“Human ears are better than measurements!” / “Humans can hear things we can’t even measure!”

[amirm]

A SPL converted by a microphone to a signal that then feeds a perfect loudspeaker that then produces the identical SPL (as measured by a perfect microphone) doesn’t confirm that measurements detect everything that the ears hear. Yes we all agree the perfect recording-replay chain has that limitation, but many of us have been discussing live sound, and yet still loudspeakers don’t sound like the live instrument either (although they can be pretty close)

That's orthogonal to this discussion. Of course stereo is severely limited in its ability to present a live experience. When I play a piano, the sound and experience I have is not remotely recreated using any recording.

The point of the mic plus recording was that it is able to capture the music we listen to. Yet folks claims the music is fine if it is played on this and that audio system (usually with many impairments) but not others. With the answer being that we can't measure what is coming out of an audio system.

 

[Eric Larson]

Yes, the question at hand is not whether or not our equipment can precisely reproduce a live performance but rather whether or not we can measure the performance of two different reproduction chains as accurately or more accurately than the human ear.

Nobody is claiming that we can reproduce a live performance to the point where the reproduction result will pass a double blind test.

 

[Keith_W]

When I play a piano, the sound and experience I have is not remotely recreated using any recording.

When YOU play a piano?!?!?! Now, why hasn't that featured on the ASR Youtube channel?

 

[Mart68]

Yes, the question at hand is not whether or not our equipment can precisely reproduce a live performance but rather whether or not we can measure the performance of two different reproduction chains as accurately or more accurately than the human ear.

Nobody is claiming that we can reproduce a live performance to the point where the reproduction result will pass a double blind test.

Depends how ambitious you want to be with the live performance. A lone singer or instrument, even a string quartet and at least some people can be fooled. The 'Live Vs Recorded' demonstrations done by QUAD/Wharfedale in the 1950s for example. With today's speaker technology it would be even easier to fool people. A full symphony orchestra, maybe not, but I do wonder.

Technics AFP1000 speakers being used at Vienna Opera House to substitute for the singer during orchestra rehearsals:

 

[RandomEar]

Well said. I agree, and I think this is what most people really mean when they post that their ears hear differences that measurements do not support. They are not really claiming their ears are *better* than measuring devices, but more likely that they are hearing something that has not been measured.

When I think back the last couple of months, that is not the case for the stand-out posts that I remember. Audiophiles specifically and repeatedly mentioned how "they can hear it" and therefore, their ears must be better than everybody else's (which seems to be a very important point such members repeatedly make) and also simply better than measurements. It's a combination of arrogance/hubris, ignorance and severe lack of knowledge really.

The "but we're not measuring everything"-crowd also exists, but in my experience, they have not been the majority of peculiar posters on ASR and are more open to some form of productive discussion. Which is fine by me: We can't agree on everything in life.

The average consumer doesn't have the technical background to realize that this is what they meant to say, so they end up getting ridiculed for claiming to have "ears better than measuring devices", when actually they had a valid point if we took the time to listen and understand. I believe the burden is on us, who understand the technical underpinnings, to show why the measurements we rely on are adequate to support any claims of sonic equality. It would make a great sticky to have a thread like that if we do not already.

Difficult. If people come here claiming that and are open to arguments why they might be in the wrong, that's fine. That's not what is typically happening, though. Maybe a quarter of fresh members claiming that stuff are at least partially open to any logical argument, the rest just comes here to declare their self-assessed superiority.

So I don't see how the burden should be on the more knowledgeable people to "convince" the ignorant. Can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink and all.

 

[ahofer]

Ok, I'll simplify: Live music heard with your own ears have not gone through an ADC.

In a rock/pop concert? In all likelihood the keyboards and some of the percussion are digital, the guitar and vocals have had digital processing. And let’s not get into the nearly ubiquitous backing tracks.

 

[ahofer]

When I think back the last couple of months, that is not the case for the stand-out posts that I remember. Audiophiles specifically and repeatedly mentioned how "they can hear it" and therefore, their ears must be better than everybody else's (which seems to be a very important point such members repeatedly make) and also simply better than measurements. It's a combination of arrogance/hubris, ignorance and severe lack of knowledge really.

The "but we're not measuring everything"-crowd also exists, but in my experience, they have not been the majority of peculiar posters on ASR and are more open to some form of productive discussion. Which is fine by me: We can't agree on everything in life.


Difficult. If people come here claiming that and are open to arguments why they might be in the wrong, that's fine. That's not what is typically happening, though. Maybe a quarter of fresh members claiming that stuff are at least partially open to any logical argument, the rest just comes here to declare their self-assessed superiority.

So I don't see how the burden should be on the more knowledgeable people to "convince" the ignorant. Can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink and all.

But I think it is helpful to get this distinction made early, and perhaps assume people are “we’re not measuring everything” as a matter of goodwill before piling on. Also, if we are going to claim science is on our side, it’s a good distinction to make first.

 

[Ropeburn]

In a rock/pop concert? In all likelihood the keyboards and some of the percussion are digital, the guitar and vocals have had digital processing. And let’s not get into the nearly ubiquitous backing tracks.

Not to mention ubiquitous DSP in the soundsystem. So many conversion steps, so little "purity"...

 

[Dogill]

Well, they must have used great microphones if they were able to record the London underground - all the way from Vienna… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen_(Georg_Solti_recording)
You don‘t need terrific ears to hear many strange things in lots of classical recordings. Besides undergrounds or trams (probably the culprit in the Ring‘s case), there are also crickets and sparrows, footsteps outside and so forth. You might make up a listening test by counting the times one hears the famous stool of Glenn Gould squeaking in some of his recordings.

Oh yes ,, it was the Viennese traffic , not the London Underground ( Angus McKenzie's long article about the Ring recordings August 1985 in HiFi for Pleasure ). Of course this was the original version - some noise seems to have been removed in the recent hi res remaster, including the throbbing noise in Siegfried which was caused by a reel of master tape running on magnetised heads shortly after production.

 

[Waveform Fidelity]

That's orthogonal to this discussion. Of course stereo is severely limited in its ability to present a live experience. When I play a piano, the sound and experience I have is not remotely recreated using any recording.

The point of the mic plus recording was that it is able to capture the music we listen to. Yet folks claims the music is fine if it is played on this and that audio system (usually with many impairments) but not others. With the answer being that we can't measure what is coming out of an audio system.

My initial point was not so much about stereo recording, but about the apparent contradiction that measurements may not match up with listening experiences and that its likely the wrong measurement was made rather than any golden eared person found something new (e.g diffraction effect when listening off-axis) - so in that case a new measurement would reveal the problem.

My second point about acoustic source size, was more about the fundamental limitations of the perfect “traditional” loudspeaker and an invitations for members to weigh in on the idea of a phased array approach that could go a way to addressing that problem of acoustic size - maybe we should have a thread on phased array loudspeakers? (If we don’t already)

Lastly, I’d very very interested in your thoughts as a piano player and Audiophile about why, in your experience, the sounds from the piano and a recorded version of it are not the same? (We know they are not, but why?) Would the observation differ if dummy head was used for recording and “matching” headphones for replay? I am not assuming you did this test

Bets regards

 

[rjp]

By chance I happened upon an interview with Bruno Putzeys discussing his Purifi Eval5, where he mentioned his quest for new measurements that can capture some of the more subtle details people are hearing, and then use these measurements to make systems even better. This is what I've been trying to express as well, though less eloquently. I think this guy is a genius.

Starting at around 11:30.

 

[voodooless]

he mentioned his quest for new measurements that can capture some of the more subtle details people are hearing

Let's first prove that people hear those things before we start looking for a fix.

 

[Mart68]

By chance I happened upon an interview with Bruno Putzeys discussing his Purifi Eval5, where he mentioned his quest for new measurements that can capture some of the more subtle details people are hearing, and then use these measurements to make systems even better. This is what I've been trying to express as well, though less eloquently. I think this guy is a genius.

Starting at around 11:30.

View attachment 544749

He's in the business so he has to sit between two stools. I think as soon as we get blind tests showing competent amplifiers aren't yet good enough then he'll have a point. That's still to happen. In the meantime, he's got amplifiers to sell so he trots out the same line as all amplifier salesmen do.

 

[Purité Audio]

I remember a similar conversation when I asked how I could sell his ( then ) expensive new Mola Mola amps which used the very same modules available for DIY.
Keith

 

[rjp]

I think as soon as we get blind tests showing competent amplifiers aren't yet good enough then he'll have a point.

Do you know that he, Bruno Putzeys, is the reason we have these competent class D amplifiers in the first place?

His visionary ideas transformed Class D from "good enough for subwoofers" into the end-game technology we have today. The very same ones we measure astounding SNR, THD, and SINAD values on here on ASR. Some readers may not be aware of this.

If you're listening to HiFi class D today, you can thank Bruno Putzeys.

So I say if the guy has an idea about measuring something new to make something even better, give him all the latitude he needs.

 

[voodooless]

So I say if the guy has an idea about measuring something new to make something even better, give him all the latitude he needs.

Argument from authority.. classical logical fallacy.

 

[amirm]

When YOU play a piano?!?!?! Now, why hasn't that featured on the ASR Youtube channel?

I should have added "as a student." Two years in, but it is damn long road to learn this instrument!

 

[amirm]

Lastly, I’d very very interested in your thoughts as a piano player and Audiophile about why, in your experience, the sounds from the piano and a recorded version of it are not the same? (We know they are not, but why?)

It is a very large instrument with sound emanating across a wide volume/surface. I don't know how anyone is ever able to place microphones as to capture its spatial effects.

I remember stopping dead in my tracks and couldn't focus on my lessen when I hit the first few notes on an acoustic piano vs my digital one! The sensation of perceiving the string vibrations was incredible. It took me many lessons to keep me from being distracted by it! I was ready to ditch my $5000 digital piano for it but just don't have the space.

Here is an incredible recent lesson. I was playing a piece where you hold one cord down for many measures (set of notes) that the left hand if playing. I asked my teacher why does it make sense where the decay has long finished. He answered that it still makes a sound and that it even modifies the sound of the notes in the left hand. We experimented with that and he was right. No way can one feel/perceive what the right cord was producing a foot or two away from left hand.

Note that all of this is from perspective of sitting at the piano or being near it. From audience point of view in a concert, that is a different situation. Still hard but without all of these nuances.

 

[voodooless]

I asked my teacher why does it make sense where the decay has long finished. He answered that it still makes a sound and that it even modifies the sound of the notes in the left hand.

Better digital pianos actually model this behavior as well. The science and engineering behind piano modeling is pretty interesting, regardless of full digital synthesis or usage of sampling. Via the app I can even change the virtual dimensions of the piano and this will also change the sound. I will however not pretend that any of this comes close to are real piano. But I can have a taste of a real $ 250k Kawai for a fraction of the price, and have room to spare … now if I could only play halfway decent

 

[mpw]

It is a very large instrument with sound emanating across a wide volume/surface. I don't know how anyone is ever able to place microphones as to capture its spatial effects.

I remember stopping dead in my tracks and couldn't focus on my lessen when I hit the first few notes on an acoustic piano vs my digital one! The sensation of perceiving the string vibrations was incredible. It took me many lessons to keep me from being distracted by it! I was ready to ditch my $5000 digital piano for it but just don't have the space.

Here is an incredible recent lesson. I was playing a piece where you hold one cord down for many measures (set of notes) that the left hand if playing. I asked my teacher why does it make sense where the decay has long finished. He answered that it still makes a sound and that it even modifies the sound of the notes in the left hand. We experimented with that and he was right. No way can one feel/perceive what the right cord was producing a foot or two away from left hand.

Note that all of this is from perspective of sitting at the piano or being near it. From audience point of view in a concert, that is a different situation. Still hard but without all of these nuances.

An acoustic piano for me is more interesting to play then a digital one as you get the vibrations from the whole piano. You can just press the hold pedal with one foot to keep the chord going then play notes over it. I would love to have a Steinway grand but right now have a full size Roland digital one played through a Fender Deluxe Reverb tube amp. Musicians that have perfect pitch can tell exactly what chord and notes are being played without looking. You can train your ear to learn what chords and scales sound good from minor to major, etc. Learn a little about music theory to learn how chords are constructed. I am self-taught.