Role of the "Mind" in subjective audio evaluation???

[fas42]

Frank, are really denying the importance of room acoustics? Do you think acoustics are ignored in a concert hall?

In direct answer to your question, yes some rooms do have unacceptable acoustics for music playing or replay.

No, they will always be relevant - but they don't get in the way of one hearing that the instrument or instruments being played are completely "authentic". One might wish that the acoustics were more accommodating for the music being played - but one doesn't turn around and say, "Well, that doesn't sound like a real piano/violin/singer/orchestra/..."

 

[fas42]

Upper mid / lower HF response problem

If you were to DSP a recording so that the energy spectrum effectively then matched that "faulty" speaker, and then played it over your BE718s, would the sibilance be just as bad?

 

[fas42]

I recorded 5 musicians in a basement 'studio'. They were in just about the location you get in a 5.1 surround setup. A u-shape around 3 walls of the room. I was near the other wall recording. One close mike on each musician. All playing together in real time and space. There is some bleedover of course though not too terribly much. I took those tracks and placed them in a 5 channel mix for the closest speaker and playing back over my video rig it sounds quite nicely closer to real than is the norm. Much closer. Imaging is coming from real sound sources so you can walk around or move about in it. I was there is about the same location I listen in my video rig. So I have the memory of the sound.

Someone told me that this was cheating. I get their point. Might be a good discussion as to how this could be taken advantage of for more realistic recordings.

This in fact is what quality stereo reproduction gives one - the subjective impression is that one can move around and listen to each instrument, having its full identity in a space - no matter how complex the mix is.

 

[fas42]

I don't actually know anyone who sits in the sweet spot to listen to music other than me, hifi is dead. The few I know with stereo don't take advantage of the stereo as they are out of position when listening and a few I know with surround sound definitely don't keep equidistant from all the speakers so they are pretty much wasting their time too..

So most folks 'minds' seems to dismiss stereo and multichannel altogether, they don't see it as a necessary bridge to cross to get enjoyment out of music.

So what does the 'mind' really need for nourishment in terms of reproduced music at home? It's not stereo or multichannel.

It needs competent replay. Then the mind does all the rest, automatically - it recreates the space or acoustic that was captured or manufactured by the recording process, and keeps it stable as one moves around the room. In exactly the same way as one can move around in a concert hall or jazz club while the music is playing - nothing collapses when you do this, and the same experience can be delivered by sufficiently capable stereo.

 

[March Audio]

No, they will always be relevant - but they don't get in the way of one hearing that the instrument or instruments being played are completely "authentic". One might wish that the acoustics were more accommodating for the music being played - but one doesn't turn around and say, "Well, that doesn't sound like a real piano/violin/singer/orchestra/..."

Not sure what point you,are making here Frank.

A violin played in a tiled toilet will indeed sound like a real violin.......played in toilet.

It wouldn't be a pleasant experience however.

Whilst we indeed have an ability to ignore a degree of acoustic problem, I don't agree that we have an unlimited ability to "hear through" the room.

 

[March Audio]

If you were to DSP a recording so that the energy spectrum effectively then matched that "faulty" speaker, and then played it over your BE718s, would the sibilance be just as bad?

Within reason yes, unless there were other problems beyond frequency response. All of which you need to measure to quantify and to be able to apply a suitable solution. Ears alone are not adequate

 

[March Audio]

It needs competent replay. Then the mind does all the rest, automatically - it recreates the space or acoustic that was captured or manufactured by the recording process, and keeps it stable as one moves around the room. In exactly the same way as one can move around in a concert hall or jazz club while the music is playing - nothing collapses when you do this, and the same experience can be delivered by sufficiently capable stereo.

I'm afraid this isn't the case Frank.

Microphones simply don't "hear" in the way we do. Your personal experience of a listening space is not the same as a microphone recording.

"Competent replay", whatever that is, fundamentally cannot reproduce what a human would hear personally if in that space. The microphones never captured that experience.

At home you will only ever achieve a facsimile of the performance, and as you were never at that performance, your idea of what it should sound like is a contrivance.

 

[fas42]

I'm afraid this isn't the case Frank.

Microphones simply don't "hear" in the way we do. Your personal experience of a listening space is not the same as a microphone recording.

"Competent replay", whatever that is, fundamentally cannot reproduce what a human would hear personally if in that space. The microphones never captured that experience.

At home you will only ever achieve a facsimile of the performance, and as you were never at that performance, your idea of what it should sound like is a contrivance.

It sounds as if you have never had the experience of having a familiar recording, which on normal playback can be clearly heard emerging from the speaker on each side, "trapped" within the design and construction of the speaker, lift out of there and project far, far back, way beyond any wall that may exist behind the speakers - an acoustic "holodeck" which is as solid as any listening to live acoustic playing. The depth and width of each recording varies enormously, depending upon exactly where and how it was recorded - you "see" the space where the music is being played.

This is what "competent replay" delivers, because your mind is able to decode everything that the microphones captured - and your mind translates the acoustic clues into a pretty darn good replica of what was in front of the mics, or alternatively the virtual spaces the studio effects units synthesized.

 

[March Audio]

Actually Frank I have. However it is an illusory effect, it is not the sound that was in the original performance space. This effect is heavily influenced by the room acoustics, the speaker dispersion characteristics, the speaker phase coherence, and of course the miking methodology and effects applied during recording/mixing.

Frank you really have to get this idea out of your head that the mind is recreating and decoding everything that the microphone captures as if it were the real experience. It simply isn't the case.

Something you can try - place large absorptive objects at the first reflection point on the walls between you and the speakers. Change those objects for something reflective. Note how the soundstage changes.

 

[fas42]

Ummm ... the effect varies per miking methodology and effects applied during recording/mixing - but it's not a sound that relates to the sound in the original performance space. And you know this because ... ?

If I have a real musician in front of me, and I dramatically change the reverberation characteristics of the room we're in, I suspect that the "soundstage will change" - so, what are we after again?

 

[Thomas savage]

Ummm ... the effect varies per miking methodology and effects applied during recording/mixing - but it's not a sound that relates to the sound in the original performance space. And you know this because ... ?

If I have a real musician in front of me, and I dramatically change the reverberation characteristics of the room we're in, I suspect that the "soundstage will change" - so, what are we after again?

Frank, where's the proof and science to back anything you say?

If you have references then post them, if not then please stop clogging up our forum like this. There's plenty of forums where you can post your musings without any qualifying evidence but this ain't one.

 

[Cosmik]

Frank, where's the proof and science to back anything you say?

If you have references then post them, if not then please stop clogging up our forum like this. There's plenty of forums where you can post your musings without any qualifying evidence but this ain't one.

The "Turing Test" is very simple - are the speakers 100% invisible in every conceivable way and position, on every single recording, when listening to them? If they are "almost there" that's still not good enough - the 100% figure is most certainly achievable.

I don't need evidence, merely a 'rationale'. If the statement is that the speakers disappear with *all* recordings then this invites people like me to point out that I could deliberately make recordings designed to highlight the locations of the speakers. If fas42's idea is that a system with defective power supply (or whatever) draws attention to the speakers, then at a minimum all I have to do is to deliberately add those distortions to my recording to achieve it. Recordings are not made by people who massage their systems with BlueTack and metal foil (or whatever we are expected to believe results in the perfect system), so this presumably already happens with existing recordings.

No evidence needed; no science; no listening tests. Simple logic.

 

[Thomas savage]

I don't need evidence, merely a 'rationale'. If the statement is that the speakers disappear with *all* recordings then this invites people like me to point out that I could deliberately make recordings designed to highlight the locations of the speakers. If fas42's idea is that a system with defective power supply (or whatever) draws attention to the speakers, then at a minimum all I have to do is to deliberately add those distortions to my recording to achieve it. Recordings are not made by people who massage their systems with BlueTack and metal foil (or whatever we are expected to believe results in the perfect system), so this presumably already happens with existing recordings.

No evidence needed; no science; no listening tests. Simple logic.

Well, at some point humans take the 'logic' and create a practical example to prove its validity.

There's little logic that I can find in franks posts.

 

[Cosmik]

Well, at some point humans take the 'logic' and create a practical example to prove its validity.

But in the case of something that happens all in the mind (the speakers are invisible and create a continuous scene, etc.) it is impossible to prove.

 

[March Audio]

Ummm ... the effect varies per miking methodology and effects applied during recording/mixing - but it's not a sound that relates to the sound in the original performance space. And you know this because ... ?

If I have a real musician in front of me, and I dramatically change the reverberation characteristics of the room we're in, I suspect that the "soundstage will change" - so, what are we after again?

I know this because I have used microphones to make recordings.

Honestly Frank I have no idea what you are after, your comments make little sense to me or others it appears.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I'm afraid this isn't the case Frank.

Microphones simply don't "hear" in the way we do. Your personal experience of a listening space is not the same as a microphone recording.

"Competent replay", whatever that is, fundamentally cannot reproduce what a human would hear personally if in that space. The microphones never captured that experience.

At home you will only ever achieve a facsimile of the performance, and as you were never at that performance, your idea of what it should sound like is a contrivance.

Coming late to this thread...so apologies for stating the obvious point that BE718 touched upon above:

=> Ears are intelligent, mics are not.

Hifi is an illusion. It is not music you are hearing, but a representation of music playing.

Sometimes, I wish I had better imagination.

 

[fas42]

But in the case of something that happens all in the mind (the speakers are invisible and create a continuous scene, etc.) it is impossible to prove.

Yes, impossible to prove. But easy to assess for someone who experiences this: say, simply hide the speakers behind a curtain while playing, and provide a substantial cash reward motivation to that individual if he can reliably locate those speakers - I would certainly fail to go home richer ...

This happens rarely, because systems don't normally work well enough; and there is probably a significant portion of the populace who wouldn't trigger on the illusion - but there are enough accounts online, by others, to confirm it's not unique.

 

[fas42]

Coming late to this thread...so apologies for stating the obvious point that BE718 touched upon above:

=> Ears are intelligent, mics are not.

Hifi is an illusion. It is not music you are hearing, but a representation of music playing.

Sometimes, I wish I had better imagination.

All the mic has to do is capture enough of the acoustic information that existed in the space, and for the replay system to pass it on with the least corruption possible - and then, yes, those "intelligent" ears are capable of "understanding" what it means - think of the chain from microphone to speakers being equivalent to the timeshift capability of a video recorder: a well sorted video clip shifter will produce a "perfect" replica for the eyes; a dodgy VHS mechanism with worn out tape will be almost impossible to stomach ...

 

[Cosmik]

Yes, impossible to prove. But easy to assess for someone who experiences this: say, simply hide the speakers behind a curtain while playing, and provide a substantial cash reward motivation to that individual if he can reliably locate those speakers - I would certainly fail to go home richer ...

This happens rarely, because systems don't normally work well enough; and there is probably a significant portion of the populace who wouldn't trigger on the illusion - but there are enough accounts online, by others, to confirm it's not unique.

But failing to locate the speakers (in this hypothetical test) doesn't mean that it was a convincing audio scene. As I mentioned earlier, silent speakers or those emitting a continuous low tone would also meet the criterion of not signalling their presence.

 

[pkane]

All the mic has to do is capture enough of the acoustic information that existed in the space, and for the replay system to pass it on with the least corruption possible - and then, yes, those "intelligent" ears are capable of "understanding" what it means - think of the chain from microphone to speakers being equivalent to the timeshift capability of a video recorder: a well sorted video clip shifter will produce a "perfect" replica for the eyes; a dodgy VHS mechanism with worn out tape will be almost impossible to stomach ...

How would you know if your replay system is accurate based on just the speakers disappearing? I have a simple digital device that will create a custom stereo effect of my choosing, making the sound stage as wide or as narrow as I want. Speakers disappear... but I'm obviously distorting the originally recorded sound. What you are describing as speakers disappearing is a necessary (perhaps) but, certainly not a sufficient condition for accurate sound reproduction.