Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Thomas_A]

Below is a measurement of a well set up good cart using the script developed by some members here. It more or less confirms the other article but has a little more detail showing distortion is very frequency dependent. The LP's distortion profile matches human hearing quite well. Lowest distortion is in the midrange where human hearing is most sensitive and higher at high and low frequencies where human hearing is less sensitive. The FR is also quite flat. I don't know what "warmth" means objectively.... some say higher 2nd order harmonics which seems dubious to me as distortion below about 5% is hard to hear with music. There is also nothing in the FR that shows rolled off highs so not sure how that is "warmth" either. If there is anything to the "warmth" argument it may be with the LP mastering its self. I have noticed when doing FR analysis of original LP's vs Original CD's that the CD's consistently have more bass and HF content. Whether this is a purposeful "boost" done by mastering engineer to make the CD's stand out or the CD is just closer to the master tape or both I don't know. I do think it is a safe to say that many LP's, when played through average systems, have less LF and HF content compared to the digital versions.

View attachment 395237

One could also measure static 1 kHz which can be < 60 dB THD:

 

[MattHooper]

I don't own a turntable so I can't test this on my own, but to you who find you more than often prefer the sound of vinyl playback, do you find the particular vinyl playback qualities you love are preserved when the vinyl is digitized? In other words, do you find a vinyl rip to sound the same as the direct playback on the turntable?

I haven’t personally done a comparison in my system. But my assumption is that a properly digitized version would sound identical to the LP playback.

 

[MattHooper]

It's possible that the entire gamut of vinyl playback, even sharply upward tilted, is still dominated by second harmonic distortion and benign noise, in which case it would still be in the range of the majority of tube amplifiers: in which case the "neutral sounds better" research could be extrapolated to vinyl. This seems to me to be drawing a long bow, but the argument could be made.

Could be. At least a hypothesis can be made from such speculation, which ideally we would want to test. As mentioned we’ve seen a couple of vinyl/digital tests in which bias effects are uncovered, but they don’t amount to a lot of evidence for broader conclusions in scientific terms.

That said I wouldn’t be surprised if, with enough evidence, a preference for digital over vinyl under blind conditions would predominate.

As to preferences about distortion in general: we have the loudspeaker blind testing data.
Are you aware of significant Scientific data on preferences regarding distortion? For instance the type that is often argued about with regard to amplifiers? It’s often said that odd order distortion is disliked. But I’ve seen a number of back-and-forth on the subjective nature of distortion, both odd and even, and if this is totally settled I’m not aware of it. I was looking at a thread on distortion in this forum not long ago, I think it was a report from Geddes /Lee paper stating “ people prefer some sorts of distortion to not distortion.”

But I have no expertise in that area so I can’t evaluate it. My default is actually to presume, all things considered and in apples to apples comparisons, that most people will prefer a neutral reproduction. Insofar as that, suggest a “ cleaner sounding signal.” (one could of course use a type of recording that is poor in some area and in which distortion of a type would make it sound better to most people).

Though it’s my hunch that, in real world scenarios featuring all sorts of different pairing of equipment, some added distortion may be preferred by some people in some systems. For instance, the ongoing popularity of tube amplifiers. (all ASR caveats presumed.)

I’d love to see a lot more tests for incense where tube amplifiers were compared to solid state by many people in the system, where first the tube amplifiers were determined to be audibly different, and then preference scores were rated.

I’ve mentioned before that in my own blind test between my CJ tube preamp and my benchmark solid state preamp, I could hear, that’s a whole bunch of stuff thrown at the wall

The second question is whether one of those two dominating features (noise and second harmonic) may have a subconscious effect on some listeners, at a very low level of audibility, saying "this is a recording". What then happens might be that the brain becomes, say, more tolerant of imperfections in the sound? Again, speculation.

I don’t know that you are wrong. However, it seems to contrast with my personal perception in a number of cases.

I think recordings already sound artificial and “ like recordings.”

And that’s one reason why I enjoy my tube amplification. Because it’s my perception that the tube amplification often dilutes some of the obvious mechanical artefacts in recordings. A vocal track that for instance, featuring a vivid female voice: using neutral, solid state amplification, the artificiality and electronic sounding artefacts born of mic choices, compression, EQ, and whatever else was used, can give the singer an electronic artificial quality. But the tube amplification seems to slightly thicken and soften the transients so that the sibilance seems to soften and “ sit back into” the voice more naturally, as well as the voice rounding out a bit richer and softer. The end result is a more coherent “ natural” sounding voice to my ear.

And generally speaking the tube amps seem to bring the slightly more “ natural organic quality” making the playback seem less mechanical, reminding me more of what it’s like listening to real sound sources, rather than squeezed, mechanical artefacts.

The effect of vinyl in my system - again I’m talking about my perception - is more variable, but I’ve had similar experiences.

I’ve been listening to the group Air since the 90s, some tracks which I’ve heard a gazillion times on my system. But early on when I got a vinyl release of one of their albums and I did a comparison, I was blown away by some tracks in which the female voice on the vinyl sounded significantly more organic and human. It went from a recording to more like “ that’s a real female voice singing!”

This is of course an audiophile making a mountain out of molehills, but that’s part of our job description ;-). But I’ll never forget the thrill. And that kind of thing happened quite a lot, where I could hear technical advantages for the digital, but in certain ways, a vinyl version could sound more “ natural” to me.

 

[Galliardist]

Could be. At least a hypothesis can be made from such speculation, which ideally we would want to test. As mentioned we’ve seen a couple of vinyl/digital tests in which bias effects are uncovered, but they don’t amount to a lot of evidence for broader conclusions in scientific terms.
I don’t know that you are wrong. However, it seems to contrast with my personal perception in a number of cases.

I think recordings already sound artificial and “ like recordings.”

And that’s one reason why I enjoy my tube amplification. Because it’s my perception that the tube amplification often dilutes some of the obvious mechanical artefacts in recordings. A vocal track that for instance, featuring a vivid female voice: using neutral, solid state amplification, the artificiality and electronic sounding artefacts born of mic choices, compression, EQ, and whatever else was used, can give the singer an electronic artificial quality. But the tube amplification seems to slightly thicken and soften the transients so that the sibilance seems to soften and “ sit back into” the voice more naturally, as well as the voice rounding out a bit richer and softer. The end result is a more coherent “ natural” sounding voice to my ear.

And generally speaking the tube amps seem to bring the slightly more “ natural organic quality” making the playback seem less mechanical, reminding me more of what it’s like listening to real sound sources, rather than squeezed, mechanical artefacts.

The effect of vinyl in my system - again I’m talking about my perception - is more variable, but I’ve had similar experiences.

I'm sat in the office (no urgent work) at the moment, One of my colleagues behind me is using a noisy mouse. Click. Click. I know that it is the person behind me using a mouse. I don't have to think "what's that noise", it is fed to my conscious mind as "that's that mouse click".

Isn't most hearing like that? Almost like you know what that sound is, before you even hear it consciously. And you may "like recordings", but how does your subconscious feel about them? Is it not working hard to tell you what's really going on with the sound, drawing on sight, and goodness knows what childhood memories, and pattern matching, and its ability to recognise singing, and whatever? It doesn't tell you WHY you hear what you do, and the audiophile thing is your conscious mind post-rationalising what it's been fed, drawing on different memories and our ability to rationalise, and quite possibly getting it badly wrong.

So, since we're telling stories, let me recount one of my awkward hi-fi moments.

Back in 1986 I saw Pentangle play at a smallish club in Manchester. A high point of that show was Jacqui McShee singing completely solo, no amplification, while the rest of the band left the stage for a short break. Her voice, as you describe with your tube amps, lost some of its sibilance, had a deeper, more solid tone, and actually still filled the room. It was quite an experience, and it's stuck with me.

Fast forward to 1998, and the last hifi show I went to in the UK. That was a weird one as I remember it, with the BBC demonstrating DAB with a high bitrate "broadcast" of Radio 3 sounding excellent, and Ken Kessler of all people spruiking multichannel sound.

Anyway, I was briefly in what I remember as a dealer's room with a Sondek playing (yes, it was the UK) and a pair of smallish bookshelf speakers, and there were about a dozen people sat in the room praising the amazing sound of a Pentangle LP. I shook my head, and an older guy (probably the age I am now) noticed and asked what I thought was wrong. I replied, loud enough for at least several people to hear, "she's singing close to the microphone. Where's the sibilance?"

Stares, and I left the room. A few months later I also left the country - it was probably for the best, all things considered.

 

[Newman]

I think it was this post I had in mind. That the typical standard attainable by vinyl is low, and that the best standard available by vinyl will only be superior to digital if the digital master is very poor. The graph you posted allows for that, and this post also has wriggle room, but you appear to be claiming that the vinyl medium will, assuming similar mastering, be audibly inferior. You allow lower fidelity for the medium, and I agree in principle, but I am not sure that it will always be audibly inferior for the same level of mastering, over a normal stereo speaker system, as perceived.

Sure. It seems that we are in agreement. In my post #9495 you were replying to above, I linked my earlier post that mentions about half a dozen ways other than mastering, that someone's vinyl might be preferable to their digital, and I concluded, "Conclusion: there are numerous ways that it would be entirely understandable for any one individual to prefer vinyl over digital sonics, even in controlled listening. It would simply be wrong to insist otherwise."

So, perhaps you slightly misread my overall position. I think our views are more aligned than that.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

I linked my earlier post that mentions about half a dozen ways other than mastering, that someone's vinyl might be preferable to their digital, and I concluded, "Conclusion: there are numerous ways that it would be entirely understandable for any one individual to prefer vinyl over digital sonics, even in controlled listening. It would simply be wrong to insist otherwise."

And yet even though this aligns with
My
Carefully stated
Position
Through the whole thread, for some mystifying reason you continue to characterize my position as “ denialism” and “ science denial.” Suggesting my position here amounts to fairytales that need continual interruption with your “Facts.”

For some reason, you’ve simply refused to acknowledge clarifications to my position when you have misunderstood it, while expecting others to extend the courtesy of paying attention when you clarify your view, when you wish to correct misunderstandings.

So, perhaps you slightly misread my overall position. I think our views are more aligned than that.

If you paid similar attention to my overall position in this thread you would realize the same thing. And you would save yourself considerable time and stress by not imagining someone holds positions they don’t hold, which you imagine require your rebukes.

In fact, You wouldn’t even have to spend your time making things up!

Wouldn’t that be nice?

 

[MattHooper]

Galliardist, I’m not sure what message to draw from your story. Is it that you’ve had been conditioned to expect that a close vocal recording would be more pronounced sibilance than you actually heard? (even though it sounded natural like your previous live experience?)

I think I need help connecting your threads.

Isn't most hearing like that? Almost like you know what that sound is, before you even hear it consciously. And you may "like recordings", but how does your subconscious feel about them? Is it not working hard to tell you what's really going on with the sound, drawing on sight, and goodness knows what childhood memories, and pattern matching, and its ability to recognise singing, and whatever? It doesn't tell you WHY you hear what you do, and the audiophile thing is your conscious mind post-rationalising what it's been fed, drawing on different memories and our ability to rationalise, and quite possibly getting it badly wrong.

This seems to get into an area where we have some level of disagreement, from previous discussions. This gets into my own interest in science and philosophy, in terms of how we are to approach perception and beliefs.
If someone floats a speculation, I want to consistency test it by expanding its implications. And if it amounts to a hypothesis, then I want to be careful about examining what it can actually account for.

If I’ve read you correctly, you are suggesting a sort of sceptical hypothesis about our ability to “ know why we have the perceptions and beliefs we do” by appealing to unconscious factors.

We can both agree that bias and unconscious effects can be in play. But I’m cautious about, therefore, assuming those explanations over the ones “ we tell ourselves.”

I applied the analogy before, but:

If somebody goes about studying optical illusions, they could come to the conclusion “ now I know how our eyes work, and the conclusion is that our vision is always in error, they don’t tell us the truth, they are trustworthy, what we think we see are just pure confabulations and not delivering reliable information.”

And this person could adduce all sorts of “ evidence” for this in the form of optical illusions.

But as a hypothesis, it should be obvious that it suffers some serious problems in terms of what it would have to explain. It may very well account for the mistakes we make sometimes using our vision, but such a sceptical hypothesis about the untrustworthiness of our vision would also have to explain all the apparent success of our vision! How do people routinely pass eye exams? How do people drive successfully? Play sports? Navigate the world mostly successful day in and day out using this “ untrustworthy vision?” Why did vision even evolve in the first place if it were that untrustworthy and that deeply in error about the world?

Similar questions would have to be answered by anybody proposing that our conscious access to our “ real reasons for perceiving or believing something” is likely to be in error.

So any speculation or hypothesis is going to have to not just provide reason for scepticism: it’s going to have to count for the ongoing success and usefulness of whenever you were speculating about, whether it is our visual system, or whether it’s the access we have or not to the “ actual reasons we perceive or believe something.” (“ we could quite possibly be getting what we believe quite wrong.”)

The best explanation for why we perceive or believe something in one case may be some unconscious or bias effect and our conscious reasons could be “ wrong.”

On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where our conscious beliefs are going to be correct.

So, Unless we are going to put me into a lab, we are going to be speculating . The best we can do is: take a particular stated belief and apply a particular hypothesis to it (e.g. sceptical hypothesis), compare it to another hypothesis (EG non-skeptical hypothesis) and see which is more plausible.

And since I’m not exactly sure precisely which perception or belief of mine you were aiming at, and what specifically your hypothesis would be to explain it, I think I’m stuck there at the moment.

Cheers

 

[Galliardist]

This seems to get into an area where we have some level of disagreement, from previous discussions. This gets into my own interest in science and philosophy, in terms of how we are to approach perception and beliefs.
If someone floats a speculation, I want to consistency test it by expanding its implications. And if it amounts to a hypothesis, then I want to be careful about examining what it can actually account for.

If I’ve read you correctly, you are suggesting a sort of sceptical hypothesis about our ability to “ know why we have the perceptions and beliefs we do” by appealing to unconscious factors.

We can both agree that bias and unconscious effects can be in play. But I’m cautious about, therefore, assuming those explanations over the ones “ we tell ourselves.”

I applied the analogy before, but:

If somebody goes about studying optical illusions, they could come to the conclusion “ now I know how our eyes work, and the conclusion is that our vision is always in error, they don’t tell us the truth, they are trustworthy, what we think we see are just pure confabulations and not delivering reliable information.”

And this person could adduce all sorts of “ evidence” for this in the form of optical illusions.

But as a hypothesis, it should be obvious that it suffers some serious problems in terms of what it would have to explain. It may very well account for the mistakes we make sometimes using our vision, but such a sceptical hypothesis about the untrustworthiness of our vision would also have to explain all the apparent success of our vision! How do people routinely pass eye exams? How do people drive successfully? Play sports? Navigate the world mostly successful day in and day out using this “ untrustworthy vision?” Why did vision even evolve in the first place if it were that untrustworthy and that deeply in error about the world?

So, this is a bit of a struggle to get to where we understand each other.

I take the viewpoint that we need to be able to see to look, and we need to be able to hear to listen. But... drive successfully? play sports?... how many people do "successful drivers" kill and injure each year? I was lucky, I only ended up with a broken jaw and several missing teeth, and bad bruising and grazing/some scars, and on another occasion damaged cycle panniers and a bent wheel, from when "successful drivers" hit me, I know people who suffered far worse. "I didn't see them". My own sight is bad enough that I can't drive or play ball games with any chance of success. No, eyesight need not be perfect, yet will get us through the day mostly successfully with occasional or rare serious failings. Optical illusions are mostly harmless, of course. But some faults can be very serious indeed. And when it comes to hitting cyclists on the road, there's an interaction between conscious opinion and subconscious "not seeing", because when a driver doesn't see a cyclist it is because they don't expect a cyclist to be there.

So, from there to hearing and audiophilia. A huge amount is at play here. I've used the system analogy before: when someone reads that you sometimes find that vinyl gives you a "denser sound", the system we are reading about is not the one that produced the sound in the room, but the one that produces your words - so you are part of that. It is your perception/impression. It does not matter how you reach that conclusion, really. Since you are part of that system, and indeed the part that produces the result, we cannot be sure whether you are misreading a decision made by your subconscious hearing system, "telling yourself that story", actually reporting a change in the sound, or indeed lying your head off (which you wouldn't do, of course, but I include for completeness). Nor would we know, without solid information, what would be causing any of this.
But... if it is anything other than lying your head off, your subconscious hearing is involved in some way: either confirming your belief, or setting the agenda.

For example, I suspect we've all at some point heard a result of a change that we weren't expecting, or at least read a post in a forum where someone arrives with an unusual claim, and when told it may be bias, says "but I expected the opposite result". These cases at least suggest that the "stories we tell ourselves" are not the whole, er, story.

But what does that mean for our hearing? Is it a mess? Absolutely not. If I listen to a recording of a piece of music, I can hear the speed it's being played at. I can, if not presented with something new, determine what instruments are being played. Mostly, I can hear what someone is singing. I can tell if the piano is being played loud or soft. I can hear if an acoustic or classical guitarist is playing with their plucking hand at the bridge, over the soundhole, or up over the fretboard. I can tell how the drummer is striking the cymbals, hear the breathing of a close miked woodwind player, hear a mass of first violins, tell if a pattern is sampled or being played, through slight changes. I can hear if the instrument is in or out of tune. And it doesn't actually matter for most of those things if I am listening to an Echo Dot or you are listening on your finely honed stereo in your treated listening room. Those things will be there and they will be the same experience, as far as it goes.

But reproducing a soundstage using speakers - that is an auditory illusion, and instead of noting that it happens as with those optical illusions, we are attempting to use that illusion to our advantage. Really, it's in that illusory space that much of our hifi issues and subjectivity sit. So it's hardly surprising that we suddenly run into speaker and room setups, subconscious issues and the stories we tell ourselves... being wrong.

As for my story, it was about what we expect from our systems being different. I expect to hear some sibilance on recorded vocals because of my experience, and you seek a more "real" vocal because of yours. I'm "objectivist" enough to live with a warts-and-all experience, for good or ill - a bad master is a bad master but the music is still there in the end.

 

[MattHooper]

Inventor of MP3 Says He Sees No Real Sound Benefit in Vinyl Over Digital​

Inventor of MP3 Says He Sees No Real Sound Benefit in Vinyl Over Digital

For Brandenburg, vinyl’s appeal is more in the mind than the ears.

www.headphonesty.com

 

[Galliardist]

Inventor of MP3 Says He Sees No Real Sound Benefit in Vinyl Over Digital​

Inventor of MP3 Says He Sees No Real Sound Benefit in Vinyl Over Digital

For Brandenburg, vinyl’s appeal is more in the mind than the ears.

www.headphonesty.com

His system's not resolving enough!

 

[Axo1989]

But what does that mean for our hearing? Is it a mess? Absolutely not. If I listen to a recording of a piece of music, I can hear the speed it's being played at. I can, if not presented with something new, determine what instruments are being played. Mostly, I can hear what someone is singing. I can tell if the piano is being played loud or soft. I can hear if an acoustic or classical guitarist is playing with their plucking hand at the bridge, over the soundhole, or up over the fretboard. I can tell how the drummer is striking the cymbals, hear the breathing of a close miked woodwind player, hear a mass of first violins, tell if a pattern is sampled or being played, through slight changes. I can hear if the instrument is in or out of tune. And it doesn't actually matter for most of those things if I am listening to an Echo Dot or you are listening on your finely honed stereo in your treated listening room. Those things will be there and they will be the same experience, as far as it goes.

But reproducing a soundstage using speakers - that is an auditory illusion, and instead of noting that it happens as with those optical illusions, we are attempting to use that illusion to our advantage. Really, it's in that illusory space that much of our hifi issues and subjectivity sit. So it's hardly surprising that we suddenly run into speaker and room setups, subconscious issues and the stories we tell ourselves... being wrong.

The first paragraph I agree with, for the most part. We can certainly hear and recognise those things. I wouldn't say "the same experience" between lo-fi and hi-fi reproduction of course, we will hear the full frequency spectrum, more dynamic range, etc with the latter. But our categorical perception can recognise and analyse all those things you list.

I think you lose the plot in the next paragraph. Yes, soundstage is an illusion. But it is also—and simply—an integral part of the recording, production and reproduction of all those things you list in the preceding text. The breathing of the woodwind player is close. The violin may be off to the left. The piano may reverberate in the recording and reproduction space and so on. But not only these nuances of location and recording space, but everything else, is an illusion.

There is no singer, piano, guitar bridge, sound hole, fretboard, cymbal, woodwind, breathing, violin, etc in the listening room at all. They are not there. They are all recorded illusions. The narrative that separates soundstage from the sounds that make it up is a nonsense.

 

[AdrianusG]

His system's not resolving enough!

Ehm, I sometimes buy Vinyl new, just for the fun of it, (and only when i think the prize right), I then immediately make a copy of that pristine vinyl to MD (Mini-Disk) which is supposed to be lower in quality than Mp3 320 right?
you know how much difference i hear between the Vinyl and the copy, ...nothing! or perhaps ever so slightly when i listen with headphones i think, probably just bias, but nothing serious, no veils lifted, so there's that.

 

[Galliardist]

The first paragraph I agree with, for the most part. We can certainly hear and recognise those things. I wouldn't say "the same experience" between lo-fi and hi-fi reproduction of course, we will hear the full frequency spectrum, more dynamic range, etc with the latter. But our categorical perception can recognise and analyse all those things you list.

I think you lose the plot in the next paragraph. Yes, soundstage is an illusion. But it is also—and simply—an integral part of the recording, production and reproduction of all those things you list in the preceding text. The breathing of the woodwind player is close. The violin may be off to the left. The piano may reverberate in the recording and reproduction space and so on. But not only these nuances of location and recording space, but everything else, is an illusion.

There is no singer, piano, guitar bridge, sound hole, fretboard, cymbal, woodwind, breathing, violin, etc in the listening room at all. They are not there. They are all recorded illusions. The narrative that separates soundstage from the sounds that make it up is a nonsense.

I'll give you some of this. However, stop for a moment and think about source and illusion. There is still a difference between the things that can be heard in a mono source - the speaker plays back the tones of the recording - and things played over a source with more than one speaker. The sound of a mono speaker exists on its own terms: the stereo/multichannel illusion relies on us hearing sounds from somewhere other than the location of the speakers. It is in fact a big difference.

You are right that the clues for the stereo or multichannel illusion are in the stereo or multichannel recording. But in two channel stereo, there is no centre speaker that represents the singer. On one of my standard test recordings, I listen for a harpsichord that is positioned behind and slightly inside the right speaker. There is no speaker behind the speakers. It is qualitatively different.

 

[Galliardist]

Ehm, I sometimes buy Vinyl new, just for the fun of it, (and only when i think the prize right), I then immediately make a copy of that pristine vinyl to MD (Mini-Disk) which is supposed to be lower in quality than Mp3 320 right?
you know how much difference i hear between the Vinyl and the copy, ...nothing! or perhaps ever so slightly when i listen with headphones i think, probably just bias, but nothing serious, no veils lifted, so there's that.

I was being facetious. There's no way, given my dozens of past posts in this thread (and you've replied to some of them) that I would actually believe what I wrote then...

 

[AdrianusG]

I was being facetious. There's no way, given my dozens of past posts in this thread (and you've replied to some of them) that I would actually believe what I wrote then...

My post was not in reaction to you specific, (sorry if i made that impression) it was meant more general, just to say that I personally have never heard anything "superior" from Vinyl, but probably my system, especially the TT is not High-End enough then i guess lol

 

[Axo1989]

I'll give you some of this. However, stop for a moment and think about source and illusion. There is still a difference between the things that can be heard in a mono source - the speaker plays back the tones of the recording - and things played over a source with more than one speaker. The sound of a mono speaker exists on its own terms: the stereo/multichannel illusion relies on us hearing sounds from somewhere other than the location of the speakers. It is in fact a big difference.

You are right that the clues for the stereo or multichannel illusion are in the stereo or multichannel recording. But in two channel stereo, there is no centre speaker that represents the singer. On one of my standard test recordings, I listen for a harpsichord that is positioned behind and slightly inside the right speaker. There is no speaker behind the speakers. It is qualitatively different.

Yes, there are qualitative differences between mono and stereo, of course. As long as we are not calling a recorded violin reproduced via two loudspeakers illusion, and one reproduced via one loudspeaker not-illusion.

I do think your distinction, that mono "exists on its own terms" (versus stereo) is somewhat reductive. Mono reproduction creates a sound field in the room (and mono does not entirely lack spatial cues, and also creates reflections). You hear it at the listening position, not at the loudspeaker.

 

[Galliardist]

Yes, there are qualitative differences between mono and stereo, of course. As long as we are not calling a recorded violin reproduced via two loudspeakers illusion, and one reproduced via one loudspeaker not-illusion. I think your distinction, that mono "exists on its own terms" (versus stereo) is somewhat reductive. Mono reproduction creates a sound field in the room (and mono does not entirely lack spatial cues, and also creates reflections). You hear it at the listening position, not at the loudspeaker.

The distinction stands, though, even if you object to the language I'm using to describe it, and the nature of the illusion is different, if you'd prefer that wording.

 

[MattHooper]

I take the viewpoint that we need to be able to see to look, and we need to be able to hear to listen. But... drive successfully? play sports?... how many people do "successful drivers" kill and injure each year? I was lucky, I only ended up with a broken jaw and several missing teeth, and bad bruising and grazing/some scars, and on another occasion damaged cycle panniers and a bent wheel, from when "successful drivers" hit me, I know people who suffered far worse. "I didn't see them". My own sight is bad enough that I can't drive or play ball games with any chance of success. No, eyesight need not be perfect, yet will get us through the day mostly successfully with occasional or rare serious failings. Optical illusions are mostly harmless, of course. But some faults can be very serious indeed. And when it comes to hitting cyclists on the road, there's an interaction between conscious opinion and subconscious "not seeing", because when a driver doesn't see a cyclist it is because they don't expect a cyclist to be there.

Right. Cool. Is our visual system infallible. No. Is it generally speaking reliable? Yes. We aren’t going to be announcing anytime soon that there will be no more sports or driving cars because “ human vision just isn’t reliable enough.”

And again, since you are getting at the idea of skepticism over to what degree we are conscious of the reasons we think or perceive something, to put more of my cards on the table…

It’s really common in philosophical debates about consciousness, free wil etc., for a sceptical case to be made about the nature of consciousness. This will usually appeal to various experiments and studies that have shown how we have unconscious influences of which we are unaware. For this house split brain research shows one side of the brain confabulating about what the other part did and why. Priming studies (e.g. how different smells can subconsciously influence behaviour, the “ hungry judge effect” and more). The conclusion drawn is that this reveals the nature of our consciousness. We don’t truly have access to the reasons we do things: our subconscious is in the driver seat moved by whatever it is moved by, and our consciousness simply confabulates “ just so stories” and telling ourselves why we think do or perceived something.

And I will point out. The sceptical thesis has some massive heavy lifting to do in terms of what it actually has to account for. It’s essentially the same position as the sceptical thesis about our eyesight drawn from optical illusions, which would have to account for all of our success just as well as it would for failures.

So for instance, if you are interested in the design of the latest Mars Rover, and you want all of its features explained and how they successfully got it to Mars, you would have many discussions with the NASA engineers, who can tell you the justifications for each feature, on what basis they made their decisions, the physics involved, the challenges, the results of experiments, staying within budgets, etc. In other words, they will be giving you the reasons they are CONSCIOUS of having for all those decisions. And that reasoning will be an incredibly tight, coherent, plausible fit for all the features of the Mars mission. And it will fit very coherently and explaining both past Mars Rover designs, and help predict quite a bit about future rover designs.

On the other hand, how could the sceptical thesis of consciousness account for the same observations? If the engineers are not conscious of the actual reasons they did anything, if the stories they told you were all confabulations, what “ unconscious biases/influences” narrative could possibly take its place? “ John was influenced by the smell of fresh bake cookies for this one you see, and Susan had had an argument with her husband the night before making that decision, and George had a really rough childhood which explains the results of some of his equations…”??

There would be no way to produce a plausible counter narrative of how any number of random influences could’ve achieved the coherent design and goals by that NAA team.

The point is that, yes, of course we always have to acknowledge that there is “ noise in the system” whether it has to do with the perception of our senses, or cognitive biases or whatever. But our senses and cognition proved evolutionarily useful to the degree they could rise above the noise enough to be useful. Every hypothesis is going to have to count for the success as much as the failures, so we can’t lose sight of the relevance of the success.

Part of the point of going to that is because it underlies one of my pet themes on this forum as well when we come to questions about coming to conclusions in informal settings versus under scientific controls.

In the end, as I see it, we would have to in on any particular claim or belief, and talk about plausible hypotheses that both acknowledges what we know scientifically about biases, as well as the big picture of “ not throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and going too far down a fully sceptical of thesis.

That blather out of the way…

So, from there to hearing and audiophilia. A huge amount is at play here. I've used the system analogy before: when someone reads that you sometimes find that vinyl gives you a "denser sound", the system we are reading about is not the one that produced the sound in the room, but the one that produces your words - so you are part of that. It is your perception/impression. It does not matter how you reach that conclusion, really. Since you are part of that system, and indeed the part that produces the result, we cannot be sure whether you are misreading a decision made by your subconscious hearing system, "telling yourself that story", actually reporting a change in the sound, or indeed lying your head off (which you wouldn't do, of course, but I include for completeness).

Yes, I agree. In particular for my claim about “ more solid sounding.” In this case.
it’s a very weak claim in terms of any evidence put forth. That’s why I try not to leverage it beyond my own subjective impression with my own system (and a degree with another system have done such comparisons).

Yes, I do believe I am hearing some combination of added texture and perhaps frequency response character of my cartridge and maybe some aspects of the vinyl itself the mastering… and I can’t say that you would hear at the same as I would. I can only report the impression I have, and I like the impression I have. (though I have seen other audio files mentioned the same impression). I think it’s hard to go any further on such a weak claim.

I think perhaps a richer example would be what I described about my impression of the tube sound. I described how to tube amps in my systems seem to sound more “ natural, and organic” in certain respects. Are the sonic differences completely imagination?
I can’t say that’s not the case for my tube amplifiers since I’ve never blind tested them, but I did detect similar qualities with my tube preamplifier under blind conditions.

But let’s say for the sake of argument the two tube amps are colouring the sound somewhat. Why do I interpret this the way I do, “ added texture, richer, rounder, more organic, more natural balance in some aspects of recordings, slightly more realistic sense of “ sound sources occurring in real space”…

I’ve had these amps for about 23 years.
If I’ve lived with coloured sound that long. Maybe it is influenced me to prefer that as my benchmark. So something that departs a bit from this could sound “ less natural.”

That’s possible.

On the other hand, I got those amps after many years of using solid state amplification, and that didn’t stop me noticing the qualities listed above, that got me to prefer and switch to the tube amps.

Perhaps I fallen for some of the tube app sound myths, and that has influenced my thinking “ it sounds a bit more natural.”

Again could be.

On the other hand, I have been paying attention for a long time to the sound of live acoustic sound sources versus reproduced, constantly comparing the two, and I have built up some characteristics that I noted about the sound of real instruments playing in real space, and it seemed to me my tube amps slightly nudged the sound in that direction (while also detracting from realism and some other areas - can’t have it all - I believe not everybody doing the same comparisons I’ve done would necessarily select the tube amplification signal as sounding any more real. Individual listeners bringing their own criteria to judge which set of imperfections they can live with.).

My informal working hypothesis is that, yeah, I’m not just imagining absolutely everything, and I think I’ve come to certain insights as to how and why I like the sound I like. And since I’ve been analytical about listening to sound, I think I’m generally conscious of why I like what I like. That’s all within the context that of course I could be wrong.

(apologies for all phone dictated spelling errors, and formatting)

 

[Galliardist]

Right. Cool. Is our visual system infallible. No. Is it generally speaking reliable? Yes. We aren’t going to be announcing anytime soon that there will be no more sports or driving cars because “ human vision just isn’t reliable enough.”

And again, since you are getting at the idea of skepticism over to what degree we are conscious of the reasons we think or perceive something, to put more of my cards on the table…

It’s really common in philosophical debates about consciousness, free wil etc., for a sceptical case to be made about the nature of consciousness. This will usually appeal to various experiments and studies that have shown how we have unconscious influences of which we are unaware. For this house split brain research shows one side of the brain confabulating about what the other part did and why. Priming studies (e.g. how different smells can subconsciously influence behaviour, the “ hungry judge effect” and more). The conclusion drawn is that this reveals the nature of our consciousness. We don’t truly have access to the reasons we do things: our subconscious is in the driver seat moved by whatever it is moved by, and our consciousness simply confabulates “ just so stories” and telling ourselves why we think do or perceived something.

And I will point out. The sceptical thesis has some massive heavy lifting to do in terms of what it actually has to account for. It’s essentially the same position as the sceptical thesis about our eyesight drawn from optical illusions, which would have to account for all of our success just as well as it would for failures.

So for instance, if you are interested in the design of the latest Mars Rover, and you want all of its features explained and how they successfully got it to Mars, you would have many discussions with the NASA engineers, who can tell you the justifications for each feature, on what basis they made their decisions, the physics involved, the challenges, the results of experiments, staying within budgets, etc. In other words, they will be giving you the reasons they are CONSCIOUS of having for all those decisions. And that reasoning will be an incredibly tight, coherent, plausible fit for all the features of the Mars mission. And it will fit very coherently and explaining both past Mars Rover designs, and help predict quite a bit about future rover designs.

On the other hand, how could the sceptical thesis of consciousness account for the same observations? If the engineers are not conscious of the actual reasons they did anything, if the stories they told you were all confabulations, what “ unconscious biases/influences” narrative could possibly take its place? “ John was influenced by the smell of fresh bake cookies for this one you see, and Susan had had an argument with her husband the night before making that decision, and George had a really rough childhood which explains the results of some of his equations…”??

There would be no way to produce a plausible counter narrative of how any number of random influences could’ve achieved the coherent design and goals by that NAA team.

The point is that, yes, of course we always have to acknowledge that there is “ noise in the system” whether it has to do with the perception of our senses, or cognitive biases or whatever. But our senses and cognition proved evolutionarily useful to the degree they could rise above the noise enough to be useful. Every hypothesis is going to have to count for the success as much as the failures, so we can’t lose sight of the relevance of the success.

Part of the point of going to that is because it underlies one of my pet themes on this forum as well when we come to questions about coming to conclusions in informal settings versus under scientific controls.

In the end, as I see it, we would have to in on any particular claim or belief, and talk about plausible hypotheses that both acknowledges what we know scientifically about biases, as well as the big picture of “ not throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and going too far down a fully sceptical of thesis.

That blather out of the way…




Yes, I agree. In particular for my claim about “ more solid sounding.” In this case.
it’s a very weak claim in terms of any evidence put forth. That’s why I try not to leverage it beyond my own subjective impression with my own system (and a degree with another system have done such comparisons).

Yes, I do believe I am hearing some combination of added texture and perhaps frequency response character of my cartridge and maybe some aspects of the vinyl itself the mastering… and I can’t say that you would hear at the same as I would. I can only report the impression I have, and I like the impression I have. (though I have seen other audio files mentioned the same impression). I think it’s hard to go any further on such a weak claim.

I think perhaps a richer example would be what I described about my impression of the tube sound. I described how to tube amps in my systems seem to sound more “ natural, and organic” in certain respects. Are the sonic differences completely imagination?
I can’t say that’s not the case for my tube amplifiers since I’ve never blind tested them, but I did detect similar qualities with my tube preamplifier under blind conditions.

But let’s say for the sake of argument the two tube amps are colouring the sound somewhat. Why do I interpret this the way I do, “ added texture, richer, rounder, more organic, more natural balance in some aspects of recordings, slightly more realistic sense of “ sound sources occurring in real space”…

I’ve had these amps for about 23 years.
If I’ve lived with coloured sound that long. Maybe it is influenced me to prefer that as my benchmark. So something that departs a bit from this could sound “ less natural.”

That’s possible.

On the other hand, I got those amps after many years of using solid state amplification, and that didn’t stop me noticing the qualities listed above, that got me to prefer and switch to the tube amps.

Perhaps I fallen for some of the tube app sound myths, and that has influenced my thinking “ it sounds a bit more natural.”

Again could be.

On the other hand, I have been paying attention for a long time to the sound of live acoustic sound sources versus reproduced, constantly comparing the two, and I have built up some characteristics that I noted about the sound of real instruments playing in real space, and it seemed to me my tube amps slightly nudged the sound in that direction (while also detracting from realism and some other areas - can’t have it all - I believe not everybody doing the same comparisons I’ve done would necessarily select the tube amplification signal as sounding any more real. Individual listeners bringing their own criteria to judge which set of imperfections they can live with.).

My informal working hypothesis is that, yeah, I’m not just imagining absolutely everything, and I think I’ve come to certain insights as to how and why I like the sound I like. And since I’ve been analytical about listening to sound, I think I’m generally conscious of why I like what I like. That’s all within the context that of course I could be wrong.

(apologies for all phone dictated spelling errors, and formatting)

There's a severe danger of going round and round in circles here.

To start off with, I do subscribe to the idea that the parts of our brains that we are not conscious of does a lot of the heavy lifting in day to day life. Can you imagine the alternative? Think what it would take to make every single discernment, decision, action, actively. To need to think consciously about every sound you hear: is that a voice, is that a car horn, is that behind or in front of me... To have to consciously decide if what is in front of you is a red light or a green one. To have to keep thinking "breath in, breathe out, heartbeat, heartbeat, heartbeat...".

I don't deny that our senses get most things right. I've said that about hearing, and I'll say that about seeing. Sometimes, though, they don't. We don't have to make a big thing about that. And our subconscious has to present details and information quickly and in a relevant manner. Imagine, again, if our hearing had to give us the equivalent of a twenty page form detailing how it decided that a particular tone from a stereo system was more or less "real" - all the life experiences, whether we saw a particular thing that set off a positive or negative reaction, how the other sounds (or whatever) fed into the decision, and so on and so on. It might make understanding what is going on there easier, but that, for every note and sound in a long piece of music? It doesn't make sense (pun not intended). As for confabulating "just so stories", our conscious only does such things if we perceive that we need to. Most of what we experience just happens, and combinations may be pleasing, concerning, whatever.

It seems you are attaching two things to your claim that don't have to be there. Firstly, you are saying that "because our eyesight occasionally or even regularly makes a particular mistake, it is inherently unreliable for all purposes". That's wrong. We can of course have eyesight that works 99% of the time, and we can observe when it is most likely to let us down, and compensate for those things. My eyesight has additional unreliabilities over most which rules out some activities for me. That doesn't mean that in other areas my eyesight is also unreliable. I can read what I'm typing on the screen as well as most people and I can trust that, even if I can't judge where a fast moving vehicle is relative to me in one of the mirrors If I try to drive. The latter is a handicap, of course. No driving for me... but my eyes are reliable for most activities and I can spot the ones where they don't soon enough.

To address the Mars Rover example you give. Isn't this about the principles of engineering design? A Mars Rover will be built in advance of, and specified tightly for, a particular job. It doesn't matter that John or Mary "liked a particular capacitor" on that day. A team of engineers and scientists lay down a specification. Each component of the design gets tested to meet its specification, subassemblies have to meet their speciifcation and are tested, and so on. If someone chooses the wrong part or plugs it in incorrectly because breakfast that morning tasted funny, any error will get caught in checking the design, quality control, testing. In other words, no matter what "really happened", the conscious story dominates and is a sufficient description of the process.

But your audio system hasn't been assembled that way, has it? We mostly actually let that other form of decision making based on a subjective impression into the process of choosing our systems. We do things like sighted selection of components and systems in a very different environment to our own. We allow our subconscious to tell us what is happening, and then, as you put it, we invent a story of why we heard that. In fact, many designers of audio equipment do their design work that way. That's not the Mars Rover, is it? Then we ignore the quality control, because of course it's done by measurements that "don't tell the story". One result is that our systems are always a work in progress, waiting for the next "upgrade" that is far too often chosen because... maybe from a story told by a reviewer, maybe what the person in the store told us, maybe because that particular speaker was in a decent room at the show and most of the others weren't, Who knows?

And, indeed, the last part of your answer fits into that latter description. You chose your amps - how? At a show? In a dealer room? At a friend's house? After reading a review? Then you have embedded them. I presume your room, which came later, is to an extent tuned to your amps and the speakers you had at the time. Your speakers are chosen because they work with those amps. And, yes, 23 years sounds like long enough to embed a different sound as a preference. But the point isn't that. The point is that you don't seem to know.

Comment- that would seem to be no way to build a Mars Rover.

Question - the audio system has different goals, and some of those goals may be subjective. So is it a better way to build an audio system than a Mars Rover?

 

[MattHooper]

I do subscribe to the idea that the parts of our brains that we are not conscious of does a lot of the heavy lifting in day to day life.

Sure, I take that to be a given. There’s a lot of automatic stuff going on. We may not actually be able to give reasons why we did certain things when we are “ riding on automatic.” However, we are also capable of focussed, linear, deliberative reasoning. So to understand why we did or felt something is always going to come down to specific examples, in terms of how we understand our actual motivations.

Firstly, you are saying that "because our eyesight occasionally or even regularly makes a particular mistake, it is inherently unreliable for all purposes".

No precisely the opposite. I was not arguing for that proposition: I was arguing against that proposition. That was the whole point, using that as a reductio ad absurdum Illustrating a poorly thought-out hypothesis. It’s an exaggerated example of the liabilities in weighting scepticism too heavily in a thesis or explanation. So everything you wrote afterwards in that paragraph is what I agree with.

A Mars Rover will be built in advance of, and specified tightly for, a particular job.

And the plan, the design choices for every single bit of technology on that rover would’ve been the result of focused, linear deliberative reasoning. The engineer’s conscious understanding of why they made those choices will best explain those design choices.

Question - the audio system has different goals, and some of those goals may be subjective. So is it a better way to build an audio system than a Mars Rover?

Depends on the goal. Again, we are speaking to whether in any specific instance one can know why we have made a certain decision or come to a certain conclusion.

If you take for instance and ASR member who has the goal of putting together an accurate and neutral system, you will likely get an essentially accurate account from that person as to why they made their choices. What specs they were looking for, why, the financial and practical constraints they were working within, the features they valued, etc.

I would give you a similar account of how I put together my system. For instance, just taking one choice: why did I replace my Thiel 3.7 speakers with my Joseph speakers?

It’s because the Thiel speakers proved to be too large for my room in terms of my aesthetic goals, and in terms of ergonomics.
My right channel speaker has to be placed near the room opening, and the big Thiels proved to be too deep and therefore blocked the entranceway. So I needed a smaller shallower speaker to solve those problems.
The Joseph speakers solved those problems.

Where they’re all sorts of unconscious processes involved? No doubt. do I have conscious access to the essentially accurate reasons for why I changed the speakers?
Yes. My conscious explanation will be a better fit than any unconscious “ different story” I suggest you could concoct.

Similarly, my reason for buying my Conrad Johnson monoblocks: I had started off with a 45w CJ integrated tube amplifier and the 90s.
They worked fine for the speaker I owned, but I began testing out more speakers in my room (for a review magazine) and That amplifier seemed to have trouble driving some of those more difficult to drive speakers. Since I’m very much liked the CJ tube sound, but I needed more power, it made sense to me to purchase a more powerful CJ amp. And I got exactly what I wanted: the more powerful mono blocks were able to drive all those different speakers without “ wimping out” while providing me with the tube sound I enjoyed.

Once again, Is there unconscious “ noise” in that system? Sure. But in terms of explanations, I suggest the reasons I am conscious of map better to explaining my choice than some alternative unconscious account that you might devise.

And, yes, 23 years sounds like long enough to embed a different sound as a preference. But the point isn't that. The point is that you don't seem to know.

I disagree. To acknowledge “ I could be wrong wrong” doesn’t mean that a conclusion isn’t justified. We could be wrong about anything: that’s why we have ways of justifying conclusions even in the face of a lack of Absolute Certainty: we use heuristics like plausibility, coherence, explanatory power, etc.

So to me, my working hypothesis of why I chose my amps and reasons I gave for preferring the tube sound are justified enough.