Consideration about Timbre

[Nowhk]

Live, there are subtle differences between Strads and Guarneris, even between various different examples of Strads or Guarneris.

I would be very careful about this (as for the test proposed above):
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

Our brain fool us in many ways. Most of them certainty looks very biased.
I hope the real "content" is elsewhere when listening music in "listening mode" (not in scientific one), otherwise everything is constantly messing our life (such as not be able to repeat that quality test the same twice).

But at this point, if content is elsewhere (i.e. I believe in a low level of recognition), again: expensive setups become pointless outside the world of measurement. And the question repeats...

 

[Cosmik]

I would be very careful about this (as for the test proposed above):
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

Our brain fool us in many ways. Most of them certainty looks very biased.
I hope the real "content" is elsewhere when listening music in "listening mode" (not in scientific one), otherwise everything is constantly messing our life (such as not be able to repeat that quality test the same twice).

But at this point, if content is elsewhere (i.e. I believe in a low level of recognition), again: expensive setups become pointless outside the world of measurement. And the question repeats...

Would you rather watch a movie on your phone, or a large flat screen TV? I don't think the motivation for expensive audio systems is completely dissimilar.

However, although 'big', expensive audio systems have always been available, until recently they were all coloured by various subtle problems (e.g. phase shifts, lack of cone damping). They might 'hurt your eyes' even more than watching a small monochrome portable, hence the general dissatisfaction with audio systems at all levels.

It's only now, with the advent of DSP and active crossovers, that we can begin to regard audio systems like televisions: all neutral, but just different 'sizes'...

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I would be very careful about this (as for the test proposed above):
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...violins-arent-better-than-new-ones-round-two/

Our brain fool us in many ways. Most of them certainty looks very biased.
I hope the real "content" is elsewhere when listening music in "listening mode" (not in scientific one), otherwise everything is constantly messing our life (such as not be able to repeat that quality test the same twice).

But at this point, if content is elsewhere (i.e. I believe in a low level of recognition), again: expensive setups become pointless outside the world of measurement. And the question repeats...

Ok, the new ones may sound "better" than the old ones in some cases. I never said that was impossible. But, the study you cited indicates that there is a difference in sound between the various violins as heard by the expert test subjects, although the testing was clearly not double-blind. That difference was a main part of my earlier point, not that Strads, etc. are better than anything else.

They all sound like violins, of course, not like violas, cellos, double basses or viola da gambas. But, some had tonality or other qualities that were preferred by the experts over others. And, they did not automatically select the oldest and costliest instruments due to bias.

So, play a recording, and which specific violin sound was captured by the recording? We do not know, and we have no way of knowing. All we can try to do is to play back the recording as accurately and faithfully as possible with whatever specific nuances of instrument sound that are actually captured on the recording. We do that by using equipment with the best measured response we can achieve.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Exposing to the world of "higher quality", I'm not understanding the real meaning of this world.

To erase some prejudice/bias, would you write here the score you get from this test? https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Feel free to use any kind of gears you have, and that you consider illustrious.
I did 4/6 with a pair of AKG K240. But I'm sure that if I do the test again tomorrow, this value will change. You can repeat, rows are put random every time

I'm very curious...

I remember listening to that. I was living away from home for a few months at that time. I had some $110 headphones driven directly by a Lenovo laptop (Sony MDR7510 phones). I had a perfect score. I don't think I have incredibly great hearing. Despite my score I only found half of them somewhat obvious. The others I wouldn't have bet money on my being right before knowing the result. I did try it later over Soundlab ESLs and I think I missed one that time.

 

[Nowhk]

Would you rather watch a movie on your phone, or a large flat screen TV? I don't think the motivation for expensive audio systems is completely dissimilar.

But that's like to say "do you prefer hearing music with low or higher volume"? Its not a good analogy I think.

I try another way, to you
Looks at this image:

You are pretty able to see the red color is the same "red" , even if (viewing without adaptation) the red colors are differents (shade, and so on). Color constancy. Its like apply a static filter to a sound and playing different notes: the timbre keep the same, you are moving the pitch. Static filter.

But will the red color you decode right now the same if you see this photo tomorrow? Or with different light? Within the image context, yes, color constancy is kept always. But at staged/different time consuming it, would you decode the same red palette? That's what I'm talking about...

You can have as many quality you have, but I don't think you are able to decode excatly the same every time. Mood, light and times will affect it, in any case.
Do you agree with this? If so, why rack your brains if you know that you will never decode it the same way?

Ok, the new ones may sound "better" than the old ones in some cases. I never said that was impossible. But, the study you cited indicates that there is a difference in sound between the various violins as heard by the expert test subjects, although the testing was clearly not double-blind.

Not really. Some weren't able to choose their own violin or new one. This suggested to me that part of what they elaborated was "bias". A think is distinguish and take the right choice, another is distinguish but not be able to make a correct choice.

 

[Cosmik]

But that's like to say "do you prefer hearing music with low or higher volume"? Its not a good analogy I think.

But there is literally a phone/big speakers parallel isn't there? I could have asked "Would you rather listen to a symphony on a phone speaker or some stereo speakers in your living room?". It isn't just a question of volume.

But for me the video example is even more obvious and analysable.

In the image you show, geometric distortion would change it: whereas at the moment I could look at it and imagine it was a floor, or a chessboard (that's the kind of thing art is supposed to do..?), geometric distortion would change the 'meaning' that I might ascribe to it - I might begin to see it as a mountain range or the seabed. You could say that the new 'meaning' is just as valid as the old one, so anything goes: a $100,000 monochrome cathode ray tubed television set that adds euphonic geometric distortion is better than the 'clinical' super-linear $1000 OLED version.

But I know which version I would go with, whether or not in a scientific viewing test, people preferred the high end CRT version...

 

[Nowhk]

But there is literally a phone/big speakers parallel isn't there? I could have asked "Would you rather listen to a symphony on a phone speaker or some stereo speakers in your living room?". It isn't just a question of volume.

But obviously my question is not between a gear that is very cheap and a graded one. But comparing two similar graded setups (because comparing two lower makes non sense).
Would a 4K TV X make differences between another 4K TV Y?
In terms of what you perceive. Because at some points I believe you are not watching "more" details anymore, but changing the distortion you can't (in any case) remove.

In the image you show, geometric distortion would change it: whereas at the moment I could look at it and imagine it was a floor, or a chessboard (that's the kind of thing art is supposed to do..?), geometric distortion would change the 'meaning' that I might ascribe to it - I might begin to see it as a mountain range or the seabed. You could say that the new 'meaning' is just as valid as the old one, so anything goes: a $100,000 monochrome cathode ray tubed television set that adds euphonic geometric distortion is better than the 'clinical' super-linear $1000 OLED version.

Again, you are confronting lower quality setups with higher one. No one decent screen will distort geometric. But for this property, after some points, every TV would be ok. i.e. you will totally remove distortion. As for pitch, melody or harmony in music.
The problem is on texture/color: can you confirm that till some points you can get distortion, than, over that line, EVERY TV you would use (which own higher technics parameters) keep the same "color"? As keeping the same geometric over some quality gears? I don't think so...
This is what the whole thread is about.
That's why I talked about color constancy (timbre) and not shape/size constancy. Those are easier to keep.

Anyway, I'd like to get your answer about my question of the same "red color" in two different viewing. What's your idea about this?

 

[Nowhk]

Please note: if you consider that heavy geometric distortion which will transform that floor into a seabad is contemplate, than everuthings is contemplate (as color music with EQ and drastically change it). But at that point, nothing is preserved, everythings is changing, entropy become dominant, and you are not following artist anymore, but take an input and make whatever you want of it (such as taking a car and apply stickers or tune in).

Maybe this make more sense instead of researching a perfection which you won't never get? Because distortion will always happens in some way; room, mood or any other kind of aspect, such as being not able to reckon the same identical red pattern color above in two takes. What's your opinion?

 

[Cosmik]

But obviously my question is not between a gear that is very cheap and a graded one. But comparing two similar graded setups (because comparing two lower makes non sense).
Would a 4K TV X make differences between another 4K TV Y?
In terms of what you perceive. Because at some points I believe you are not watching "more" details anymore, but changing the distortion you can't (in any case) remove.


Again, you are confronting lower quality setups with higher one. No one decent screen will distort geometric. But for this property, after some points, every TV would be ok. i.e. you will totally remove distortion. As for pitch, melody or harmony in music.
The problem is on texture/color: can you confirm that till some points you can get distortion, than, over that line, EVERY TV you would use (which own higher technics parameters) keep the same "color"? As keeping the same geometric over some quality gears? I don't think so...
This is what the whole thread is about.
That's why I talked about color constancy (timbre) and not shape/size constancy. Those are easier to keep.

I may not be following what you are suggesting. You said earlier:

But at this point, if content is elsewhere (i.e. I believe in a low level of recognition), again: expensive setups become pointless outside the world of measurement.

In reply, my version of 'expensive' was originally the large TV versus the small one, and I was suggesting that this would quite obviously give you a better experience of the content even though both TVs may be the highest quality within their 'class'. Hence at least one reason why 'expensive' may not be completely pointless even though both TVs measure very well..?

Then you said:

You can have as many quality you have, but I don't think you are able to decode excatly the same every time. Mood, light and times will affect it, in any case.
Do you agree with this? If so, why rack your brains if you know that you will never decode it the same way?

I took this as you suggesting that 'size' and objective quality are not really important because you never experience the content in the same way twice, anyway. I was then suggesting that this *could* lead to the gold-plated monochrome CRT (i.e. vinyl & valves, cables, cable lifters, gold-plated power cords) syndrome where in the absence of any notion of 'objective quality', people begin ascribing magical properties to exotic materials, etc..?

I am enjoying the discussion, but I am just not sure I am understanding your point...

• Basically, is objective quality important? (I say yes).
• Should the system be objectively neutral? And can this be defined? (I say yes and yes).
• Is there a threshold of quality above which there is no point going further? (I think so).
• Must high objective quality be expensive? (I say no).

 

[Nowhk]

I am enjoying the discussion, but I am just not sure I am understanding your point...

I think that's due to my english lackness I guess. Its hard to explain such a things with non-native language. But I'll try till I die

I took this as you suggesting that 'size' and objective quality are not really important because you never experience the content in the same way twice, anyway. I was then suggesting that this *could* lead to the gold-plated monochrome CRT (i.e. vinyl & valves, cables, cable lifters, gold-plated power cords) syndrome where in the absence of any notion of 'objective quality', people begin ascribing magical properties to exotic materials, etc..?

I consider size and color two very important "elements" to consider on consuming art.
The problem is that I'm not even sure I can obtain them exactly, even on using unbelievable setups, room and gears.
And I'm not talking about transfer the same from artist to listener, but to achieve them (the same) during my own interpretations. (i.e. obtain objective quality I guess).

Basically, is objective quality important? (I say yes).

Me too.

And can this be defined? (I say yes and yes).

So you are living a situation in which your own systems send to you a "signal" that every time you decode as the same color palette (i.e. timbre in music)? Every time you listen to it? In any position of the different rooms you tried? With any mood you are in that moment? Are you saying this? Or there are a bit of deviations every time?

Is there a threshold of quality above which there is no point going further? (I think so).

Probably I'm struggled with this. Listening to music dressing a pair of headphone, sitting down on sofa behind my living room setup or driving a car sends to me different colors of the same song. This is what make me dazed. Metallica on car is pumping. On Headphone is screaming. On sofa quite gratifying. Still, I'd say that harmony, melody and rhythm is the same. So with a minor effort I fix those properties I believe.
Its the color that change... But honestly: how can't be always changing a bit?

 

[Cosmik]

So you are living a situation in which your own systems send to you a "signal" that every time you decode as the same color palette (i.e. timbre in music)? Every time you listen to it? In any position of the different rooms you tried? With any mood you are in that moment? Are you saying this? Or there are a bit of deviations every time?

I would say that the system's job is just to make the tree fall in the right place at the right time and nothing else

 

[Sal1950]

Is there a threshold of quality above which there is no point going further?

Sure, we know this is true when we objectively compare todays source to speaker terminal gears sq, but at the studio and speaker ends there's still quite a bit to go.
Todays DSP may have pushed things closer together but I think the level of success here may be being exaggerated?

 

[Cosmik]

Sure, we know this is true when we objectively compare todays source to speaker terminal gears sq, but at the studio and speaker ends there's still quite a bit to go.
Todays DSP may have pushed things closer together but I think the level of success here may be being exaggerated?

Well, technically, I didn't claim we had actually reached the threshold - just that one existed. But even so, I think you are too pessimistic! I still see the audiophile loudspeaker ecosystem as a heavily overgrown forest that the 'old hands' stumble around in, but in recent years a few outsiders have been able to take a bird's eye view and spot the exit: monopole box speakers, robust dynamic drivers, DSP, active crossovers, driver correction, time alignment, dispersion control. It is a scalable formula that just works - at last.

As regards the studio, I think that loads of recordings from the 70s are beautiful (even though they came through 70s op amps!) so I would bet that by now, the studio need not be a limiting factor. What do you see as the remaining problems?

 

[Nowhk]

I would say that the system's job is just to make the tree fall in the right place at the right time and nothing else

Who know which are the right place? Maybe is it a bit to the left? And if tomorrow it falls 1 cm to the right, would you distinguish it? And if you are able to distinguish (discriminate) this, would it make any differences?

Hope you got the analogy now With colors it seems very difficult hehe

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, technically, I didn't claim we had actually reached the threshold - just that one existed. But even so, I think you are too pessimistic! I still see the audiophile loudspeaker ecosystem as a heavily overgrown forest that the 'old hands' stumble around in, but in recent years a few outsiders have been able to take a bird's eye view and spot the exit: monopole box speakers, robust dynamic drivers, DSP, active crossovers, driver correction, time alignment, dispersion control. It is a scalable formula that just works - at last.

As regards the studio, I think that loads of recordings from the 70s are beautiful (even though they came through 70s op amps!) so I would bet that by now, the studio need not be a limiting factor. What do you see as the remaining problems?

Oh I think you have placed the problem rightly. Transducers. And the transducers on the recording end are much less of a problem than on the playback end. DSP and thorough design of box speakers has improved things. Even as much as I like panel speakers it sounds/looks as if that is the case. I can imagine a few innovative approaches using panels as well. But just the size of the potential market makes that unlikely. It also is possible if done well enough the coffins will lack nothing (other than visual appeal).

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Oh I think you have placed the problem rightly. Transducers. And the transducers on the recording end are much less of a problem than on the playback end. DSP and thorough design of box speakers has improved things. Even as much as I like panel speakers it sounds/looks as if that is the case. I can imagine a few innovative approaches using panels as well. But just the size of the potential market makes that unlikely. It also is possible if done well enough the coffins will lack nothing (other than visual appeal).

Whoa! Visual appeal? There is no babe magnet like the transparent panels in my Martin Logans, at least in my dreams. In actuality, my wife, like most other people, think they are just awfully big.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Whoa! Visual appeal? There is no babe magnet like the transparent panels in my Martin Logans, at least in my dreams. In actuality, my wife, like most other people, think they are just awfully big.

One of those mysteries to me. People go gaga over thin TVs, thin phones etc. Yet mostly they don't like thin speakers. Panels are visually more noticeable from the listening spot, but less so from other angles.

My experience just watching the reaction of women is they hate, loathe, detest panel speakers far beyond any other. I would have thought otherwise prior to seeing it repeatedly. I remember selling some Maggies years ago. The guy's wife came to help take them home. The disgust of picturing them in her home was obvious. He said, "they aren't much different than your room dividers. They have prettier wood actually". Her in displeased clippy tone, "they don't divide the room they just stick out into it. With wires in the way."

 

[DonH56]

Panels have to be big to have any sort of bass and dynamic range plus they sit out in the room unless you dampen the back wave. Fortunately I've an understanding wife (and now my "own" media room).

 

[Sal1950]

I think you are too pessimistic!

Quite possibly. 40 years of month after month of audio media reviews claiming "all else is gaslight, you have to get this" may have made me a bit sour. LOL

As regards the studio, I think that loads of recordings from the 70s are beautiful (even though they came through 70s op amps!) so I would bet that by now, the studio need not be a limiting factor. What do you see as the remaining problems?

There are many beautifully captured recordings going all the way back to the 50s. The main problem lies at the foot of the engineer desires and attitudes. Things like the loudness war come to mind. We all know that even the very latest recordings vary from great to pretty bad.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Panels have to be big to have any sort of bass and dynamic range plus they sit out in the room unless you dampen the back wave. Fortunately I've an understanding wife (and now my "own" media room).

I've thought at times with panels you just need two rooms. The panels mounted in the wall to another room so the backwave becomes a non-problem. Plus as a bonus you get two listening rooms with one pair of speakers. Win, win!