Does what we hear correspond to what we measure?

[levimax]

For level matching listen with foobar2000 ABX or similar... can never rely on random internet files to be properly level matched.

 

[bmc0]

According to FFmpeg's EBU R128 scanner, the integrated loudness of #1 is +2.8 LU relative to #2.

 

[Vintage02]

For level matching listen with foobar2000 ABX or similar... can never rely on random internet files to be properly level matched.

The files are not random but intentionally designed that way. What I am proposing is not a trap but, in my view, a different way to approach testing a device. If I present you with excellent measurements, how many will infer an excellent listening experience?
In France, where I live, people like labels—on wine bottles and cheeses. Measurements are also somewhat like labels; one can overestimate or underestimate just with a good or bad measurement. But what about when it comes to listening?

 

[Vintage02]

According to FFmpeg's EBU R128 scanner, the integrated loudness of #1 is +2.8 LU relative to #2.

It wasn't really the question asked, but just by listening, one could say that No. 1 plays louder than No. 2. Now, regarding the other criteria, what would be your preference?

 

[bmc0]

Now, regarding the other criteria, what would be your preference?

I have not tried to listen critically (perhaps later). Many were talking about level matching, so I decided to provide information which could be used to match levels according to EBU R128 loudness.

 

[tmtomh]

It wasn't really the question asked, but just by listening, one could say that No. 1 plays louder than No. 2. Now, regarding the other criteria, what would be your preference?

Do you understand that differences in volume do not manifest themselves ONLY as a loudness difference when it comes to human hearing perception? Can you understand how a volume difference could therefore lead to misleading perceptions of differences in sound quality?

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

What sounds better to the listener is a matter of personal preference and measurable response. Some people like more bass than others. Some want a sharper attack than others. Measurable response, what the individual can perceive, is an important factor in personal preference. Some may just like bass. Others may want more bass because they don't perceive lower frequencies well. It's hard to find people with identical audiograms. At the same time, personal preference is an important factor in what kind of audio gear and individual will want. Research definitely shows that perfectly flat frequency response isn't most people's favorite. Add in individual differences in hearing and you get the potential for a wide range of preference. The purpose of measurements is to have an objective standard. It's nice to know which gear comes closest to having its output be the same as its input. The old saw, "We'll take care of it on the back end," applies to audio in the sense that you can always tailor the output of gear that reproduces its input exactly to your personal preference. In a perfect world, where all audio gear reproduces the input exactly, you can use the same settings on your "post production" device regardless of what gear you're using.

 

[levimax]

What sounds better to the listener is a matter of personal preference and measurable response. Some people like more bass than others. Some want a sharper attack than others. Measurable response, what the individual can perceive, is an important factor in personal preference. Some may just like bass. Others may want more bass because they don't perceive lower frequencies well. It's hard to find people with identical audiograms. At the same time, personal preference is an important factor in what kind of audio gear and individual will want. Research definitely shows that perfectly flat frequency response isn't most people's favorite. Add in individual differences in hearing and you get the potential for a wide range of preference. The purpose of measurements is to have an objective standard. It's nice to know which gear comes closest to having its output be the same as its input. The old saw, "We'll take care of it on the back end," applies to audio in the sense that you can always tailor the output of gear that reproduces its input exactly to your personal preference. In a perfect world, where all audio gear reproduces the input exactly, you can use the same settings on your "post production" device regardless of what gear you're using.

One of the most universal preferences in audio is "louder sounds better", maybe not 100% but very close to it.

 

[Vintage02]

One of the most universal preferences in audio is "louder sounds better", maybe not 100% but very close to it.

These discussions are interesting, but in the end, what is your preference between the two recordings offered?

 

[Sono]

Trying some sort of »analysis« seems to show that #1 is about 2.5 dB louder (»Total RMS Power«). Both tunes have a slightly louder right than left channel, where this sort of imbalance is larger in #1 than in #2.

 

[Vintage02]

Trying some sort of »analysis« seems to show that #1 is about 2.5 dB louder (»Total RMS Power«). Both tunes have a slightly louder right than left channel, where this sort of imbalance is larger in #1 than in #2.

These analyses are interesting, but based on your listening, which track would you prefer? ... That's the idea behind the initial test. The measurements will come after.

 

[Sono]

which track would you prefer

I stated that before. Do you want me to reconsider it?

 

[Vintage02]

I stated that before. Do you want me to reconsider it?

Sorry ...

 

[Vintage02]

For now, 66.7% prefer No. 2 and therefore 33.3% prefer No. 1... We will see tomorrow if this changes (in France, it is 10:30 PM)

 

[Taiga]

I listened to the first 1:00 minute of each through speakers. My impression was that No. 2 had slightly better isolation/separation of instruments and sounds. It is difficult to critically compare when you can’t quickly toggle the same passage between the two files.

 

[tmtomh]

Gave each one a quick listen, maybe not sufficiently thorough since I didn't listen to the complete track.

Based on what I heard, I find them different but don't necessarily have a preference. #1 is not only louder but also I think obviously has some additional compression. The bass transients are a bit more impactful with #1 but #2 is a bit more laid back and at higher volume I like the piano in #2.

Based on what I hear, these clearly are different sources: these are not recordings of the exact same source played through different reproduction gear (unless by some chance the source was intentionally played through different signal chains with some kind of processing applied to one of them to create that difference in dynamic range/compression).

To me it sounds like they are two different masterings. Whether they are two different digital masterings, or captures/rips of two different vinyl masterings, or one digital source and one ripped vinyl source, I cannot say. If #2 were a nicely done vinyl rip that could certainly explain why it sounds less compressed. On the other hand, if both were digital and #1 was just a more compressed mastering (or was actually source #2 but had been run through a compression plug-in in a piece of consumer audio editing software), that would also make sense to me given what I'm hearing.

I don't mind this excercise of listening and giving impressions - I've been a member at the Hoffman forums for many years and I enjoy talking about different masterings, because while that is subjective I think it matters a lot. But withholding any information about whether the two files are, or are not, based on the identical source is IMHO irritating and not terribly productive, given the way you introduced this thread:

Hello,

You and I are fans of the magnificent reviews done by Amir, NTTY, and others, where they show us measurements that seem to predetermine what we are going to hear.

But what if we did the opposite : let's listen and try to correlate what we hear with objective measurements.

Maybe it's a language issue, but the way you wrote this makes it sound like there is some measured hardware performance difference that is responsible for these two tracks sounding different from each other. This strong implication of your original post is the main reason so many people immediately replied about the importance of volume-matching.

But clearly you're not going to clarify this at all until you do the "reveal," so for those of us who've participated the only option is to just wait. I hope the facts will have made it worth the wait.

 

[Sono]

Based on what I heard, I find them different but don't necessarily have a preference.

How comes? You mentioned quite a lot of differences you seem to have discovered. And they all sum up to keep you from choosing one version you prefer?

That’s just bad luck probably.

 

[levimax]

I listened to them "as is" and level matched. Without level matching #1 sounds louder and better to me. When I level matched them I had a hard time telling them apart "blind", but there were some subtle differences but not enough for me to form much of a preference one way or another.

 

[tmtomh]

How comes? You mentioned quite a lot of differences you seem to have discovered. And they all sum up to keep you from choosing one version you prefer?

That’s just bad luck probably.

Because based on a quick listen to part of each track, neither one sounds bad to me - I hear no unpleasant distortion, and there's either no significant noise, or if there is noise it's masked by the background noise of the venue where it was recorded. The spatial mix sounds essentially the same on both, none of the instruments or vocals sound grating or unpleasant in either version, and the reduced dynamics on #1 are in my perception modest and not remotely egregious. EDIT: I didn't find them to sound quite as similar as @levimax did, even when level matched. But the spirit of levimax's comment is something I agree with - just because we can hear a difference doesn't mean we inevitably have a preference - it doesn't inevitably mean that the difference we can detect is significant to us.

If I'm listening at low to moderate volume, I might prefer #1 for its added bass impact. If I'm listening at higher volume or hypothetically listening to the entire live album that this song comes from, I might prefer #2 because it might be less fatiguing over time and the reduced dynamics of #1 might get annoying or unsatisfying over time.

So who cares which one I prefer - and honestly, who cares which one you prefer? I've given @Vintage02 and anyone else who's interested plenty of information about what sonic differences I hear. Beyond that, which one of those two sonic profiles I might prefer is a meaningless question. What matters to me is, do they sound different and if so, how or in what ways do they sound different.

 

[Timcognito]

But what about when it comes to listening?

Read and learn, exhaustive studies have been taken scientifically under controlled conditions linking measurement to audibility. A bargain at $60 to understand how a microphone is a more detailed listener than anybodies ears and it saves a file to quantify what is heard. It turns out that preference correlates to a measured pattern in the data.

Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)

I don't know about you but I am quite anxious to get my hands on the much expended 4th edition of Dr. Toole's book: https://www.routledge.com/Sound-Reproduction-The-Acoustics-and-Psychoacoustics-of-Loudspeakers-Rooms-and-Headphones/Toole-Olive-Welti/p/book/9781032761930 Sound Reproduction...

www.audiosciencereview.com