Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[dannut]

Well, this 'problem' (in search of a solution) has a 'solution' - transient-perfect loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber.
This is not the solution, it sounds awful. So no to 'accourate reproduction' according to this criteria.

The correct way is to use all of our knowledge in psychoacoustics and design accordingly.

 

[Inner Space]

Well, this 'problem' (in search of a solution) has a 'solution' - transient-perfect loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber.
This is not the solution, it sounds awful. So no to 'accourate reproduction' according to this criteria.

Actually it sounds great. One of the most annoying shibboleths in audio is that "listening in an anechoic chamber sounds bad". Virtually no one has ever tried it; virtually everyone spouts the same negative received wisdom. Very unscientific. I get that it's difficult to do, domestically, but that's no excuse.

 

[MaxBuck]

You have so misrepresented the research, including who did it, that your grasp is close to zero. Welcome to ASR. If you have come with good intentions ie to learn, and you care enough about this topic to post on it, I commend to you to purchase and read, not skim, Sound Reproduction by Dr Floyd Toole, either the first or third edition.

There is a baseline for quality of audio from reproduction gear: the natural sound of a live voice, guitar, piano, etc. Almost nobody with good hearing listens to these natural sounds and thinks, “Sounds bad. If only I could hand them a microphone connected to my favourite amp and speaker that I know sounds good.” The research shows that there seems to be a universal preference for sounding uncoloured compared to natural sounds. Which should be no surprise, when we give it some thought.

You yourself are misrepresenting the research IMO.

No audio system is capable of entirely uncolored reproduction, nor will there be in the future. There has been research conducted into preferences given the nonideality of reproduction; that's all. Suggesting that pristine reproduction is something that can be achieved if only one chooses based upon Toole is absurd.

 

[Wolf]

I remain objective and highly skeptical of subjective claims, but i'm not opposed to changing my feelings/thoughts/beliefs in audio if I experience the result and update my thinking on a particular area.

I believe measurements tell most of the story, but also believe the same is not for everyone as we are all different.

 

[Newman]

@MaxBuck so your Christmas present to me is a giant straw man? Poor show indeed.

 

[MaxBuck]

@MaxBuck so your Christmas present to me is a giant straw man? Poor show indeed.

I'd say it's a much poorer show to accuse others of having zero grasp of the subject, but what do I know?

 

[rcarlbe]

Here's my take. We hear with our minds. End of story. The space between our ears is the most important room. Many of use share a common purpose--to trick the mind into hearing excellent live music. We are attempting to create an illusion.

For me the issue at hand is if a person misattributes the cause of these perceptions. I believe people actual hear a difference between say 8ga and 10ga speaker wire when they say they do. But the fact of the matter is, it is only present in their minds. But here's the kicker: that's legit! (but only for them). One's audio reality isn't caused solely through their ears. I'd suggest objectivists and subjectivist legitimize the mind's ear as important and relevant to personal audio experience i.e, it is not wrong to only hear music in your mind; and subjectivists alone must better recognize when their experience is personal and not not universal.

 

[Newman]

Yes, misattribution is one of my favourite points, worth reminding people about because it is so rampant and accidental.

 

[dannut]

Actually it sounds great. One of the most annoying shibboleths in audio is that "listening in an anechoic chamber sounds bad". Virtually no one has ever tried it; virtually everyone spouts the same negative received wisdom. Very unscientific. I get that it's difficult to do, domestically, but that's no excuse.

There is actually a huge problem with regular stereo in non-environment rooms (wrong localization ques, incorrect tonality from frontal phantom sources etc. Specific room reflections can and IMO should mask those). Sorry for not being specific previously.

Agree with above, if we are dealing with correctly done multichannel. (centre channel needs to be done correctly)

And to add, there are many acousticians and clients who deliberately design and demand these kind of rooms for evaluation (mixing). Somewhat the inherent problems can be mitigated during production - but we are going to run into the circle-of-confusion again. (do the clients listen in these kind of settings?)

 

[markus]

I think we can. We can measure the acoustic waveform in the room at the listener's ears, and compare it to the electrical waveform leaving the DAC. The more similar the waveforms, the more accurate the reproduction.

That would mean listening in an anechoic chamber. Many people have tried that but it is not what people expect from a recording. It is great for editing and mixing as you can hear many spatial defects that aren't obvious when using headphones. Try it and drag your speakers to the outside. While not perfect it is good enough to get an idea.

Stereo is not a binaural reproduction technique (although some have tried to make it behave that way). Hence it is incapable of replicating "the real thing". Its results depend on the playback room and speaker characteristics which aren't standardized (unfortunately). That's why accurate reproduction currently can mean many things.
Great read, Lipshitz "Stereo Microphone Techniques: Are the Purists Wrong?"

 

[King3567]

I’m a bit lower on technical understanding than many posters here, but I think in general it depends on the component

With a dac or an amp - I think measurements are the only thing that matters really, and that’s what I love about this site. I don’t have people with $2k da converters talking about warmth etc.

With transducers, as mentioned there are so many parameters there which make it really important to contextualize the measurements

I think overall if purchasing blind it makes sense to get something which closely matches something like the Harman curve, as that gives you best shot to get something which you will enjoy under a variety of conditions and with a variety of genres

I will tell you one measurement I do believe in, and that’s how much my better half likes how something looks in the living room. Cannot argue with that subjective measurement at all. And, I’ve always hated that term, because the aesthetics of the items to me are pretty important too.

 

[egellings]

Competently designed output stages set up in class AB or B do not have to sound like distortion factories at all. Just be careful to avoid zero crossing discontinuities.

 

[Trif]

I'm a musician.

I'm a subjectivist. I trust my ears. I have to, or I couldn't play.

I guess all you objectivists must be the audience.

 

[gnarly]

That would mean listening in an anechoic chamber. Many people have tried that but it is not what people expect from a recording. It is great for editing and mixing as you can hear many spatial defects that aren't obvious when using headphones. Try it and drag your speakers to the outside. While not perfect it is good enough to get an idea.

Stereo is not a binaural reproduction technique (although some have tried to make it behave that way). Hence it is incapable of replicating "the real thing". Its results depend on the playback room and speaker characteristics which aren't standardized (unfortunately). That's why accurate reproduction currently can mean many things.
Great read, Lipshitz "Stereo Microphone Techniques: Are the Purists Wrong?"

Yes, that really is a good read, thx.

I may get stoned for saying this....but i often think stereo has done much more to retard authentic replication, than aid it.
Muddies the water big time imho.

I'm a speaker builder, and DSP tuner.
Listening and measurements, in mono, outdoors...is my poor man's anechoic building/tuning process.
When i think i nail a design i really like, i make a second speaker, for stereo.

After at least a dozen different designs that made it to stereo, ranging from line arrays to MEHs and a number of conventional builds......
outdoor listening, whether mono or stereo, continues to utterly blow away indoor listening no matter how well i treat rooms acoustically.

So for me, when i hear that an anechoic chamber sounds bad, i think may be true or not...
......i dunno.......never had the experience of listening in one.
But i think for those who have, it's probably a pretty eerie experience not to hear any reflections, and likely the source of dislike.
Must admit, i also question how many folks have truly been in one, and are simply dissing it via the parrot-speak gig....

I will say this with no hesitation.......outdoor listening rocks...highly recommended.

 

[Inner Space]

So for me, when i hear that an anechoic chamber sounds bad, i think may be true or not...
......i dunno.......never had the experience of listening in one.
But i think for those who have, it's probably a pretty eerie experience not to hear any reflections ...

That's the main misconception. You hear plenty of reflections - the ones embedded in the recording, be they real from the performance space, or artificial from post-production. What you don't hear is the smearing, blurring overlay from your own room.

 

[RayDunzl]

when i hear that an anechoic chamber sounds bad, i think may be true or not...

Would a good set of headphones/IEMs qualifiy as anechoic?

 

[maverickronin]

Would a good set of headphones/IEMs qualifiy as anechoic?

Not really, at least if you're listening to normal stereo music. Even without any reflections you still get crosstalk from the each channel in the stereo pair to it's opposite ear which is completely lacking in headphones.

 

[gnarly]

That's the main misconception. You hear plenty of reflections - the ones embedded in the recording, be they real from the performance space, or artificial from post-production. What you don't hear is the smearing, blurring overlay from your own room.

Yes, we hear reflections imbedded into the recording from their recording space.

Which is exactly why listening outdoors is greatly superior ime, .........as you said "What you don't hear is the smearing, blurring overlay from your own room."

I think we are agreeing...no ? Where's the misconception?

 

[gnarly]

Would a good set of headphones/IEMs qualifiy as anechoic?

For me, having spent way too much on headphones...i say, i can't see how.

There's the well known 'inside the head', vs 'outside the head' phenom.

But the bigger disconnection with headphones vs speakers for me, is headphones can impart bass tonality but they cannot impart bass feel.
For me, our body's tactile vibrational feel is a big part of sound.

I don't know of any anechoic chamber large enough to test VLF bass....maybe they exist...let the experienced please chime in.

 

[Inner Space]

Yes, we hear reflections imbedded into the recording from their recording space.

Which is exactly why listening outdoors is greatly superior ime, .........as you said "What you don't hear is the smearing, blurring overlay from your own room."

I think we are agreeing...no ? Where's the misconception?

I'm glad we agree, but where you said, "it's probably a pretty eerie experience not to hear any reflections", I didn't want people to misunderstand, or feel they would be in a dead space. It's dead until the music starts, then you get full and accurate ambience.