rounded, and so on. Is that scientific? Would you trust Mr. X with your blood work?

Now I know lab work carries responsibilities and obligations that listening to records doesn't, and that all we're really doing here is counting angels on the head of a pin. But honestly, I feel that if Mr. X wants to claim scientific validity for deliberate inaccuracy, he isn't making any kind of cogent sense.

The medical example you give is not applicable here, because Mr. X's actions affect others. You must provide an example that affects only Mr. X.

A more applicable example would be:

Mr. X is having trouble sleeping, he wants a drug that will help him sleep, and he's prone to addiction. Most people respond better to Trazodone, but Mr. X has tried both Trazodone and Amitriptyline, and he responds better to Amitriptyline. It is absolutely scientifically valid to prescribe Amitriptyline to Mr. X, as it's the better drug(for him).


Back to sound. Mr. X prefers sound B, but the majority prefers sound A(neutral). It is absolutely scientifically valid to prescribe a speaker with sound B to Mr. X.

 

[Inner Space]

It is assuming the particular value of some group of people - "the accurate description of birds" - and simply pointing out how a deviation from practices (e.g. tinted binoculars) doesn't serve that value. Well, obviously. That's the same as saying that someone who prefers a colored hi-fi system isn't serving the value of those who prefer a neutral hi-fi system.

The point was that preferences can be valid "on a scientific level" because preferences are "facts" which can be studied scientifically.

Your first para - no. It's the same as saying that someone who prefers a colored hi-fi system is abandoning scientific rigor and exiting the project, which is the unbiased interrogation of the master file presented. Which is fine, but a strange message for a science forum.

Your second para - sure, illogical choices can be studied by scientists, and reasons for them can be discovered, but understanding their derivations doesn't make the illogical choices themselves scientific.

 

[richard12511]

Your first para - no. It's the same as saying that someone who prefers a colored hi-fi system is abandoning scientific rigor and exiting the project, which is the unbiased interrogation of the master file presented. Which is fine, but a strange message for a science forum.

Your second para - sure, illogical choices can be studied by scientists, and reasons for them can be discovered, but understanding their derivations doesn't make the illogical choices themselves scientific.

I think we all agree, but I still think we're misunderstanding each other.

Phrased differently, the best scientific research we have so far(from Olive and Toole) says that a minority of people prefer a non neutral response. For that minority, they should pursue speakers with the response that they prefer, and not a speaker with a neutral response.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[ReaderZ]

I hate to speak for other people, but I believe that @MattHooper is just trying to say that it's scientifically valid for those for which that preference is true. I don't think he's trying to generalize it to the majority(he can correct me if I'm wrong), which I agree with.

If, under multiple blind listening tests, person A consistently prefers a loudspeaker with 3db more output above neutral from 8-12kHz, then it's absolutely valid to say that a speaker with 3db more output in that region is a better speaker than a neutral speaker(for person A).

What's not valid is to say that speaker is a better speaker(in general), but I don't think Matt is trying to say that. I could be wrong, though.

What? If it's 3db higher on 8-12khz, it simply means volume is not matched, and we already know that the louder one will be preferred more.

 

[richard12511]

What? If it's 3db higher on 8-12khz, it simply means volume is not matched, and we already know that the louder one will be preferred more.

Level matching is implied.

But you're right, I should have said "If, under multiple blind listening tests, person A consistently prefers a loudspeaker with 3db more output above neutral from 8-12kHz, *and the overall level is matched*, then it's absolutely valid to say that a speaker with 3db more output in that region is a better speaker than a neutral speaker(for person A)."

The point still remains the same.

 

[ReaderZ]

You're right, I should have said "If, under multiple blind listening tests, person A consistently prefers a loudspeaker with 3db more output above neutral from 8-12kHz, *and the overall level is matched, then it's absolutely valid to say that a speaker with 3db more output in that region is a better speaker than a neutral speaker(for person A)."

The point still remains the same.

I think you also meant to say 8k-12khz.