Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[Wombat]

I think you are saying imaging in the reproduced playback is not an accurate depiction of the performance and not a reproduction of the performance environment(I agree). That makes imaging on playback dependent on the playback equipment, listening environment and subjective interpretation. This construct is very woolly to me.

If this is how you interpret recordings you will very often be disappointed due to the recordings being produced without you or your listening arrangement in mind- that or maybe you are not as discriminatory as it seems.

 

[Analog Scott]

I think you are saying imaging in the reproduced playback is not an accurate depiction of the performance and not a reproduction of the performance environment. That makes imaging on playback dependent on the playback equipment, listening environment and subjective interpretation. This construct is very woolly to me.

If this is how you interpret recordings you will very often be disappointed due to the recordings being produced without you or your listening arrangement in mind.

Nope, not what I am saying at all. No need to interpret what I said. Just take it verbatim. There's nothing cryptic or open to interpretation. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

 

[fas42]

Still not sure what you are talking about. I have heard any number of systems with certain source material image quite convincingly. But none of them hold up once you leave the listening position and walk around the room. Certainly the size of the sweet spot varies with room reflections and radiation patterns of the speakers. But all systems that image have a sweet spot. The imaging does not hold up throughout the entire room

Okay, so you haven't experienced this. The conventional sweet spot 'works' because the ratio of data which is purely from the recording, to that of contradictory audio information is sufficiently large - the illusion lives. So, the goal is to ensure that this ratio never falls below that sufficiently large value - the better the ratio holds up, the larger the "sweet spot". All that is happening in the case that I talk of is that the imaging does hold up, for the entire room.

Of course, those people who have never experienced this happening would, quite reasonably, assert that it is impossible for such to happen throughout the area that the audio system is in - lack of exposure to something makes it easy to be certain of its non-existence.

I have had systems working at various points just short of this level countless times - meaning, it can be so, soooo close - but, no cigar. There is an analogy to graphic design computer programs, where one tries to position the cursor at a very precise point - to make life bearable for the user, there are normally snap to grid, or edges, etc, functions - once you're in the range, the cursor locks solidly to that precise location when you click the mouse - it takes quite a deliberate movement away from the "sweet spot" to have the cursor not snap ... and the snapping into place of the aural illusion I speak of is just as definite, and robust - you can't consciously reject it: it's either there, or it's not.

 

[Analog Scott]

Okay, so you haven't experienced this. The conventional sweet spot 'works' because the ratio of data which is purely from the recording, to that of contradictory audio information is sufficiently large - the illusion lives. So, the goal is to ensure that this ratio never falls below that sufficiently large value - the better the ratio holds up, the larger the "sweet spot". All that is happening in the case that I talk of is that the imaging does hold up, for the entire room.

Of course, those people who have never experienced this happening would, quite reasonably, assert that it is impossible for such to happen throughout the area that the audio system is in - lack of exposure to something makes it easy to be certain of its non-existence.

I have had systems working at various points just short of this level countless times - meaning, it can be so, soooo close - but, no cigar. There is an analogy to graphic design computer programs, where one tries to position the cursor at a very precise point - to make life bearable for the user, there are normally snap to grid, or edges, etc, functions - once you're in the range, the cursor locks solidly to that precise location when you click the mouse - it takes quite a deliberate movement away from the "sweet spot" to have the cursor not snap ... and the snapping into place of the aural illusion I speak of is just as definite, and robust - you can't consciously reject it: it's either there, or it's not.

What were these systems comprised of?

 

[fas42]

Imaging doesn't have to be compared to anything. If I hear a vocalist dead center and the voice sounds 15 or so feet away. That is a center image with a depth of 15 or so feet. A nice aural illusion for vocals placement. If I am listening to an orchestral recording and I hear the first strings to the left strung out between the near center to just past the left speaker and they sound 20-30 feet away best estimate and the woodwinds are spread across the center behind the strings best estimate and the rest of the orchestra audibly sounds in their places, that is imaging. What do I need to compare it to? It is what it is and if it makes for a convincing aural illusion and I like it case closed. Great imaging. Period. Who the **** cares if it is "accurate?" I got some news for ya. "Accurate" imaging of an orchestra aint what audiophiles want. It sure isn't what I want. "Accurate" imaging of an orchestra in a concert hall won't create an aural illusion of realism. Yeah, that's right. Real imaging by sound alone in most concert halls would not pass any audiophile test and won't sound realistic in the home without the visual cues of a concert. We hear what we see and in a concert we see the orchestra. If you think you are hearing precise imaging of an orchestra at a concert hall you are either falling for the illusion that your eyes play upon your ears or you are in a truly dry aweful concert hall. The reverb that is built into concert halls smears the crap out of aural image specificity. The sound of an orchestra is being splashed all over the hall by design. Concert hall acoustics are designed to maximise projection, reverb and clarity. clarity and reverb are a balancing act because they are at odds with each other. Although thanks to modern science and CADs and modelling, acousticians have been able to design concert halls that hit the measured ideal target ranges for both attributes. But you know what acoustical design of concert halls never is concerned with? Imaging.

Imaging doesn't have be in place for there to be a great listening experience - but it always comes for the ride when the playback is good enough. You see, when I first achieved a high enough standard, decades ago - two things popped out at the same time: great tonality, "realism" ... and remarkable imaging - they emerged, arm in arm, joined at the hip, in each other's pockets ... etc, etc, etc.

 

[Wombat]

Nope, not what I am saying at all. No need to interpret what I said. Just take it verbatim. There's nothing cryptic or open to interpretation. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

I took it verbatim. I will précis my second sentence - SEREDIPITY, ie. not universal.

 

[fas42]

What were these systems comprised of?

What they were comprised of matters far less than what was done to them: a core aspect is that they were, are, consistently simple in nature. No more circuitry was involved than necessary to get the job done; in the first rig I had a top of the line CD player with digital volume control directly driving a meaty power amp, ending in decent enough bookshelf speakers. In my current foray, I'm using a conventional CD player directly wired to a reasonable integrated amp - the latter was a mess of complexity, to suit the buyers who like all that functionality - so, the circuitry that was not directly relevant has been disabled, bypassed, ripped out - I've turned a complex component into a far simpler one.

The doing that was added to the situation was to locate every area that definitely caused an audible degradation - determined by experimentation - and in some reasonable, rational manner eliminate the particular weakness. It's the identifying of flaws in the implementation of the system as a whole, and addressing them, that finally gives one "sufficient quality".

 

[Blumlein 88]

Imaging doesn't have to be compared to anything. If I hear a vocalist dead center and the voice sounds 15 or so feet away. That is a center image with a depth of 15 or so feet. A nice aural illusion for vocals placement. If I am listening to an orchestral recording and I hear the first strings to the left strung out between the near center to just past the left speaker and they sound 20-30 feet away best estimate and the woodwinds are spread across the center behind the strings best estimate and the rest of the orchestra audibly sounds in their places, that is imaging. What do I need to compare it to? It is what it is and if it makes for a convincing aural illusion and I like it case closed. Great imaging. Period. Who the **** cares if it is "accurate?" I got some news for ya. "Accurate" imaging of an orchestra aint what audiophiles want. It sure isn't what I want. "Accurate" imaging of an orchestra in a concert hall won't create an aural illusion of realism. Yeah, that's right. Real imaging by sound alone in most concert halls would not pass any audiophile test and won't sound realistic in the home without the visual cues of a concert. We hear what we see and in a concert we see the orchestra. If you think you are hearing precise imaging of an orchestra at a concert hall you are either falling for the illusion that your eyes play upon your ears or you are in a truly dry aweful concert hall. The reverb that is built into concert halls smears the crap out of aural image specificity. The sound of an orchestra is being splashed all over the hall by design. Concert hall acoustics are designed to maximise projection, reverb and clarity. clarity and reverb are a balancing act because they are at odds with each other. Although thanks to modern science and CADs and modelling, acousticians have been able to design concert halls that hit the measured ideal target ranges for both attributes. But you know what acoustical design of concert halls never is concerned with? Imaging.

You sound as if you wish to re-institute the circle of confusion, and then go with what sounds good.

You get better results breaking the circle of confusion. Learning what accuracy is. Then you can implement effectively what sounds good. What sounds good may not be accurate, but to ignore some accuracy or some reference to reality leaves you wandering hopelessly in a sea of preference and subjectivity.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip...

Not to mention the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording. Im not sure as to why this is contentious for some.

That is a mystery to me as well. It is as if some people have decided not to take yes for an answer.

Reality based design using good principles results in preferred results with the most imaginative other worldly music one has.

 

[Analog Scott]

I took it verbatim. I will précis my second sentence - SEREDIPITY, ie. not universal.

What you said had nothing to do with what I said. I don't know how you took it but what you stated it to mean was not what it meant in any way whatsoever.

 

[Analog Scott]

What they were comprised of matters far less than what was done to them: a core aspect is that they were, are, consistently simple in nature. No more circuitry was involved than necessary to get the job done; in the first rig I had a top of the line CD player with digital volume control directly driving a meaty power amp, ending in decent enough bookshelf speakers. In my current foray, I'm using a conventional CD player directly wired to a reasonable integrated amp - the latter was a mess of complexity, to suit the buyers who like all that functionality - so, the circuitry that was not directly relevant has been disabled, bypassed, ripped out - I've turned a complex component into a far simpler one.

The doing that was added to the situation was to locate every area that definitely caused an audible degradation - determined by experimentation - and in some reasonable, rational manner eliminate the particular weakness. It's the identifying of flaws in the implementation of the system as a whole, and addressing them, that finally gives one "sufficient quality".

Your answer lacks the specificity to be of any use.

 

[Analog Scott]

You sound as if you wish to re-institute the circle of confusion, and then go with what sounds good.

You get better results breaking the circle of confusion. Learning what accuracy is. Then you can implement effectively what sounds good. What sounds good may not be accurate, but to ignore some accuracy or some reference to reality leaves you wandering hopelessly in a sea of preference and subjectivity.

Circle of confusion was a terrible term. Why on earth would one use that when it has such specific meaning in photography?

That aside. Instead of talking about some circle of confusion how about just taking what I actually said, my assertions of fact and my assertions of opinion and tell me what facts I am getting wrong and what opinions you disagree with. My opinions about the realities of imaging in audio and in the concert hall have nothing to do with me wanting to reintroduce one thing or another.

 

[Analog Scott]

That is a mystery to me as well. It is as if some people have decided not to take yes for an answer.

Reality based design using good principles results in preferred results with the most imaginative other worldly music one has.

Ok so if someone produces a recording and in the production of that recording they put a 30 db boost in the trebble region and a 30 db boost in the mid base that recording will sound better over a neutral sound system than a sound system with a recessed trebble and mid bass? The assertion made that you are defending is "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." I doubt very much that his research shows that. But if it does it clearly is flawed. Any recording could be goosed in any way at the artists' discretion.

 

[Thomas savage]

It’s all getting a bit bogged down by various miscommunications with the mild irritation that can arise from these kinds of discussions tempering the thread a little to the negative side.

I see the usefulness of this thread is dwindling, I’d invite the protagonists to transfer to other areas of discussion
on the forum as this debate is serving no one.

From my POV @Analog Scott position is clear, maybe because he’s got analog in his name folks can’t understand him through the wow and flutter

Move on...

Thanks

 

[Wombat]

Imaging doesn't have to be compared to anything. If I hear a vocalist dead center and the voice sounds 15 or so feet away. That is a center image with a depth of 15 or so feet. A nice aural illusion for vocals placement. If I am listening to an orchestral recording and I hear the first strings to the left strung out between the near center to just past the left speaker and they sound 20-30 feet away best estimate and the woodwinds are spread across the center behind the strings best estimate and the rest of the orchestra audibly sounds in their places, that is imaging. What do I need to compare it to? It is what it is and if it makes for a convincing aural illusion and I like it case closed. Great imaging. Period. Who the **** cares if it is "accurate?" I got some news for ya. "Accurate" imaging of an orchestra aint what audiophiles want. It sure isn't what I want. "Accurate" imaging of an orchestra in a concert hall won't create an aural illusion of realism. Yeah, that's right. Real imaging by sound alone in most concert halls would not pass any audiophile test and won't sound realistic in the home without the visual cues of a concert. We hear what we see and in a concert we see the orchestra. If you think you are hearing precise imaging of an orchestra at a concert hall you are either falling for the illusion that your eyes play upon your ears or you are in a truly dry aweful concert hall. The reverb that is built into concert halls smears the crap out of aural image specificity. The sound of an orchestra is being splashed all over the hall by design. Concert hall acoustics are designed to maximise projection, reverb and clarity. clarity and reverb are a balancing act because they are at odds with each other. Although thanks to modern science and CADs and modelling, acousticians have been able to design concert halls that hit the measured ideal target ranges for both attributes. But you know what acoustical design of concert halls never is concerned with? Imaging.

I haven't disagreed with this.

You are, though, comparing a constructed mental image of what you perceive the replay is providing, and this by nature is serendipitous across the catalogue of recordings, playback equipment, room variations and listener expectations. Again we have a sample-of-one with limited controls.

If that is what you prefer, fine.

I guess it is one of the reasons audiophiles keep chasing the audio dragon that lives in their mind.

 

[March Audio]

You keep saying this but offer no proof in support. I asked once if the Toole/Olive research included the sort of colorations one can find in euphonically colored components such as dynamic expasion, compression, cross talk, various types of noise and if so at what varying levels?

The research is well documented and you can do a bit of searching on the subject or perhaps buy Tooles books. You still seem to be missing the point about replay neutrality over whatever effect was applied in the studio.

 

[March Audio]

Ok so if someone produces a recording and in the production of that recording they put a 30 db boost in the trebble region and a 30 db boost in the mid base that recording will sound better over a neutral sound system than a sound system with a recessed trebble and mid bass? The assertion made that you are defending is "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." I doubt very much that his research shows that. But if it does it clearly is flawed. Any recording could be goosed in any way at the artists' discretion.

.....or its your lack of understanding as to why. Do you understand the behaviour of a speaker in a room?

A grossly distorted recording will be a grossly distorted recording on whatever system, so this sort of analogy doesn't really help or prove anything. If the distortion is more subtle and realistic in proportion and you implement a system sound to counteract that distortion, what happens when you play a recording with the distortion acting in the opposite way? - You amplify it ! Straying away from neutrality doesn't make any sense and you most definitely end up in a circle of confusion.

Why is it that you are so adamant that a neutral replay system wont sound better? What is your fundamental objection to that premise?

 

[March Audio]

It’s all getting a bit bogged down by various miscommunications with the mild irritation that can arise from these kinds of discussions tempering the thread a little to the negative side.

I see the usefulness of this thread is dwindling, I’d invite the protagonists to transfer to other areas of discussion
on the forum as this debate is serving no one.

From my POV @Analog Scott position is clear, maybe because he’s got analog in his name folks can’t understand him through the wow and flutter

Move on...

Thanks

The research is clear, analogueScott doesn't want to believe it,. Oh well. Perhaps he should look at the Toole literature before continuing to argue here?

 

[Cosmik]

Ok so if someone produces a recording and in the production of that recording they put a 30 db boost in the trebble region and a 30 db boost in the mid base that recording will sound better over a neutral sound system than a sound system with a recessed trebble and mid bass? The assertion made that you are defending is "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." I doubt very much that his research shows that. But if it does it clearly is flawed. Any recording could be goosed in any way at the artists' discretion.

How often does that sort of thing occur? And to the composite mix, so that the user's system can effect a genuine 'correction'? If, as is more likely, one of the sources in the recording has some undesirable frequency response anomalies (in your opinion), any accidental 'correction' with a non-neutral system or deliberate modification with tone controls, etc. will have unwanted side effects on everything else in the recording.

All this assumes that (a) a 'quirky' system's characteristics just happen to align with a recording's anomalies, or (b) that listeners have the time, inclination and ability to fiddle about with existing recordings in order to tailor them to their own tastes. Unlikely.

 

[Analog Scott]

How often does that sort of thing occur? And to the composite mix, so that the user's system can effect a genuine 'correction'? If, as is more likely, one of the sources in the recording has some undesirable frequency response anomalies (in your opinion), any accidental 'correction' with a non-neutral system or deliberate modification with tone controls, etc. will have unwanted side effects on everything else in the recording.

All this assumes that (a) a 'quirky' system's characteristics just happen to align with a recording's anomalies, or (b) that listeners have the time, inclination and ability to fiddle about with existing recordings in order to tailor them to their own tastes. Unlikely.

The rate of occurance is irrelevant and there are no assumptions about "quirky systems. A specific assertion was made. "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." And I called B.S. and merely offered an extreme example that I believe shows the specific asertion is B.S. That's it. There are no implications to draw from it. I am merely calling that assertion on it's face B.S.