Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[Analog Scott]

I am sorry you have problems with hifi as a definition. We can problematize everything, resort to semantics to try and find a hole in an argument. In fact, even «science» as a term is contested; there is no definition of science that everyone agrees on and science cannot be proven to exist.

When it comes to hifi gear, neutral in nature, try and play Kii Three and Genelec 8351a side by side. Or 8331a vs 8341a vs 8351a. Or try and add a sub to 8351a; does it make a difference? Neutral gear is easily available. Forget your grandfather’s gear and taste the new wine

I don't have problems with the definition of hifi.
hi-fi
ˈ
adjective relating to the reproduction of music or other sound with high fidelity."
Noun hi-fi equipment. a set of equipment for playing CDs or records in high-fidelity sound."I bought him a new hi-fi for Christmas"
Origins A term arising from the 1950s denoting a high fidelity audio system. The term fell out of use after the advent of stereo

You haven't made an argument. You made a mistaken asseriton about the meaning of the term "hifi" along with some mistaken assertions about somehow storing sound waves.
I understand that there are neutral components in audio. I actual have a few.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I don't have problems with the definition of hifi.
hi-fi
ˈ
adjective relating to the reproduction of music or other sound with high fidelity."
Noun hi-fi equipment. a set of equipment for playing CDs or records in high-fidelity sound."I bought him a new hi-fi for Christmas"
Origins A term arising from the 1950s denoting a high fidelity audio system. The term fell out of use after the advent of stereo

You haven't made an argument. You made a mistaken asseriton about the meaning of the term "hifi" along with some mistaken assertions about somehow storing sound waves.
I understand that there are neutral components in audio. I actual have a few.

My notion on hifi, neutrality came after pages describing taste of sound. My point being that taste has little to do with high quality playback.

 

[Analog Scott]

My notion on hifi, neutrality came after pages describing taste of sound. My point being that taste has little to do with high quality playback.

Quality and taste are inseperably entwined when it comes to aesthetic values.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Quality and taste are inseperably entwined when it comes to aesthetic values.

I think that’s where art takes over from science.

 

[Cosmik]

Can a TV picture be 'neutral'?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Can a TV picture be 'neutral'?

Yes.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Can a TV picture be 'neutral'?

+1 yes.

 

[svart-hvitt]

+1 yes.

Still, ceci n’est pas une pipe!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks Amir! Wasn't aware of this! Is this the case with all measuring algorithms?

Pretty much. If you measured in an open field or anechoic room and had a perfectly flat responding speaker, measuring it in a room would give a tilting response plus whatever dips and bumps the room causes below about 300 hz. Usually you have a window of a certain time for measuring. You measure the result for a certain time period and ignore things after it. Long time window, good frequency resolution in the measurement, but the "build up" of low frequencies causes a tilt. Short time window lesser effect from the build up, but poor frequency resolution.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Still, ceci n’est pas une pipe!

Yes!

 

[oivavoi]

Pretty much. If you measured in an open field or anechoic room and had a perfectly flat responding speaker, measuring it in a room would give a tilting response plus whatever dips and bumps the room causes below about 300 hz. Usually you have a window of a certain time for measuring. You measure the result for a certain time period and ignore things after it. Long time window, good frequency resolution in the measurement, but the "build up" of low frequencies causes a tilt. Short time window lesser effect from the build up, but poor frequency resolution.

Thanks, I didn't know. I stand enlightened!

 

[krabapple]

I also for myself agree that you cannot go terribly wrong with hirez. I like it.

Of course you can. Hi rez releases can be as poorly recorded or mastered as any standard rez releases. Hi rez does NOT guarantee high audio quality.

 

[Cosmik]

It seems to me that human hearing is quite a lot like vision: it is able to focus on the source of the sound and ignore the extraneous stuff. A human can tell pretty well if a TV picture is neutral, and certainly the way my hearing seems to work, can tell a neutral-ish, natural-ish source of sound regardless of the surroundings - even if they have to move their head a little to confirm it.

The analogy with image-based measurements is that if I stick a camera without a lens at the human viewer's position in a room furnished in arbitrary colours, it isn't possible to tell from measurements whether a distant picture is neutral; this, I would say, is the level at which typical acoustic measurements are made with a mic. But if we fit a lens and interpret the image correctly, the source can be distinguished from everything else - which is what I would guess our hearing does to some extent.

Quoting Floyd Toole (but not accusing him of agreeing with me about the how and the why):

We adapt to several aspects of the rooms we listen in, allowing us to hear through them to identify sound qualities intrinsic to the source itself, and to identify the correct direction and distance of the source in spite of a massively complicated sound field

If there is anything to this, then there may be some exaggeration in the notion that "all sound is coloured". Just because a 'dumb' measurement with a microphone shows a certain colouration, doesn't mean that human hearing is going to perceive it that way.

 

[fas42]

Classical recordings run a pretty wide gamut when it comes to sound quality and their portrayal of detail. IME detail in the concert hall is very much a function of seat location. I don't think any recording and playback can match the detail one can hear in close proximity to the musicians in a concert hall that isn't painfully over reverberant. Further back in the hall and it's a different ball game. The ability to hear detail then becomes very concert hall and program dependent. But of course the perception of detail is enhanced int he concert hall with the addition of visual cues. So it's always going to be a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

The key word in the above is "painfully" ... yes, playback done reasonable well will have a high degree of reverberance - but, again, it can be good, or it can be poor. The level of apparent echo in the listening space can be enormous ... but, it can be a powerfully engaging, overwhelmingly positive experience ... or it can be a nightmare. Whether it's one or the other is dependent on the competence of the replay chain - the ear/brain takes care of the less significant transgressions, and 'adjusts' the experience to match the "real thing" if the SQ is good enough.

 

[Analog Scott]

It seems to me that human hearing is quite a lot like vision: it is able to focus on the source of the sound and ignore the extraneous stuff. A human can tell pretty well if a TV picture is neutral, and certainly the way my hearing seems to work, can tell a neutral-ish, natural-ish source of sound regardless of the surroundings - even if they have to move their head a little to confirm it.

The analogy with image-based measurements is that if I stick a camera without a lens at the human viewer's position in a room furnished in arbitrary colours, it isn't possible to tell from measurements whether a distant picture is neutral; this, I would say, is the level at which typical acoustic measurements are made with a mic. But if we fit a lens and interpret the image correctly, the source can be distinguished from everything else - which is what I would guess our hearing does to some extent.

Quoting Floyd Toole (but not accusing him of agreeing with me about the how and the why):


If there is anything to this, then there may be some exaggeration in the notion that "all sound is coloured". Just because a 'dumb' measurement with a microphone shows a certain colouration, doesn't mean that human hearing is going to perceive it that way.

1. A "neutral TV picture" being what exactly? Are you saying we can look at an image on a TV and determine by eye if it is an accurate capture of the original scene that was filmed? Please tell me what exactly constitutes a "neutral TV picture" and what exactly is the reference to which that picture is being measured against.

2. Your analogy with the lense. Choice of lense profoundly affects the image that is captured. You will get a very different image from a 100mm lense than you would from a 20mm lense. Then there is the apature chosen. That has a huge affect on the image. what would constitute a neutral apature setting or a neutral lense length? And then there is exposure. Another thing that will affect the image quality.

 

[March Audio]

I think an appropriate point to make here is that regardless of the artistic intent of the film or production, video is monitored to calibrated standards. There is consistency to the technical aspects.

Audio is not. Studios do whatever they like. They can monitor with grossly inaccurate speakers if they wish and the "artistic" outcome is influenced by this.

 

[Analog Scott]

I think an appropriate point to make here is that regardless of the artistic intent of the film or production video is monitored to calibrated standards. There is consistency to the technical aspects.

Audio is not. Studios do whatever they like. They can monitor with grossly inaccurate speakers if they wish and the "artistic" outcome is influenced by this.

There is definitely not consistancy to the technical aspects of image capture much less image processing in the world of film and television. The technical differences between film and digital sensors are vast and complicated. And within those two worlds there are substantial technical differences between different film emulsions and different digital sensors not to mention different color profiles. There was a time when one had to learn the unique idiocyncrasies of new film stock or after that a new digital camera. Not the case anymore now that so much image editing takes place in post production.

 

[Wombat]

Of course you can. Hi rez releases can be as poorly recorded or mastered as any standard rez releases. Hi rez does NOT guarantee high audio quality.

Quality must be defined/quantified to have real meaning, ie. meeting a requirement, being independently verifiable.

As an ISO 9001 QMS Senior Auditor I was very familiar with this take: https://oqrmmodel.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/iso-9000s-definition-of-quality/

As too taste - what is the benchmark?

 

[Analog Scott]

Quality must be defined/quantified to have real meaning, ie. meeting a requirement, being independently verifiable.

As an ISO 9001 QMS Senior Auditor I was very familiar with this take: https://oqrmmodel.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/iso-9000s-definition-of-quality/

Quality has to be quantitified? How do you quantify aesthetic values? And how would it be transferable from one person to another?

 

[Analog Scott]

The key word in the above is "painfully" ... yes, playback done reasonable well will have a high degree of reverberance - but, again, it can be good, or it can be poor. The level of apparent echo in the listening space can be enormous ... but, it can be a powerfully engaging, overwhelmingly positive experience ... or it can be a nightmare. Whether it's one or the other is dependent on the competence of the replay chain - the ear/brain takes care of the less significant transgressions, and 'adjusts' the experience to match the "real thing" if the SQ is good enough.

Like I said, if the concert hall isn't painfully overly reverberant you will hear more detail in close proximity to the musicians than you will hear on any recording and playback of the same performance. I don't agree with the assertion that "all classical recordings typically provide more apparent detail than sitting in a prime seat live in the hall does." Now one can debate whether or not seats in such close proximity to the musicians constitute "prime seats." For me with the right program material they do. But that in and of itself is subjective. If you ever go to Davies Hall in San Francisco don't be suckered by the sales people at the box office. The "prime seats" there, if you listen to the sales pitch at the box office or just look at the prices, are in the first balcony. I can tell you first hand those seats are SH*T. For much less money you can get a better view and better sound in the first 10 rows on the floor at Davies Hall. You just don't get access to the VIP lounge.