• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
So can anyone tell me where I can find the actual published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
I am sure that there are some recordings where, on occasions, some people would like to apply some distortion as a novelty perhaps, or because they have grown up listening to distorted systems and can't imagine anything better. Maybe they just hate the whole early music scene, or whatever, and prefer psychedelic rock; a bit of distortion gets them closer to it. In other words no, the answer to your question is probably not written down anywhere - but it isn't a useful question. As we have discussed, art can be anything you want it to be, and the act of playing a recording can be your own form of art: feed it through a fuzz box and knock yourself out.

Like a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it, "high fidelity" exists outside of whether, most of the time, random people prefer the sound of it or not. It is there when the mood takes us - and if we have the necessary excellent system. Much of the time we are not even going to be listening to music at realistic (high) volume and therefore are arbitrarily choosing not to experience high fidelity. But when the occasion demands it we can experience it - but only if the system is neutral.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,781
Likes
37,659
So you want us to summarize convincingly a large book in a forum post? Several of us have communicate we are having difficulty with what your point is. Chances are the summary wouldn't answer your questions they way you are asking them.

Do yourself a favor, take some time, read thru the book it will make a lot more sense whether you end up convinced or not. Some of what you are asking has been covered, some hasn't, some may not be directly toward your question to your satisfaction. Some of it is well conceived investigation into what is most important about loud speaker performance that was not previously done with much rigor. You'll learn something useful regardless of your eventual conclusions I believe.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Maybe we should reconcile ourselves to the idea that, perhaps, transient preferences are nothing to get hung up about. There are times, no doubt, when gourmet chefs crave comfort food - beans on toast or something. Serious art film directors probably want to watch Police Academy now and again, etc. Listening to worthy music on a great, neutral system is actually hard work, just as attending a classical concert in a great concert hall is. Sometimes we're not even in the mood for excellence. We mustn't dilute what is superb by suggesting that Pot Noodle is just as important as top quality restaurant food.

I, personally, like to listen to 60s music on a 60s valve radio with large open back speaker, now and again - I like to imagine that I am travelling back in time and experiencing something as it was 50 years ago. I would never think to suggest that this 'preference' should be promoted as a measure of excellence or sold as a product for $10,000.
My experience is different - yes, "listening to worthy music on a conventional, ambitious rig is actually hard work" because my mind is constantly having to deal with the subtle anomalies, a continual background irritation to the listening - and at some point I say, enough! The advantage of pushing a system to the point of "competence" is that the "hard work" goes away - you can get lost in the texture of the sound, listening without listening, at your ease at all times.

Which translates to listening to 60's music, etc. I'm spoilt now, and doing it the 60's way just doesn't cut it any more - I want to hear what the musicians were really sounding like, to someone who was there - the intensity of the experience is so far above what a 60's playback rig can deliver; the nostalgia angle ain't a decent substitute.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
So can anyone tell me where I can find the actual published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

These are the assertions I find most interesting and unlikely. But hey, if they are really are supported by a substantial body of evidence that has been compiled by Toole and Olive and they really put all of these variables to a meaningful test then so be it. But I'd like to see the actual research. It's not in Toole's book
In the world of casual listening the preference for distortion free still holds, IME. Many so-called neutral, technically correct, "measurably accurate" systems are not so in reality - which is why masking by deliberately adding euphonic elements works to make playback more pleasurable, for many. Low level distortion and interference artifacts are the spanner in the works - what some call the "noise floor"; a more descriptive term could be, "dynamic, signal dependent noise floor".

Eliminate the latter, and euphonic additions are just annoying - like too much salt, or sugar in a meal, to make it palatable - if the meal is of high quality your patience with these on top is very limited.
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
So you want us to summarize convincingly a large book in a forum post?

No. I don't want you or anyone else to summarize anything. Last thing I want at this point is someone else's summary of the research. I have the book. It doesn't have the research. All I am asking is where I can actually find the research itself and read it for myself.


Several of us have communicate we are having difficulty with what your point is. Chances are the summary wouldn't answer your questions they way you are asking them.

Not looking for a summary. And that is a lame excuse for not offering a simple reference for where one can find the actual research so they can read it for themselves. Jeez for a science oriented forum that is kind of ridiculous. You'd think reading the actual research would be welcomed.

Do yourself a favor, take some time, read thru the book it will make a lot more sense whether you end up convinced or not. Some of what you are asking has been covered, some hasn't, some may not be directly toward your question to your satisfaction. Some of it is well conceived investigation into what is most important about loud speaker performance that was not previously done with much rigor. You'll learn something useful regardless of your eventual conclusions I believe.

I'm going to read the book, don't worry. Already through the first two chapters. But I'd still like to see Toole's and Olive's actual research upon which they make a lot of assertions. Is that really so unreasonable? Isn't that how it works in science? The research is published and actually read by others?
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"

By the way, let's not forget the option I have chosn. To have both.

http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5


You are still confused between "fidelity" and "personal preference". Your personal preference (as a sample of one) has little meaning, it is unique to you and has no bearing on the fidelity of the reproduction.. Personally I cant stand the distorted sound of vinyl.
 
Last edited:

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
No. I don't want you or anyone else to summarize anything. Last thing I want at this point is someone else's summary of the research. I have the book. It doesn't have the research. All I am asking is where I can actually find the research itself and read it for myself.




Not looking for a summary. And that is a lame excuse for not offering a simple reference for where one can find the actual research so they can read it for themselves. Jeez for a science oriented forum that is kind of ridiculous. You'd think reading the actual research would be welcomed.



I'm going to read the book, don't worry. Already through the first two chapters. But I'd still like to see Toole's and Olive's actual research upon which they make a lot of assertions. Is that really so unreasonable? Isn't that how it works in science? The research is published and actually read by others?

Just read the book. You can then chose to take the information on board, or dismiss it. Up to you.

AES is a good place to look for papers, beyond that I'm not sure what your looking for, well obviously apart from a way to discredit the Toole research.
 
Last edited:

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
You are still confused between "fidelity" and "personal preference".

Nope. Nowhere did I say a thing about "fidelity." You can try all you want to turn this into a stale old audiophile argument. Not interested. I've already made my views clear on "fidelity" in audio playback. Nowhere ever in this thread have I ever mistaken or conflated my personal preferences with any notion of "fidelity."

Your personal preference has little meaning, it is unique to you. I cant stand the distorted sound of vinyl.

That's nice. Do you think your personal preference has any more meaning to me than mine does to you?
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
Just read the book.

I am reading the book.

AES is a good place to look for papers,

AES has a pretty vast library of papers. Do you know the titles of the research that supports Toole's assertions that have been discussed here in this thread?

beyond that I'm not sure what your looking for, well obviously apart from a way to discredit the Toole research.

I'm looking for the published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

Is this really so hard to understand? How would I discredit it? I'd just like to read it and see what was actually done and what was actually covered. Is that so unreasonable?
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,781
Likes
37,659
No. I don't want you or anyone else to summarize anything. Last thing I want at this point is someone else's summary of the research. I have the book. It doesn't have the research. All I am asking is where I can actually find the research itself and read it for myself.

Been awhile since I read the book. I seem to recall considerable lists of sources for some of the work done. That is where I would look first.

The rest is the same problem of communication. Repeatedly some of us think we are addressing your issues and you insist we haven't understood. It seems clear to me you haven't properly understood what Toole or the work he was involved in was about in context of what it means. Otherwise, the research is AES or JAES or scattered about dept's of European universities. Yes I know that isn't much of a hint. Will take more time than I have tonight for that. And I do think you are giving short shrift to what is in the book. So read it, and at least you'll understand us better and be able to perhaps communicate your differences in a way we can understand.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,781
Likes
37,659
Yeah I'm not sure you actually got my point. Opinions are actually interesting to me until they become a pissing contest. Then interest goes away.

Again, you're right. I didn't get the point of your comment. Sorry, don't know what do about that. I also wouldn't have considered his comment a pissing contest. We are talking past each other.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,781
Likes
37,659
I am reading the book.



AES has a pretty vast library of papers. Do you know the titles of the research that supports Toole's assertions that have been discussed here in this thread?



I'm looking for the published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

Is this really so hard to understand? How would I discredit it? I'd just like to read it and see what was actually done and what was actually covered. Is that so unreasonable?

#2 is covered in the book whether the extent of their comparisons of stereo to mono and room position are adequate for your purposes I don't know.
#1 is a red herring.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
I am reading the book.
AES has a pretty vast library of papers. Do you know the titles of the research that supports Toole's assertions that have been discussed here in this thread?
I'm looking for the published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording

2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

Is this really so hard to understand? How would I discredit it? I'd just like to read it and see what was actually done and what was actually covered. Is that so unreasonable?

Good.

Your quest, do your own research. You have been given pointers.

1. Is your own interpretation of what has been said - I explained previously my poor choice of phrase. As Blumlein said, its a red herring.
2. I think youll find that different rooms were tested, with same conclusions, but you havent finished the book yet. BTW you seem to advocate systems with components that have distortions as a method to counteract distortions in speakers. That really is the land of confusion.

From all your comments throughout this thread Its clear you dont believe the information provided. That is your perogative. My opinion is that you are seeking to preserve your dogma which counter to the scientific research.
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
Been awhile since I read the book. I seem to recall considerable lists of sources for some of the work done. That is where I would look first.

The rest is the same problem of communication. Repeatedly some of us think we are addressing your issues and you insist we haven't understood. It seems clear to me you haven't properly understood what Toole or the work he was involved in was about in context of what it means. Otherwise, the research is AES or JAES or scattered about dept's of European universities. Yes I know that isn't much of a hint. Will take more time than I have tonight for that. And I do think you are giving short shrift to what is in the book. So read it, and at least you'll understand us better and be able to perhaps communicate your differences in a way we can understand.
IOW you don't know where I can find the research. That's fine. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? And I am reading the book so please to everyone who continues to tell me to read the book, stop asking me to do what I am already doing. It's like the kid in the back seat of he car asking "are we there yet" every 30 seconds.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
IOW you don't know where I can find the research. That's fine. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? And I am reading the book so please to everyone who continues to tell me to read the book, stop asking me to do what I am already doing. It's like the kid in the back seat of he car asking "are we there yet" every 30 seconds.
Problem is you keep arguing when you dont have a lot of very relevant information, so dont be surprised if people start turning round and say, "FFS read the book first"
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
Nope. Nowhere did I say a thing about "fidelity." You can try all you want to turn this into a stale old audiophile argument. Not interested. I've already made my views clear on "fidelity" in audio playback. Nowhere ever in this thread have I ever mistaken or conflated my personal preferences with any notion of "fidelity."

Its anything but an audiophile argument, quite the contrary, its based on scientific information.
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
#2 is covered in the book whether the extent of their comparisons of stereo to mono and room position are adequate for your purposes I don't know.
#1 is a red herring.
Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom