I have a question, has anyone else noticed this?

[Digby]

Isn't this at risk of getting rather silly.

You are thinking right now, what is the unit of thought and how is it measured?

If two painters paint the same landscape, but one is better than the other and produces a better painting, it could be said to be more accurate to life, but what is the unit for accuracy? It is not one measurement, but a complex relationship of measurements with a great many variables. This is without introducing questions of artistic merit, interpretation and so on. The creation of some kind of universal scale would be so complicated and achieve little, so nobody bothers, yet paintings can still be ranked as more or less accurate representations without having said scale to refer to.

There are obviously things that exist, that can't themselves be measured on a set scale (thought/painting/fill in your own blank).

You can't measure soundstage (in the way you wish to), but you can't exactly measure thoughts either, does this mean thinking doesn't exist?

 

[TheBatsEar]

You are thinking right now, what is the unit of thought and how is it measured?

I know there is no such measure and no unit to it.

But ask @Axo1989, he thinks one can measure the soundstage in the music/amp/speaker, but conveniently it's a "complex function" that is never revealed. For some reason he can not accept that soundstage is something that happens exclusively and entirely in his brain, not the music/amp/speaker. If it was, we would be able to measure and predict it by now.

I guess recording studios or hardware manufacturers would pay top dollar for such a measurement.

 

[okaudio]

You are thinking right now, what is the unit of thought and how is it measured?

Maybe I missed a clear description but I'm just trying to figure out the exact details of what they are trying to measure?

 

[Axo1989]

What is this complex function and what is the unit of soundstage?

But ask @Axo1989, he thinks one can measure the soundstage in the music/amp/speaker, but conveniently it's a "complex function" that is never revealed. For some reason he can not accept that soundstage is something that happens exclusively and entirely in his brain, not the music/amp/speaker.

No, "he" just thinks your Hindi hasn't improved.

I've just shown you that your example of an illusion doesn't occur "exclusively and entirely" in the brain (and that the mechanics of that illusion can be characterised and measured) but you've ignored that and are begging the question again.

Mischaracterising my argument (and other's posts on the subject) is no better, either. Perhaps you really are trying to demonstrate that thinking doesn't exist? But If you are just going to be lazy I'll leave you to it. By which I mean, I'll get back to you, right?

 

[JRS]

You don't.
I hope that answers OPs question.

This is it. We have reached the end of the thread.
Now what?

In your own mind perhaps, fortunately some are much more open, and likely a lot larger. One final question for you to ponder: given that the entire process of perceiving is ultimately subjective, why even have msmts? And if there is a correlation between these msmts and perceived sound quality, is it possible that a metric might exist, and in the meantime if technology and highly directive speakers can provide a profoundly more realistic experience, one that leaves many gobsmacked by a you are there experience, is this not a worthwhile pursuit?

And for the record, correlation and getting the wrong information to the wrong ear has everything to do with the quality of imaging, and why rocket scientists invest the time to see how it can be made better. Until such time you have watched the YouTube vid I attached and can offer credible counter arguments, don't bother to respond. I'm done. Or better yet, audition a properly set up demo and hear for yourself versus all of this empty commentary full of opinions that have no proof, and then get back to me.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Maybe I missed a clear description but I'm just trying to figure out the exact details of what they are trying to measure?

Soundstage or stereo image/illusion.
I don't think it's possible.

 

[okaudio]

Soundstage or stereo image/illusion.
I don't think it's possible.

So, for example, you want to measure the distance between two speakers that a sound appears to come from given a known listening position?

 

[pseudoid]

So to paraphrase and understand what OP is saying:
* People extrapolate whatever they want from the data and say whatever they like.
* Some are owners, some are not.
* Thread drift is a big issue.
* Useful comments become buried. They can come from both owners and non-owners.

I am wondering (after 9 pages) , if @Spkrdctr ever imagined the direction that his post would take.
Is this what they call 'mission creep' and are we witnessing it right here?

 

[maverickronin]

Soundstage or stereo image/illusion.
I don't think it's possible.

So you can't tell where a "real" sound is coming from either?

 

[Robin L]

So you can't tell where a "real" sound is coming from either?

The funny thing is, in a concert the orchestra is mostly mono, save for the first few rows, all piano ultimately is mono by the time the sound arrives at the listener's ear. A lot of "live" music is mono, thought the spaces the music plays in usually aren't.

 

[maverickronin]

The funny thing is, in a concert the orchestra is mostly mono, save for the first few rows, all piano ultimately is mono by the time the sound arrives at the listener's ear. A lot of "live" music is mono, thought the spaces the music plays in usually aren't.

Yep. I don't even like live music though. I'd rather listen to the studio mix instead. I think it's like comparing a stage play to a movie.

 

[TheBatsEar]

So, for example, you want to measure the distance between two speakers that a sound appears to come from given a known listening position?

Maybe the length between speakers in relation to the distance of the listener? We could add the crosstalk of the gear in that formula. If we all agree to something like that, i'm in.

But the subjectivists would say: "This isn't soundstage at all! Different DACs, amps or speakers have different soundstages. I can clearly hear a difference!"
Then you would say: "But that isn't measurable."
Then they would say: "Sure it is. It's a complex function."
Then you would say: "Ok, what is the unit of measurements? What is the formula of that function?"
At this point you have to prepare to see cognitive dissonance on a cosmic scale which drives the vilification of your persona.

So you can't tell where a "real" sound is coming from either?

I can tell where a sound comes from, although this isn't reliable at all.
I can experience soundstage coming from a CD, but there is no measure for soundstage. Certainly not in the DAC or amp.
I can experience beauty in a painting, but there is no measure for beauty. Certainly not in the brush or frame.

This continues to be a controversial point of view.

 

[charleski]

It is possible to measure auditory localisation. But it needs a proper scientific approach with careful attention to controls and is a non-trivial process. Here is an example of some typical research from the past decade:

Localizing the sources of two independent noises: Role of time varying amplitude differences

Listeners localized the free-field sources of either one or two simultaneous and independently generated noise bursts. Listeners' localization performance was better when localizing one rather than two sound sources. With two sound sources, localization ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There's no reason this sort of research couldn't be adapted to compare different loudspeakers using locales that are simulated using stereo imaging. It would require considerable work. And frankly there's a pretty high chance that you'd end up with a null result.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Oh boy, here is another one.

It is possible to measure auditory localisation.

It is not, otherwise you would have a unit of measurement.

But it needs a proper scientific approach with careful attention to controls and is a non-trivial process. Here is an example of some typical research from the past decade:

What you have quoted is no measurement, there is no unit of "auditory localisation" as a result. It's statistical analysis of perceived auditory events.

The problem is that you might think the auditory event is located there, i might think it's located more like over there. This is not a measurement. If you take 1000 of such guesses, you still have no measurement. If your ear is involved, it can never be a measurement.

 

[charleski]

Oh boy, here is another one.


It is not, otherwise you would have a unit of measurement.


What you have quoted is no measurement, there is no unit of "auditory localisation" as a result. It's statistical analysis of perceived auditory events.

The problem is that you might think the auditory event is located there, i might think it's located more like over there. This is not a measurement. If you take 1000 of such guesses, you still have no measurement. If your ear is involved, it can never be a measurement.

Sorry, but this just exposes a complete failure to understand how scientific measurement works. Of course it's based on statistical analysis! All measurements come with errors in both precision and accuracy, and the characterisation of these errors is a critical part of any scientific experiment.

Your reply simply makes no sense.

 

[Digby]

This is silly. It is known what makes live sound (not reproduced) locatable by the ear/brain. These cues (phase relationships of signals arriving from different locations, reflections and so on) are capturable, to an extent, by stereo pair microphones. The signal, in a diminished state (stereo) then runs through a system ending in speakers that reproduces the diminished stereo "soundstage".

There are enough cues left that the brain can sense a soundstage, but not enough that most are convinced it is a live (unreproduced) sound, most of the time anyway.

I have heard instances where it sounds as if I am dealing with a live sound coming through stereo speakers, two particular examples come to mind, sirens (police/ambulance) and the sound of bass through the wall (was in the background of a podcast). The sound of these two things are often not diminished by stereo enough to sound as if they aren't real when replayed through speakers, in my experience. If you're clever enough, and I'm sure some are, it is probably easy enough to explain why this is.

You don't measure soundstage as such, but what makes it seem better or worse, things that contribute to an improved or diminished sense of soundstage. This is an accuracy of reproduction question. We know broadly what makes equipment more or less accurate, therefore we can say what will reproduce whatever "soundstage" is captured by microphones, better or worse, given these measurements.

This circular argument is getting rather boring. I'm out for now.

 

[TheBatsEar]

I have heard instances where it sounds as if I am dealing with a live sound coming through stereo speakers

So did i.

You don't measure soundstage as such,

That is right, nothing circular about it.

Sorry, but this just exposes a complete failure to understand how scientific measurement works.

You argument so far:

1. We can measure soundstage.
2. It's complicated.
3. When confronted with the fact that there is no unit to soundstage: This is silly. @TheBatsEar doesn't understand science. I'm out.

 

[charleski]

So did i.

That is right, nothing circular about it.



You argument so far:

1. We can measure soundstage.
2. It's complicated.
3. When confronted with the fact that there is no unit to soundstage: This is silly. @TheBatsEar doesn't understand science. I'm out.

You're out? Good. And no, you don't understand science.
We can measure localisation, the degree to which subjects can determine the source of a sound. It's not a particularly active field, but there's been a reasonable amount of work done on this over the past few decades. You keep talking about a 'unit of soundstage', but this is just gibberish.

We most definitely can measure perceptual processes, and have been doing so for a century.

 

[beagleman]

There is NO soundstage.

It is all just an auditory "illusion", that we as the listener perceive or imagine when listening.

It will be different for every listener to some degree.

Just like when I heard my daughter, playing a video game in another room, with her door mostly closed, and I was in the living room and it sounded like REAL WORLD crash sounds in my neighborhood and I ran to the door looked out........nothing!

I then realized it was coming from her gaming room, at a low level, and it sounded REAL and OUTSIDE to me...
The sound was SO REAL, I thought it was real................alas fortunately it was not!

 

[TheBatsEar]

There is NO soundstage.
It is all just an auditory "illusion", that we as the listener perceive or imagine when listening.
It will be different for every listener to some degree.

That pretty much sums it up. I really can't see why it's so hard to understand.
Prepare to take a beating, if you stick to it in the open.

We can measure localisation

We can measure location, it's units are based on meters and degrees. Localisation is a cognitive process, like thinking or appreciating beauty, which can not be measured.

You keep talking about a 'unit of soundstage', but this is just gibberish.

It highlights the absurdity in saying "We can measure soundstage, but we have no unit for it".

We most definitely can measure perceptual processes, and have been doing so for a century.

Here we go again. In what unit do you measure perceptual processes?