Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[j_j]

Preference is involate. It's just also PERSONAL preference.

 

[tomelex]

You asked:

I'm looking for the published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

Is this really so hard to understand?

Question 1. I don't know where this is written by any expert explicitly. However, on this forum, if I want to change the sound, I just do it with whatever tools I want to. But I choose tools designed to do this: expanders, tone controls, image expanders, sonic holograms, and maybe sometimes with a SET amplifier. However, lets change just one word in #1 and a couple in #2

--A distortion free audio playback chain is MEASUREABLY superior regardless of recording

--That MEASUREMENTS for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT TUNED to detect specific distortions transfers (YOU CAN USE THE TEST EQUIPMENT TO MEASURE SOMEWHERE ELSE) to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT and a multitude of recordings.

NO offense at the capitals, only to make my point easy to see. This is the scientific response to your question , and yes, I do not have a reference for this , except that I would love for anyone to bet me money otherwise. Measurements, done correctly, will repeat and reveal what they are tuned to reveal.

By the way, previously you mentioned your preference for the "same recording" of music on LP, as opposed to digital. Let me inform you that there is no way to compare the two. The mechanical process of recording at the cutter and your playback cartridge and also the RIAA in both directions for LP, are never the same as recording to digital. If some time you want to do this in a more realistic manner, you need to record the output of your LP from your preamp to your digital recorder, then go blind, and play back from each of those, then you can readily find out that you will not be reliably able to choose which is which, as digital is that good.

 

[Analog Scott]

You asked:

I'm looking for the published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

Is this really so hard to understand?

Question 1. I don't know where this is written by any expert explicitly. However, on this forum, if I want to change the sound, I just do it with whatever tools I want to. But I choose tools designed to do this: expanders, tone controls, image expanders, sonic holograms, and maybe sometimes with a SET amplifier. However, lets change just one word in #1 and a couple in #2

--A distortion free audio playback chain is MEASUREABLY superior regardless of recording

--That MEASUREMENTS for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT TUNED to detect specific distortions transfers (YOU CAN USE THE TEST EQUIPMENT TO MEASURE SOMEWHERE ELSE) to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT and a multitude of recordings.

NO offense at the capitals, only to make my point easy to see. This is the scientific response to your subjective and personal preference, and yes, I do not have a reference for this fact I am stating, except that I would love for anyone to bet me money otherwise. Measurements, done correctly, will repeat and reveal what they are tuned to reveal.

By the way, previously you mentioned your preference for the "same recording" of music on LP, as opposed to digital. Let me inform you that there is no way to compare the two. The mechanical process of recording at the cutter and your playback cartridge and also the RIAA in both directions for LP, are never the same as recording to digital. If some time you want to do this in a more realistic manner, you need to record the output of your LP from your preamp to your digital recorder, then go blind, and play back from each of those, then you can readily find out that you will not be reliably able to choose which is which, as digital is that good.

"--A distortion free audio playback chain is MEASUREABLY superior regardless of recording"

That is not a scientific response. That is an opinion. Superiority depends completely ont he subjective choice of reference by which all is compared and that is not an objective choice audio.

 

[tomelex]

Really? Let me spell this out for you line by line:

1) A recording of any sort has information in it, that is decoded into electrical energy. All we have in consumer playback audio is from the source, period. Hope we agree on that. I don't care if you prefer source A over B or not!

2) No matter what source you choose, A or B, we can measure the "audio playback chain" for both A and B and in either case the audio playback chain that has the least distortion is superior. Nothing to do with preference in my change to your question.

You bring in preference every time. WBF is a place like that, and that's why I never look back there. Preference can be singular, or there can be a group of people who agree with a certain preference. At WBF you will never get a consensus on preference for any gear, but what is being done in this forum is scientific, measurable, and preferences are accepted for what they are, and when there are enough of them all you can say, as in Tooles work, is that a certain group of people preferred a certain type of speaker. It is an objective use of preference as an indicator of a direction.

 

[fas42]

Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?

You've touched on a point that has always disturbed me when reading the "proper" research papers - to me, the science is poor: so many assumptions are made about what matters; a whole lot of relevant factors are barely mentioned - I always end up highly dissatisfied with what passes as "research" in this field - there are holes you can drive a steam locomotive through, without touching anything.

If the science had a bit more of a solid foundation to it then the literature would be so much more valuable - I find I get irritated reading the stuff, because the multiple elephants in the room are carefully ignored ...

 

[March Audio]

Citation please. You are claiming science so cite the science

Read the book. Read the AES papers.

Are you saying the Toole research was unscientific?

 

[Thomas savage]

 

[March Audio]

"--A distortion free audio playback chain is MEASUREABLY superior regardless of recording"

That is not a scientific response. That is an opinion. Superiority depends completely ont he subjective choice of reference by which all is compared and that is not an objective choice audio.

The phrasing could be misinterpreted but the intent is absolutely correct. You might prefer a distortion free playback chain is measurably higher fidelity regardless of recording.

Superiority has nothing to do with a subjective choice of reference. The reference is the recorded signal. Its absolutely objective.

You still seem to be struggling with the difference between fidelity and personal preference.

 

[watchnerd]

Okay, I'm going to flip this around and go through my subjectivist journey and where it lead me.

Axiomatically, I am willing to admit that:

1. If constrained by the variances in human perception*, I will admit that the definition of "the absolute sound" is nearly a philosophical or metaphysical one (the variances in human hearing tests alone mandate a spectrum of experience), comparable to that of Platonic forms.

2. Transducers are our main technology for both capturing sound and reproducing it. No flawless transducer technology currently exists.

3. Euphonic distortion can be pleasing, based both on personal experience in production, playback, and performance (one of my bass guitar amps is a tube amp), and a seemingly large number of others who have come to the same conclusion.

4. Vinyl can be pleasing due to euphonic distortion. (I myself, like my vinyl).

All of the above, once upon a time, lead me to decide to "get into" tubes. I had:

1 tube phono stage using 2 x 12AX7, 1 x 12AU7
1 tube phono stage using 2 x 6DJ8
1 hybrid preamp that could be passive, JFET buffered, or 4 x 6SN7
1 large box full of tubes full of 7 pairs of 12AX7, 4 pairs of 6DJ8, and 3 quads of 6SN7.

Then I started tube rolling. Sometimes I changed the preamp tubes. Sometimes I changed the phono tubes. Sometimes I changed the phono tubes and the preamp tubes. Sometimes I changed to the other phono stage changed the phono tubes and changed the preamp tubes.

Almost every change seemed to have an effect. On top of all that, the time the tubes spent warming up also mattered. As did the gain, as the preamp tubes could be pushed to higher output and thus distortion.

But after a lot of fiddling, I felt I could get the system dialed in best for a particular song or album. And then as soon as I switched to a different album, the magic would be a bit diminished and I'd be compelled to start tweaking again. It was driving me nuts. A clear case of audiophilia nervosa.

One day I calculated the number of variables, and just based on tube(s) x solid state x passive combos, the number was 55 variations -- not even including tube warmup time, volume, tube life, etc.

How could I ever dial in a system with that many variables?

But then I noticed, if I was sufficiently un-sober, it didn't really matter that much. If under the influence, the importance of the small differences seem to be diminished, I stopped 'analyzing' the sound and just enjoyed the emotional experience of the music.

Leading to the following conclusions:

1. Relying purely on subjective tweakery was driving me nuts. I needed some other foundation.

2. Tube rolling is expensive.

3. No tweak improved my listening experience as much as the right weed or wine at the right time.

4. If my senses are so easily manipulated, and my pleasure so variable depending upon my mental state, with a wide gulf between 1 and 3 glasses of wine (or 2 and 6 tokes), the mood of a stormy night vs a nice sunset, upon which sensory experience am I supposed to base a system?

Or is basing a system upon the inconstancy of human perception a path to a necessarily ever-changing, inconsistent system?

My conclusion was, "Yes, it probably would", and observing the various FoTM products that crest and crash on audiophile hype cycles, each new big hit being touted as 'the' difference maker, it would seem others experienced, as well.

So I fell back on my science training and went a different route.

But I still enjoy my LPs.

 

[March Audio]

Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?

This is the second time you have alluded to this. Firstly, you obviously havent read the book yet because rooms and positioning is covered. Secondly, why should other parts of the equipment chain have "specific requirements"? Their only objective is to deliver a distortion free signal to the next stage. Does your equipment have deficiencies that need to be addressed by some kind of opposite correction in the speaker?

You are saying that your components are not neutral and have a sound that needs to be addressed elsewhere. Did you choose wisely?

Its a red herring because it fundamentally misses the point of the research. So to be clear, you believe hifi systems should incorporate any distortion that an individual deems to fit their personal subjective likes. Thats a very interesting position to take. Not in itself, but in its applicability beyond you as an individual. So yours is not a hifi system its a personal fuzzbox. You have no interest in fidelity.

 

[Wombat]

Yes, this can be explained in terms of the distortions of analogue systems being far easier to deal with, unconsciously, by the brain - a very, very crude analogy is poor analogue vs. digital TV reception; in the former, ghosting and severe noise still allow one to follow the plot; in the latter, once the picture starts to break up, all is lost. One thing that has been made very clear to me is that getting digital right is an extremely high Q exercise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor - if the quality is off by only the slightest amount then it may be almost unlistenable to. By contrast, LP SQ is relatively low Q in behaviour.

The compression occurs because the power supply voltages start to modulate, as the demands for current delivery outstrip the ability of the power supply circuitry to maintain stable reserves of energy. One can use circuit simulation software to see this happen in the time domain - and parts of the circuitry that depend on reliable voltages start to misbehave. Design people with regard to amplifiers most certainly have a blind spot here - they wave their hands, saying that PSRR will take care of it all - but I'm afraid that's a long way from the reality ...

Loudspeakers are fine ... really, they are. I have had the most "mediocre" speakers pumping out intense, ear-shattering SPLs, with ease - I go to demos of monster, expensive speakers, and hear the sound start to collapse as the volume rises - I roll my eyes, knowing that it's the amplifier at fault here. Having done the exercise so many times of getting good results from throwaway speakers - they're the last thing I worry about.

The analogy comparing poor TV reception to a hard wired audio system just doesn't equate.

 

[Wombat]

I agree with that. But I am not going to let an artifact with unknown origins affect my aesthetic choices. Whatever way it sounds best to me will be my choice when given options.

It all has come down to this concise summary. As there is a 'sample of one' situation here, is there any point in further discussing subjective personal preference at length.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?

I looked at my copy of the book (the earlier edition btw). There are at least a couple chapters where Toole develops the background and the testing of the idea mono works better than stereo, which parameters were important to a successful speaker, and how they validate those hypothesis with listening tests.

It might be interesting to note that in earlier work they obtained a .995 correlation between measured results in an anechoic chamber and preferences of panels of trained listeners when they were using small speakers without appreciable output below 120 hz. Much of that is covered in the Closing the Loop chapter. This is interesting because using more full range speakers they managed very good correlations, but not a near perfect .995 for the wider band speakers. It isn't a stretch at all knowing how the 300hz and below response is effected by rooms to see that room positioning has the most effect on this region of sound. There are other possibilities, like some crossovers result in a peaks mid-band so that makers suggest firing such speakers straight ahead rather than aiming toward the listener. Or in the way dipolar or bipolar speakers interact with the backwall. Nevertheless such effects would seem not to overly disturb what it is a good speaker does that will be preferred overwhelmingly by test panels. Or don't make speakers that need off axis aiming.

My opinion is the speakers that may truly be handicapped in this testing are panel speakers. Disclosure: I have owned panels speakers of one sort or another most of my life. Currently having Soundlab ESLs. I do recognize their deficiencies, and that if work was done to address those for panels they would be even better still.

As for the red herring issue, yes, one would think the cleanest lowest distortion playback would be best for all music (I didn't use preferred notice). You create a clean, transparent baseline, and then if your preferences differ, you can flavor to your taste. You can't very well do the reverse. The research largely validates this idea.

Now has someone done research showing the most accurate speaker playback will be preferred with all types of music? No, and why would they. It is a foolish question sending one upon a fool's errand. I can imagine highly imbalanced EQ if nothing else that a flat speaker would sound worse on than some other speaker with an inaccurate contour. That seems to be where you are angling your questions and if the past is any guide you'll now claim I misunderstood. The result which actually was a bit surprising is meeting certain parameters for accuracy resulted in a preference by both trained and untrained listener panels even for music that wasn't pristinely recorded. Which isn't the same as claiming any recording of any kind will always be preferred over the most accurate speakers. Hence the red herring.

 

[Blumlein 88]

IOW you don't know where I can find the research. That's fine. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? And I am reading the book so please to everyone who continues to tell me to read the book, stop asking me to do what I am already doing. It's like the kid in the back seat of he car asking "are we there yet" every 30 seconds.

Yeah, my Dad had an answer for the are we there yet question. He would send the map into the back seat. Ask my sister and myself to find where we were, and then have us give our answers as to when we might get there. That is sort of how the book is being referred to you now. You have the map, look at it and give us your opinion about it. You will have to do your own homework at some point.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Okay, I'm going to flip this around and go through my subjectivist journey and where it lead me.

Axiomatically, I am willing to admit that:

1. If constrained by the variances in human perception*, I will admit that the definition of "the absolute sound" is nearly a philosophical or metaphysical one (the variances in human hearing tests alone mandate a spectrum of experience), comparable to that of Platonic forms.

2. Transducers are our main technology for both capturing sound and reproducing it. No flawless transducer technology currently exists.

3. Euphonic distortion can be pleasing, based both on personal experience in production, playback, and performance (one of my bass guitar amps is a tube amp), and a seemingly large number of others who have come to the same conclusion.

4. Vinyl can be pleasing due to euphonic distortion. (I myself, like my vinyl).

All of the above, once upon a time, lead me to decide to "get into" tubes. I had:

1 tube phono stage using 2 x 12AX7, 1 x 12AU7
1 tube phono stage using 2 x 6DJ8
1 hybrid preamp that could be passive, JFET buffered, or 4 x 6SN7
1 large box full of tubes full of 7 pairs of 12AX7, 4 pairs of 6DJ8, and 3 quads of 6SN7.

Then I started tube rolling. Sometimes I changed the preamp tubes. Sometimes I changed the phono tubes. Sometimes I changed the phono tubes and the preamp tubes. Sometimes I changed to the other phono stage changed the phono tubes and changed the preamp tubes.

Almost every change seemed to have an effect. On top of all that, the time the tubes spent warming up also mattered. As did the gain, as the preamp tubes could be pushed to higher output and thus distortion.

But after a lot of fiddling, I felt I could get the system dialed in best for a particular song or album. And then as soon as I switched to a different album, the magic would be a bit diminished and I'd be compelled to start tweaking again. It was driving me nuts. A clear case of audiophilia nervosa.

One day I calculated the number of variables, and just based on tube(s) x solid state x passive combos, the number was 55 variations -- not even including tube warmup time, volume, tube life, etc.

How could I ever dial in a system with that many variables?

But then I noticed, if I was sufficiently un-sober, it didn't really matter that much. If under the influence, the importance of the small differences seem to be diminished, I stopped 'analyzing' the sound and just enjoyed the emotional experience of the music.

Leading to the following conclusions:

1. Relying purely on subjective tweakery was driving me nuts. I needed some other foundation.

2. Tube rolling is expensive.

3. No tweak improved my listening experience as much as the right weed or wine at the right time.

4. If my senses are so easily manipulated, and my pleasure so variable depending upon my mental state, with a wide gulf between 1 and 3 glasses of wine (or 2 and 6 tokes), the mood of a stormy night vs a nice sunset, upon which sensory experience am I supposed to base a system?

Or is basing a system upon the inconstancy of human perception a path to a necessarily ever-changing, inconsistent system?

My conclusion was, "Yes, it probably would", and observing the various FoTM products that crest and crash on audiophile hype cycles, each new big hit being touted as 'the' difference maker, it would seem others experienced, as well.

So I fell back on my science training and went a different route.

But I still enjoy my LPs.

Oh this is an excellent post. Not that your experience mirrors everyone's, but it fits more than a few.

My own experience was similar. At one point believing only tubes could be musically transparent. Then I series connected a very high quality SS amp and my finest quality tube amp with many modifications done by me to it. At a time when I believed SS simply incapable of transmitting important qualities of sound that tubes could, I found the SS amp transparent to the tube amp feeding it. Able to fully reproduce the signal coming from the tube amp in all of its subjective glory. Reversing roles with the SS amp feeding the tube amp, I could not discern if it were pair of interconnects prior to the tube amp or the SS amplifier. I am a slow learner, but I couldn't miss that the 'magic' of tubes was actually a delightful coloration. So respect for well done coloration being most enjoyable done well, and that good SS was highly accurate. I could leave behind the vagaries of tubes (especially in power amps) instead putting together a clean system. Then a little tube color upstream if I so desired was a much simpler proposition. Worse still, in time, I found as someone else mentioned, such coloration though enjoyable akin to using lots of sugar in a recipe. The un-adulterated version is even more preferred if you cleanse your pallet.

 

[Cosmik]

This debate will be forced to go on forever because it is attempting to reconcile two conflicting objectives for an audio system:

1. to replay supplied recordings = to recreate some musical event or creation from the only available information = to contribute no 'art' of its own
2. to maximise personal preference through sound

There is nothing wrong with either objective. The aspect that irritates the 'objectivists' is that the (2) people are often suggesting quite forcibly that their schemes are creating a superior (1). The (1) people, on the other hand, are entitled to state that their systems are superior at (1) through measurements; they should not, however, assert that their systems are universally better at (2). Being a (1) person is a rational philosophical choice - a weighing up of the likelihood that (1) leads to (2) without embarking on an open-ended quest.

The aspect that seems funny to people like me, is the way the (2) people seek to meet their objective by slightly modifying the equipment designed for (1) when they could be playing with tone controls, Ethan Winer's distortion box, DSP apps and so on. This would short circuit the thousands of wasted hours and dollars they will otherwise blow on not knowingly meeting (2).

 

[watchnerd]

The aspect that seems funny to people like me, is the way the (2) people seek to meet their objective by slightly modifying the equipment designed for (1) when they could be playing with tone controls, Ethan Winer's distortion box, DSP apps and so on. This would short circuit the thousands of wasted hours and dollars they will otherwise blow on not knowingly meeting (2).

Yeah, that's the part I don't get, either. If you want to tailor the sound, do it in EQ.

The high-end's typical disdain of EQ (in contrast to pro liberal use of it) is probably one of the biggest contributors to gear churn.

 

[March Audio]

This debate will be forced to go on forever because it is attempting to reconcile two conflicting objectives for an audio system:

1. to replay supplied recordings = to recreate some musical event or creation from the only available information = to contribute no 'art' of its own
2. to maximise personal preference through sound

There is nothing wrong with either objective. The aspect that irritates the 'objectivists' is that the (2) people are often suggesting quite forcibly that their schemes are creating a superior (1). The (1) people, on the other hand, are entitled to state that their systems are superior at (1) through measurements; they should not, however, assert that their systems are universally better at (2). Being a (1) person is a rational philosophical choice - a weighing up of the likelihood that (1) leads to (2) without embarking on an open-ended quest.

The aspect that seems funny to people like me, is the way the (2) people seek to meet their objective by slightly modifying the equipment designed for (1) when they could be playing with tone controls, Ethan Winer's distortion box, DSP apps and so on. This would short circuit the thousands of wasted hours and dollars they will otherwise blow on not knowingly meeting (2).

Whilst I agree with your premise here, there is actually a bit more to it than that. The research suggests that when the bias factors are removed people generally (not without exception) prefer speakers that are neutral. Where does that leave (2)?

Have the people that tend towards (2) ever even heard a neutral speaker? Why does there appear to be an implication that a neutral speaker cant sound as good or better on a wide range of recordings?

 

[j_j]

The phrasing could be misinterpreted but the intent is absolutely correct. You might prefer a distortion free playback chain is measurably higher fidelity regardless of recording.

Superiority has nothing to do with a subjective choice of reference. The reference is the recorded signal. Its absolutely objective.

You still seem to be struggling with the difference between fidelity and personal preference.

Yes, but when you emit the signal into a room, how do you measure the similarity between the two PCM values and what gets to your ears? This is hardly a trivial problem.

 

[j_j]

Its a red herring because it fundamentally misses the point of the research. So to be clear, you believe hifi systems should incorporate any distortion that an individual deems to fit their personal subjective likes. Thats a very interesting position to take. Not in itself, but in its applicability beyond you as an individual. So yours is not a hifi system its a personal fuzzbox. You have no interest in fidelity.

That's a bit too far, I think. Since the stereo illusion is just that, an illusion, and we've seen evidence in this thread of people who are, for instance, sensitive to binaural time cues, and others who are not at all, right there we have clear evidence that PREFERENCE may vary among listeners. This does not make a system with a highly diffuse pattern more or less accurate than a near-field monitor 4' away from your head.

In the room, as well, you have a soundfield to cope with, not just "pressure" at two points in the room. That can not help but create variations in sensation, even in the same person the way their hair is combed, if they are wearing glasses, you-name-it.

Now, Floyd's neutral speaker also has a very carefully controlled energy vs. direct ratio at all frequencies, in fact, that is one of the issues in many systems that is routinely ignored. (Not by Floyd, or Sean, or me, but by many.)

Your insistence in neutrality of equipment, regardless of room, really bothers me, especially when we don't know the radiation pattern of the room. There is a whole book missing here.