1. WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

Discussion in 'Audio Reference Library' started by amirm, May 22, 2017.

  1. amirm

    amirm Founder/Admin CFO (Chief Fun Officer) Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    8,622
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Location:
    Seattle Area
    Now there is work of art if I ever saw one! :)
     
  2. Thomas savage

    Thomas savage Moderator Moderator The Watchman

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    630
    Location:
    uk, taunton
    I often end up with something similar on a Sunday afternoon but my work is more.., abstract lacking the uniformity of this piece .
     
    amirm and oivavoi like this.
  3. Wombat

    Wombat Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2017
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Australia

    I do try but subjectivise is not my prime language.
     
  4. BE718

    BE718 Major Contributor forum experimenter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    260
    I think youll find there are quite measureable and distinct differences between the screens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  5. BE718

    BE718 Major Contributor forum experimenter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    260

    I dont understand what your first paragraph means.

    I disagree, we do know. If you add unquantified distortions at replay you only worsen fidelity. Your own comments confirm that you dont know the original distortion so how can you correctly compensate? Whatever you do It will also be incorrect for the next recording. It just makes no sense to do so.

    I think its a poor choice of phrase on my behalf, it implies there is no situation where a non nuetral speaker could be preferred, however the testing was carried out with different recordings with the same end result, neutral wins.

    WRT to fidelity v preference people seem unable to seperate the two. A neutral speaker is higher fidelity. Period. Audiophiles have sometimes bizarre concepts of what a system should sound like, usually influenced by the visual and product biases. Yet take those stimuli away........

    Ok, most digital sources are flat as a pancake wrt frequency response. If a cd player showed up in stereophile with a frequency response like a typical speaker it would be panned from a technical and subjective POV. Why do you object to a speaker being faithful to the applied signal?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
    Cosmik likes this.
  6. BE718

    BE718 Major Contributor forum experimenter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    260
    No, audiophiles buy records that deliver their personal interpretation of "good sound quality". Myself, I buy music I like for artistic reasons.

    If an applied fixed replay distortion is unquantified ref the original, then the end result is random.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  7. Cosmik

    Cosmik Major Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    UK
    The aim of screen technology is presumably to get the best black possible, the best linearity, the smoothest colour graduations, the highest possible brightness, the fastest response, widest viewing angle, lowest power consumption and so on. It has a job to do, and is designed specifically to achieve it.

    If a newer technology with ostensibly better specs doesn't seem quite as nice as an older one, there may be several reasons:
    1. It may be better in respect of most of the specs, but not in a couple of crucial areas - maybe the new blue emitter is not quite as pure as the old LCD, or whatever.
    2. The new technology reveals a weakness of the specs themselves
    3. People are simply used to the older technology and think they prefer it - for now.
    4. Content has been optimised for the older technology and needs 're-mapping' for the deeper blacks, etc.
    Most of the time I would bet that the eventual shake-out is that newer technology develops rapidly and achieves universally better specs than the old one, and people eventually prefer it.

    But not in hi-fi! I strongly suspect that domestic audio follows a different path: instead of technology being developed to meet a clear requirement, existing 'craft-based' historical technologies are pored over, debated, tested, tweaked and modified. I would bet that most hi-fi practitioners and customers are strongly influenced by mythology ("Nothing sounds as good as an electrostatic!" "Big drivers sound so slow!" "Digital sounds so metallic!"), and that that influences their choices from then on. The market is just too small for the scorched earth approach of megabucks corporations that results in 100" OLED televisions for $2000.
     
    BE718 and oivavoi like this.
  8. Analog Scott

    Analog Scott Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    30
    You also got to check the factory presets which are usually skewed towards a sensational picture quality. Sensational in all the wrong ways
     
    BE718 and Cosmik like this.
  9. Cosmik

    Cosmik Major Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    UK
    Yes! If a new screen can be brighter than the old one, they will turn it up to the max because they can.
     
  10. svart-hvitt

    svart-hvitt Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2017
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    38
    This is crazy semantics. Of course, Toole’s sentence can be read as you wish. However, most people find Toole’s short sentence meaningful.
     
  11. Analog Scott

    Analog Scott Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    30
  12. Analog Scott

    Analog Scott Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    30
    That was his sentence?
     
  13. Cosmik

    Cosmik Major Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    UK
    Yes, and there is also the opposite effect: that broadcasters and programme makers use 25 fps to make 'soap opera' look more expensive like film, throwing away the immediacy and atmosphere that 50 fps gives you. Ironically, with TVs that interpolate it back up to 50fps, the effect is probably wasted - but the quality will be slightly lower of course.
     
  14. svart-hvitt

    svart-hvitt Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2017
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    38
    The bold one.

    It’s as if unless people don’t write with mathematical precision, you don’t get it. Remember, semantics isn’t science.
     
  15. Soniclife

    Soniclife Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    For drama productions I think it's interlaced vs progressive that probably forced the TV companies, the tools to do effects probably need or prefer progressive, worldwide sales might be a factor as well, and I'm not aware of 50p ever being a broadcast standard.
     
  16. Analog Scott

    Analog Scott Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    30
    There was no bold sentence.

    I would have thought clarity of communication would be encouraged on a forum that is about science. It isn't that I don't get the assertion. It's that I find problems with it. Discussions about science work better with clear and accurate assertions.
     
  17. fas42

    fas42 Major Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,649
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    Australia
    The way I got an old-fashioned LCD unit, many years old, to work for me was to adjust the back light intensity so that in a dark environment at night, that a pure black signal was barely discernable versus the set switched off - so, I had the best range of blacks to work with from go. Make sure the highest brightness of white was just triggered - and I now had optimum contrast. Final stage, get the colours to be Goldilocks right - and I've been happy ever since ... no upgrade lust whatsoever, when looking at the latest and greatest in the stores, etc.
     
  18. Wombat

    Wombat Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2017
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Australia
    Judging a TV in a store is nigh impossible with the bright fluorescent lighting and the 'display' settings of each brand, side-by-side, looking to stand out from the crowd. The sales environment is somewhat meaningless for critical assessment. I know a guy who gets called out to attend to customer's complaints re not being able to get brightness and contrast adjustments 'right' and he usually find they are using the 'display' setting.

    'If in doubt read the instructions' is still valid.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017
    Analog Scott likes this.
  19. Jakob1863

    Jakob1863 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Germany
    Sorry, i corrected it for enhanced clarification.

    I beg your pardon, but you just inverted my argument. I questioned your assertion that linear (?totally?) loudspeaker/electronics would deliver the highest degree of fidelity in reproduction. I didn´t say that the addition of unquantified distortions would be generally better or generally deliver a higher degree of fidelity, because as i wrote, we don´t know (in general) about the distortion already embedded in the recording.

    Analogscott linked to the page before, Sean Olive showed one of the graphs from Mäkivirta´s study:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gs...crAglRR4g/s1600-h/Makivirta+and+Anet+2001.png

    which shows the large variation between the different monitoring rooms. A totally linear reproduction would already depart from even the median curve to significant degree.
    Obviously it depends if a "not so linear" reproduction would be preferred. If you could find in Olive´s blogpost it is even more difficult considering the additional attributes affecting for example ASW and LEV.

    Of course people have sometimes quite diverging/bizarre concepts in mind but to certain degree that is justified not at least because individuals can be quite different and listening to the usual reproduction of music and evaluation depends on many factors. We should not forget that even a totally linear reproduction with a two channel stereophonic system is still a very distorted version of the reality and the final arbiter for the individual degree of percepted "fidelity" is the individuum, As said earlier in discussions with cosmic, development is often driven by majority decisions and so it is a given that some individuals would take/prefer another route.

    Must be a misunderstanding because i don´t object to it; i just objected to the assertion that is _delivers_ per se a higher degree of fidelity. :)
     
  20. Analog Scott

    Analog Scott Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    30
    No, it's not neccessarily random. Simple examples. A person who is older and has some hearing loss may prefer a system that has built in compression and a rise in the high frequencies. That would compensate for their hearing loss. That would not be a "random' choice of colorations. Someone may simply really like bright compressed sound so they buy a system that is bright and compressed. That is not random. It's preference. People do have some individualistic taste and not everyone hears exactly the same way.
     

Share This Page