Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[Cosmik]

It does seem odd that it needs to be debated. It is obvious to me that "high fidelity" means accurate reproduction of the signal. If this sounded rubbish on most recordings then that would be evidence of a de facto pre-emphasis and de-emphasis going in the overall chain that should be formalised, not left to random choices of historic technology.

But it doesn't sound rubbish *and* it can be stated that a neutral system maximises the transfer of information from the recording; any form of noise, distortion, stereo crosstalk, etc. results in a loss of information;

This means that many audiophiles are saying they prefer to remove precious information in the recording that was captured at the actual event, and to replace it with noise (distortion artefacts, etc.) generated by a dumb machine! An observation: do audiophiles think subconsciously that yes, it is preferable to discard information from a $10 event/recording if it is being replaced by much classier 'information' from some highly polished gold-plated $10,000 box?

 

[Analog Scott]

It does seem odd that it needs to be debated. It is obvious to me that "high fidelity" means accurate reproduction of the signal. If this sounded rubbish on most recordings then that would be evidence of a de facto pre-emphasis and de-emphasis going in the overall chain that should be formalised, not left to random choices of historic technology.

But it doesn't sound rubbish *and* it can be stated that a neutral system maximises the transfer of information from the recording; any form of noise, distortion, stereo crosstalk, etc. results in a loss of information;

This means that many audiophiles are saying they prefer to remove precious information in the recording that was captured at the actual event, and to replace it with noise (distortion artefacts, etc.) generated by a dumb machine! An observation: do audiophiles think subconsciously that yes, it is preferable to discard information from a $10 event/recording if it is being replaced by much classier 'information' from some highly polished gold-plated $10,000 box?

Maybe it just sounds better to them.

 

[Cosmik]

Maybe it just sounds better to them.

What do we mean by "it"? It is no longer the recording they are listening to, but effectively the output of a dumb 'algorithm'. If a listener likes the sound of a dumb algorithm (remember we are now not talking about 'correction' of the recording) then the world is their oyster. While performing scientific listening tests to establish preference, why not also check whether the listeners prefer it when some autotuning is applied, or some auto-generated wind-chimes?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Toole’s latest book has a wide selection of charts evidencing closing of gaps between speakers in certain respects over the past decades. It shows that manufacturers are pretty much in agreement on what makes good audio.

The only ones not in agreement are some members of audio forums. Price setters and marketeers in certain brands behave as if there was much to disagree upon, but that has everything to do with economics and nothing to do with audio science.

 

[Cosmik]

Toole’s latest book has a wide selection of charts evidencing closing of gaps between speakers in certain respects over the past decades. It shows that manufacturers are pretty much in agreement on what makes good audio.

The only ones not in agreement are some members of audio forums.

If that is what results in slim floor standers, the Grimm Audio people don't seem to agree.

...doing it right means: a single unit per “way”, spaced closely together on a baffle of at least 20” wide....
This is why the LS1 looks the way it does. Why other 2- way speakers don’t look like it is, frankly, a mystery

(presumably the thinking that later spawned the Kii Three, creating an 'active wide baffle').

Nor does someone called Robert Greene.

What is true of the mini-monitor, that it cannot be EQed to sound right, is also true of narrow-front floor-standers. They sound too midrange-oriented because of the nature of the room sound. This is something about the geometry of the design. It cannot be substantially altered by crossover decisions and so on. How then can it be that narrowfront speakers are nearly ubiquitous? How did audio wander off into what amounts to a blind alley?

 

[Analog Scott]

What do we mean by "it"? It is no longer the recording they are listening to, but effectively the output of a dumb 'algorithm'. If a listener likes the sound of a dumb algorithm (remember we are now not talking about 'correction' of the recording) then the world is their oyster. While performing scientific listening tests to establish preference, why not also check whether the listeners prefer it when some autotuning is applied, or some auto-generated wind-chimes?

What I mean by "it" is the sound they are hearing.

Do you ever sit down and just listen to music for pleasure on your system or is it strictly scientific listening tests?

 

[Cosmik]

What I mean by "it" is the sound they are hearing.

Do you ever sit down and just listen to music for pleasure on your system or is it strictly scientific listening tests?

As I often bore people with around here, I am anti-listening tests, as I don't consider them to be scientific!

My formula for audio happiness is that if we strive for objective neutrality, we can then relax, safe in the knowledge that nine out of ten of the things that most audiophiles worry about are dealt with. Just a final tweak of fine tuning when a system is installed, and that is it.

 

[Analog Scott]

As I often bore people with around here, I am anti-listening tests, as I don't consider them to be scientific!

My formula for audio happiness is that if we strive for objective neutrality, we can then relax, safe in the knowledge that nine out of ten of the things that most audiophiles worry about are dealt with. Just a final tweak of fine tuning when a system is installed, and that is it.

Which is totally cool. But different people find peace of mind in different ways.

 

[svart-hvitt]

If that is what results in slim floor standers, the Grimm Audio people don't seem to agree.

(presumably the thinking that later spawned the Kii Three, creating an 'active wide baffle').

Nor does someone called Robert Greene.

Still, different speakers with a flat curve don’t sound that different. It’s more about taste, which could be as much about DSP as physical design.

I was a bit surprised how similar Genelec 8351a and Kii Three are when playing in the same room, shifting from one speaker to the next. There are some differences, but it’s more an issue of taste.

There’s little magic in audio these days.

 

[fas42]

Still, different speakers with a flat curve don’t sound that different. It’s more about taste, which could be as much about DSP as physical design.

I was a bit surprised how similar Genelec 8351a and Kii Three are when playing in the same room, shifting from one speaker to the next. There are some differences, but it’s more an issue of taste.

There’s little magic in audio these days.

The magic is in the recording, of course - if the Genelec and Kii were both fully competent then it would be almost impossible to pick them apart - by definition, if two systems are not adding their own artifacts to the sound then they are identical, in terms of how they sound. The shape of the speaker cabinet, the configuration of the drivers, fades into complete meaninglessness once the sound emerging is good enough - while there is still irritating anomalies, then the slightest variation in how it comes across are clear itches that need to be scratched ...

 

[svart-hvitt]

The magic is in the recording, of course - if the Genelec and Kii were both fully competent then it would be almost impossible to pick them apart - by definition, if two systems are not adding their own artifacts to the sound then they are identical, in terms of how they sound. The shape of the speaker cabinet, the configuration of the drivers, fades into complete meaninglessness once the sound emerging is good enough - while there is still irritating anomalies, then the slightest variation in how it comes across are clear itches that need to be scratched ...

Genelec 8351 and Kii Three are hard to pick apart in some instances. Radiation is, I guess, what contributes to the difference in «style». Many speakers have flat response, few have the same radiation pattern.

You used the term «fully competent». Do you have a definition of the term and speaker examples that match the definition?

 

[March Audio]

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.

Sorry but thats inventing arguments to try and support your assertions, and its still wrong. You have been at pains to emphasise the variation in recording quality,tonality etc. Something with which I agree. So if a bright system plays a bright recording the result is really bright. If a bright system plays back a dull recording, well it might just be less dull. The result is random.

 

[March Audio]

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.


.

Really not not sure what you point is in that case Jakob.

 

[March Audio]

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.

.

I havent read the link. What are you saying? That the rooms (because they dont conform to any standard) affect the sound so much that a neutral speaker would sound bad? If so your assertion is not supported by the research. Toole talks about the ablilities of people to "hear through" rooms.

 

[March Audio]

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.

You are confusing fidelity with a personal preference - a preference which may have nothing to do with fidelity. Yet still the research shows that people prefer a neutral speaker.

 

[March Audio]

It does seem odd that it needs to be debated. It is obvious to me that "high fidelity" means accurate reproduction of the signal. If this sounded rubbish on most recordings then that would be evidence of a de facto pre-emphasis and de-emphasis going in the overall chain that should be formalised, not left to random choices of historic technology.

But it doesn't sound rubbish *and* it can be stated that a neutral system maximises the transfer of information from the recording; any form of noise, distortion, stereo crosstalk, etc. results in a loss of information;

This means that many audiophiles are saying they prefer to remove precious information in the recording that was captured at the actual event, and to replace it with noise (distortion artefacts, etc.) generated by a dumb machine! An observation: do audiophiles think subconsciously that yes, it is preferable to discard information from a $10 event/recording if it is being replaced by much classier 'information' from some highly polished gold-plated $10,000 box?

Indeed, I'm somewhat bemused that this conversation is even happening.

I can only suggest that people take a read of Flods book.

https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprod...p/B074CHY128/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

here is an interesting lecture he gives that touches on it.

 

[Analog Scott]

Sorry but thats inventing arguments to try and support your assertions, and its still wrong. You have been at pains to emphasise the variation in recording quality,tonality etc. Something with which I agree. So if a bright system plays a bright recording the result is really bright. If a bright system plays back a dull recording, well it might just be less dull. The result is random.

Inventing arguments? It's making arguments that support my assertions. Calling those arguments "invented" doesn't really mean anything. Yes, if a bright system plays a bright recording the result is really bright. Doesn't change the possibility that some people might like bright. People do have individual taste and individual hearing accuity. These are not "inventions" of mine.

 

[March Audio]

Inventing arguments? It's making arguments that support my assertions. Calling those arguments "invented" doesn't really mean anything. Yes, if a bright system plays a bright recording the result is really bright. Doesn't change the possibility that some people might like bright. People do have individual taste and individual hearing accuity. These are not "inventions" of mine.

No, you thought up a scenereo to support your position. Yes a deaf person might want a higher HF output, but thats not a justification for lack of fidelity. Thats a specialist requirement, possibly better served with a hearing aid .
Actually Floyds research shows that people are surprisingly consistent in their preferences when under controlled conditions.

So what does this "bright liker" do when a dull recording is played back, or when the bright recording is too bright because its been over emphasised buy their "tuning"?

 

[fas42]

Genelec 8351 and Kii Three are hard to pick apart in some instances. Radiation is, I guess, what contributes to the difference in «style». Many speakers have flat response, few have the same radiation pattern.

You used the term «fully competent». Do you have a definition of the term and speaker examples that match the definition?

It's a phrase I use to describe any system that produces an aural illusion so deceptive to our hearing systems that it is impossible, just using the ears, to pinpoint the location of the speaker drivers, no matter how carefully, and from where you listen. Fully digital speakers like the Kii would come very close, perhaps with some fine optimising of the environment.

 

[Analog Scott]

No, you thought up a scenereo to support your position. Yes a deaf person might want a higher HF output, but thats not a justification for lack of fidelity. Thats a specialist requirement, possibly better served with a hearing aid .
Actually Floyds research shows that people are surprisingly consistent in their preferences when under controlled conditions.

So what does this "bright liker" do when a dull recording is played back, or when the bright recording is too bright because its been over emphasised buy their "tuning"?

Loss of low level hearing and upper frequecy hearing acuity is not something "I thought up." It is a normal thing that happens to us when we age. This not some outlier contrived idea. This is normal. and indeed, Floyd's research does show "surprising" results. In every other aspect of things we judge subjectively taste and personal preference plays a major role but audio. In audio everyon likes the same thing even though there is no consistancy in the actual source material. makes perfect sense. No reason to doubt his conclusions at all.