Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[svart-hvitt]

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?

«Music», in a wider sense, is not consumed with a blindfold.

Both of you are correct but in practical life we’re not «blind».

 

[Analog Scott]

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.

All you are doing is laying out the same failed circular reasoning. Assertion: accuracy is superior in audio. Why is accuracy superior in audio? Because it is more accurate. You do understand that there is music involved in all of this do you not? Before audio we had music. Music has been evaluated for thousands of years by people who made music and people who listened to it. Classical music has a very rich history of development of content and of the instruments used to play it. ALL OF WHICH was done so by evaluation through preference. You do understand that right? When it comes to actual music preference is THE standard by which it is judged and has always been so since there was music. When I listen to audio I do so to enjoy music. I judge music played on a sound system the same exact way I judge live music. On it's own merits. Your circular reasoning that accuracy is inherently superior because it is more accurate and preferences play no role in the judgement loses sight of the fundamental reason for our stereo systems to exist in the first place, to play music. So does the music serve audio or does audio serve music? Because music is judged subjectively by human beings as is the sound quality of that music. This whole idea of science in service of art is being lost in this unbendable idea of accuracy and only accuracy matters because we don't know what's on the tape. It's not as if you are Mork from Ork and don't know what music is! If you listen to any recording of just about any music you got a pretty good idea what is actually on the tape before you listen. It's not a total mystery if you listen to a recording of a classical piano piece that you are listening to classical piano. Right? You can evaluate the sound quality of a piano being played live without this crutch of accuracy can you not? Are you capable of listening to a live classical performance and forming an opinion about the sound quality you are hearing? If so then why can't you do the same thing with a recording of a classical piano? And if not why do you worry about audio sound quality at all? We actually do know what's on these tapes to a large degree, We can evaluate sound quality independent of audio. This circle of confusion is way over stated. Is it messy? Sure. Is it prone to inprecision? No doubt. But this idea that accuracy is everything and there is no place for preferences in audio most definitely puts the cart before the horse. It's about music ultimately. And music isn't the dark unknown mystery you guys are making it out to be that we need accuracy and only accuracy to lead us through that darkness. If science is going to serve art it requires a better understanding of the art and how that in and of itself is evaluated. Not this assumption that the tape is this mysterious entity that is also a work of art that represents the perfect execution of some artistic vision.

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)?

Please cite the research that shows this.

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?

I have never stated that neutral speakers can not sound as good or even better on a wide range of recordings. But if one expresses a preference for any euphonic distortion anywhere in the audio chain people here can't handle it. "It's OK to like something that is less accurate but by golly you better acknowledge that it is INFERIOR!!!!!" It seems as though there's some serious insecurity issues here.

 

[Analog Scott]

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.

Funny, I get a similar thing from the Mormons when they knock on the door. It's all in the Book of Mormon so they say. Same thing from the Jehovah Witnesses. The other funny thing is when you question some aspect of the claims made based on the book they can't find the exact reference either. It seems it's often been a while since they read their books too.

 

[Analog Scott]

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.

me thinks you are painfully in denial of our options as audiophiles.

 

[Analog Scott]

This is the second time you have alluded to this. Firstly, you obviously havent read the book yet because rooms and positioning is covered.

Where doe it specifically cover the issue of fairness in comparing competing brands by using their recomended positioning in a room and their recomendations on the room itself. I didn't see the actual research or a citation of the actual research that showed this is not a real issue. So please feel free to point it out. I don't see that specifically anywhere in the book. If I am missing it I'd like to see it.

Secondly, why should other parts of the equipment chain have "specific requirements"?

For real? Even nuetral speakers have positioning requirements. I'm going to bet you can't put two neutral speakers together in the corner facing the wall and get good sound from them. All speakers have positioning requirements.

 

[Analog Scott]

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.

It's a tautological argument that ignores the fact that any declaration of superiority requires a subjective choice of reference by which anything is judged. I know what you guys mean by fidelity but to say an adherance to fidelity is "superior" is ultimately a statement of preference. I think it is you who is struggling with this fact.

 

[Jakob1863]

Well I said many pages back in the thread it seems Analog Scott is intent or maybe just content to maintain the circle of confusion rather than try to open that circle. The circle can be opened, so one need not maintain it must stay closed just because reducing confusion isn't perfectly eliminating confusion. There in the remaining confusion is room to proclaim the audiophile's preference as supreme and inviolate. So despite protests to the contrary that is about where things lie.

I think you missed the important point in the discussion. We are imo discussing within the borders of Toole´s framework (or about his framework) who (maybe?) coined the term "circle of confusion" and if you take Toole´s various publications and think about it you´ll imo have to conclude that his solution would be a strongly standardized production and reproduction environment to ensure that the results are identical at each point of the chain.

To the contrary the solution - to break the circle of confusion - presented in this thread is imo to neglect the production environment and instead propose (?totally?) linear reproduction as the most accurate way. And that is a questionable assertion, isn´t it?

 

[Jakob1863]

So you put together the most linear playback system you can, which will reproduce the recording as accurately as possible .
Keith

Please consider for a moment a real world example of monitoring room taken from Mäkivarti/Anet´s study where the response is tilted down up to 6 dB from 1 kHz down.
A record is produced under these conditions; let´s assume for the sake of the argument two possibilities:
1.) the effect is compensated during the mix
2.) the effect isn´t compensated during the mix

And now you´re reproducing this specific record with a ruler flat system. Is that really reproduction as accurate as possible?
Isn´t it just an axiomatic point of view?
From an supervising point of view i´d say the ruler flat system is distorting this specific recorded content.

 

[Purité Audio]

The record is the record, there is nothing else.
Keith

 

[j_j]

«Music», in a wider sense, is not consumed with a blindfold.

Both of you are correct but in practical life we’re not «blind».

You do understand that this kind of argument is simply annoying and without any rational basis.

Nobody wears a blindfold. Perhaps you know that, in which case you really went for the cheap shot.

 

[March Audio]

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.

And yet tooles research showed that neutral speakers were still preferred in different rooms.

 

[March Audio]

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.

This is something I have actually pointed out in several threads previously. Stereo imagery is just an illusion affected by the room and speaker. Fully aware of this. Many audiophiles seem IMO focus rather excessively on this aspect. However that doesnt invalidate the concept of a neutral speaker following Tooles performance guidelines. A shit speaker will sound shit in whatever room. A good speaker will sound better in whatever room.

 

[March Audio]

Where doe it specifically cover the issue of fairness in comparing competing brands by using their recomended positioning in a room and their recomendations on the room itself. I didn't see the actual research or a citation of the actual research that showed this is not a real issue. So please feel free to point it out. I don't see that specifically anywhere in the book. If I am missing it I'd like to see it.

You really havent read it have you? Here are a couple of snippets that show it is considered. These are not the sum total btw, Im just not going to scour the book for you, I was just passing these pages as I have recently got the new edition.


The loudspeaker was then placed at three possible stereo-left locations in the listening room, and averaged measurements at six seats yielded the curves shown in Figure 5.4c with the prediction from Figure 5.4b superimposed.

Figure 5.4d attempts to illustrate the sounds arriving at the listening location in a typical domestic listening room or home theater— different portions of the radiated sound dominate at different frequencies, determined by the frequency-dependent directivity of the loudspeaker and the reflective nature of the room. Obviously the frequencies at which the transitions occur will change with different loudspeaker designs and with different room acoustical configurations. In general, as loudspeakers become more directional

 

[Sal1950]

I'm wondering how long this debate with Mr Analog Scott will continue?
You members do realize that he is simply trolling you with his silly WBF style circular arguments.
The fact that he is 100% wrong will never enter his mind or have any relevance to his continued illogical answers.

 

[March Audio]

For real? Even nuetral speakers have positioning requirements. I'm going to bet you can't put two neutral speakers together in the corner facing the wall and get good sound from them. All speakers have positioning requirements.

Now you really are being stupid.

 

[Sal1950]

It's a tautological argument that ignores the fact that any declaration of superiority requires a subjective choice of reference by which anything is judged. I know what you guys mean by fidelity but to say an adherance to fidelity is "superior" is ultimately a statement of preference. I think it is you who is struggling with this fact.

Why do you think the pursuit is called High Fidelity? LOL

 

[March Audio]

It's a tautological argument that ignores the fact that any declaration of superiority requires a subjective choice of reference by which anything is judged. I know what you guys mean by fidelity but to say an adherance to fidelity is "superior" is ultimately a statement of preference. I think it is you who is struggling with this fact.

No. The reference is the signal recorded on the media, your sample of one preference is meaningless.

I dont think anyone has said that fidelity is the superior option. In fact most have been at pains to say that you as an individual can distort the sound in whatever way you like. Up to you, whatever floats your boat. Fidelity is simply just that, faithful to the original. It really is you thats confused by the conversation

 

[Cosmik]

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.

A similar question could be asked about emitting video signals into a room from a TV. If you use a single photocell to pick up the result at the viewing position, then indeed your measurements indicate that the room has a crucial effect on what you are thinking 'gets to the eyes'. But use a lens and suddenly the room doesn't matter - you can 'see past the room' to the source. Toole and Linkwitz (and Dutch and Dutch in a link the other day) think that we "hear past the room".

The human is equipped with a brain, two ears, and the ability to move those ears in a coordinated way from moment to moment. The question is surely not the similarity between the PCM values and what gets to your ears, but must be a combination of how accurately the PCM values make it into the room, the room's acoustics and the brain's ability to filter out the room. However, one thing is for sure: if the PCM values are not emitted accurately, the problem for the listener becomes a whole lot more difficult to solve.

 

[March Audio]

I'm wondering how long this debate with Mr Analog Scott will continue?
You members do realize that he is simply trolling you with his silly WBF style circular arguments.
The fact that he is 100% wrong will never enter his mind or have any relevance to his continued illogical answers.

You are correct, this really is true WBF style nonsense. The only conclusion you can draw from scottys statements are that he thinks anything goes.

I like the sound of my little portable radio in my fully tiled toilet, therefore thats high fidelity.

 

[March Audio]

Please cite the research that shows this.

I have never stated that neutral speakers can not sound as good or even better on a wide range of recordings. But if one expresses a preference for any euphonic distortion anywhere in the audio chain people here can't handle it. "It's OK to like something that is less accurate but by golly you better acknowledge that it is INFERIOR!!!!!" It seems as though there's some serious insecurity issues here.

You can keep asking and you will keep getting the same answer. Read the the book and the AES papers. Why you seem to think this isnt scientific research is beyond me.

Oh but you have. You said Tooles research is wrong. You have disagreed with the research that says people prefer neutral speakers. You have implied that the only good speaker is one that suits your personal preferences and has been selected to counter or compliment the colourations of other system components.

So what are you saying? You are the one banding around phrases such as "superior". I couldnt care less about what distortions you personally prefer. Just dont present that as some kind of justification for anything goes in terms of fidelity.