• 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!

NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR

OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
My interactions with many regulars here over the past year indicates that most of us are already well aware of this distinction.

Indeed, my choices in audio are ultimately subjective, and I am aware of "truth" and "preference", and the basics of their interaction. I also enjoy knowing that my DAC and amplifier faithfully convert the bits of my digital music data into an undistorted, low-noise audio signal to send to my loudspeakers.

The electrical signal carrying music from from my DAC through my amplifier to my speakers is relatively easy to monitor and measure, Then, the signal is converted to vibrations in the air - sound - that fill the room with music and causes my tympanic membrane to vibrate. Now things are suddenly very complex and highly variable and a room full of complex vibrations is much more difficult to measure than a signal in a conductor.

Those vibrations of the tympanic membrane stimulate the cochlea, which converts them back into an electrical signal - with different results for different people, and in ways that are difficult to measure. (Cochlear implants are available for those with severe hearing loss, but I have no idea whether current technology allow "high-fidelity" listening compared to functional, working ears.)

When the electrical signals from the ear reach the brain, that complex organic computer produces results that vary widely from person to person. Hello psychoacoustics! There is a lot of opportunity here for "truth-seeking"! But after auditory signal reaches the brain - unless I am mistaken - in a manner similar to particle physics, we can only explore and measure the "effects" of that musical signal and can no longer measure the music signal itself.

The point I struggle to make apparent is that vox populi solutions promote one-size-fits-all based on the median preference in the population, which may not be what the unique individual needs.

And because preferences in a population are drifting, so will the median based one-size-fits-all solution change, possibly for random reasons.

In addition, we don’t really know for sure if the listening tests - that work as a market of preferences - will reveal the True Preferences or be subject to noise due to the way the «market of preferences» (i.e. the listening test) was designed.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
The appropriate term is «... «colour vision deficiency» in English.

Perhaps in British English, but not in the United States, where standard dictionary-defined American English should be assumed to be most "appropriate."

"gold standard" = "a benchmark"​
and​
"color-blind" = "unable to distinguish certain colors, or (rarely in humans) any colors at all"​

As I stated earlier, it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation if participants do not agree on what language to use - and use that language in a consistent manner. (I moved to live in a Spanish-speaking country at age 70, and although I am struggling to learn the language, at least I accept the dictionary definitions used here.)

I respect the fact that other languages may treat the term differently, and try to avoid controversy when I suspect communication problems due to language barriers. However, this is a U.S. based website, and the below is what is "appropriate" here.

You repeatedly insist on "accuracy" from others, and claim to be searching for truth, yet you refuse to adhere to those standards yourself, and even deny the accuracy of English dictionaries!

 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
TRUTH OR PREFERENCES?

I wonder, which research program do the two gentlemen belong to? The Preference seeking one or the Truth seeking one?

319695d1431165701-peter-aczel-og-audio-critic-arven-fra-en-90-r-gammel-lydkritiker-audio-critic-nummer-18-1992-side-39.jpg

Source: THE AUDIO CRITIC, number 18, 1992, page 39.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
In addition, we don’t really know for sure if the listening tests - that work as a market of preferences - will reveal the True Preferences or be subject to noise due to the way the «market of preferences» (i.e. the listening test) was designed.

You might as well search for unicorns instead of the holy grail of static "true preferences" in audio - because neither exist.

"Preferences" for consumer goods by both individuals and groups are dynamic, and in the population as a whole, change frequently. However, preferences can persist unchanged for some people for significant lengths of time.

Preferences in audio are analyzed using statistics, and are not considered to be hard, permanent facts. Audio preferences are interesting to many of us here at ASR, and useful to those people who are involved in the marketing of audio products - especially loudspeakers. However, it would take a really dumb or poorly qualified audio marketing person to think that preferences in controlled listening tests are directly translatable to effective sales and marketing. Successful sales and marketing people consider many factors and try to come up with a blend of tactics - a "program" - that will help them reach their sales goals.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,493
The point I struggle to make apparent is that vox populi solutions promote one-size-fits-all based on the median preference in the population, which may not be what the unique individual needs.

And because preferences in a population are drifting, so will the median based one-size-fits-all solution change, possibly for random reasons.

In addition, we don’t really know for sure if the listening tests - that work as a market of preferences - will reveal the True Preferences or be subject to noise due to the way the «market of preferences» (i.e. the listening test) was designed.

You're not struggling to make your point. You're struggling to understand that you've already made your point. Learn how to take Yes for an answer.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Come on. In audio, we have the usage of «deaf» already, as in «tone deaf».

@Floyd Toole has told us that some people are what one could call «speaker deaf».

When I wrote «deaf» in my comment, I wrote that the participants were, «for practical reasons, deaf».

Considering you admitted deliberately using certain terminology to provoke a few posts back, I think you need to be careful.


"On «deplorables»: As you probably understood already, I like to provoke to get a clearer image of people’s positions"

In any case your interpretation of hearing impairment is plain wrong. The nature of Hearing impairment will vary radically from individual to individual. It's also blatantly obvious you wouldn't design a speaker based on data from hearing impaired individuals.

You know this. You knew this prior to starting your point about exclusions from the data set. There are clearly valid reasons to exclude people from data sets. So I am quickly coming to the conclusion that whilst this this is not specifically trolling, its certainly not an honest conversation.


Oh and, as I am sure you already know, Tone deaf is not the same thing as a hearing impairment that prevents perception of sound.
 
Last edited:

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
The point I struggle to make apparent is that vox populi solutions promote one-size-fits-all based on the median preference in the population, which may not be what the unique individual needs.

And because preferences in a population are drifting, so will the median based one-size-fits-all solution change, possibly for random reasons.

In addition, we don’t really know for sure if the listening tests - that work as a market of preferences - will reveal the True Preferences or be subject to noise due to the way the «market of preferences» (i.e. the listening test) was designed.

We understand the point, just don't agree with it. It's predicated by inaccurate assumptions on your behalf.
 

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,893
We understand the point, just don't agree with it. It's predicated by inaccurate assumptions on your behalf.
Agreed. One assumption is that recordings - that communicate the art to our equipment - are themselves "neutral". There is the "circle of confusion" which would benefit from both pros and consumers gravitating to the popular choice - neutral, transparent, uncolored loudspeakers. Is it not the "art" that we are attempting to capture, store and reproduce with some confidence that what consumers hear resembles what was created?

At the present time, loudspeakers are not the weakest link, it is the recording industry that operates with no scientifically supported technical standards, and which is significantly populated by recording engineers with degraded hearing. Most professional installations and a significant fraction of consumer installations are manipulated by "room EQ" - claiming impossible deliverables from unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms.
Such EQ is an important component in taming small room resonances at low frequencies for a single listener, but beyond that these are simply subjectively judged tone control operations. Often they attempt "corrections" at middle and high frequencies that are not problems for two ears and a brain, resulting in degraded sound from will designed loudspeaker.s. Tone controls are useful tools to compensate for "circle of confusion" issues, and to cater to individual taste preferences - that can change with time and program.

Finally, let us not ignore the profound limitations of two-channels in delivering anything resembling a live unamplified listening experience. Thoughts of "realism" or "accuracy" from stereo are themselves misguided. This is 2019; it is time to move on. That is a worthwhile objective.
Figure 18.8 conclusion.jpg


Let's get real. My contributions to this discussion have most often been recitations of portions of my papers and book, meaning that important information is already in print, and obviously not read or understood by some of the parties to this discussion. I attach the last diagram from the 3rd edition of my book.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
What Americans call 'engineers', in other parts of the world encompass what are called tradesmen, operators, drivers, technicians, computer programmers, senior draughtsmen, technical salespersons, et.al. All perform an important role in the technical world and often through experience and learning move beyond their peers.

I am a professional engineer and readily defer to experienced hands-on guys for practical advice and opinions.

There is a difference between an aircraft Pilot(driver) and a Flight Engineer(problem solver). I tend to see the recording engineer as more like a pilot getting to an aural destination.

YMMV. o_O
 
Last edited:

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
What Americans call 'engineers', in other parts of the world encompass what are called tradesmen, operators, drivers, technicians, computer programmers, senior draughtsmen, technical salespersons, et.al.

There is a difference between an aircraft Pilot(driver) and a Flight Engineer(problem solver). I tend to see the recording engineer as more like a pilot.

YMMV. o_O

Yeah, we have what you might call a lot of position title inflation. Everyone’s a doctor or an engineer or a professor or a president or an officer or whatever. :)
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Yeah, we have what you might call a lot of position title inflation. Everyone’s a doctor or an engineer or a professor or a president or an officer or whatever. :)

Is anybody not a Manager or Consultant(looking for a steady job -apologies to real consultants).
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
Is anybody not a Manager or Consultant(looking for a steady job -apologies to real consultants).

A manager might be called a chief or a deputy chief or a Secretary or deputy Secretary or a senior this or that or a Vice President, etc. A consultant is still a good gig but again the title is way over used to make people’s positions sound more lofty than they are. Like a salesman is now a sales consultant. And a clerk is now an account representative or an examiner or a technician. Etc.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
So, when you meet someone nowadays and ask what they do, you need to follow up with " but what is it you actually do"?
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
So, when you meet someone nowadays and ask what they do, you need to follow up with " but what is it you actually do"?

There’s a cultural rift, maybe diminishing over time—in some parts of the country, like where my family comes from, a part of rural Nebraska, it’s rude to focus on what a person does or their status and you just get to know them as people first. In other parts of the country, like where I live, in a coastal metropolitan area, what you do is one of the first things people ask, and everyone is very self-conscious about their status. But everyone in that setting has an idea for what kind of title is a euphemism for what kind of work.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Agreed. One assumption is that recordings - that communicate the art to our equipment - are themselves "neutral". There is the "circle of confusion" which would benefit from both pros and consumers gravitating to the popular choice - neutral, transparent, uncolored loudspeakers. Is it not the "art" that we are attempting to capture, store and reproduce with some confidence that what consumers hear resembles what was created?

At the present time, loudspeakers are not the weakest link, it is the recording industry that operates with no scientifically supported technical standards, and which is significantly populated by recording engineers with degraded hearing. Most professional installations and a significant fraction of consumer installations are manipulated by "room EQ" - claiming impossible deliverables from unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms.
Such EQ is an important component in taming small room resonances at low frequencies for a single listener, but beyond that these are simply subjectively judged tone control operations. Often they attempt "corrections" at middle and high frequencies that are not problems for two ears and a brain, resulting in degraded sound from will designed loudspeaker.s. Tone controls are useful tools to compensate for "circle of confusion" issues, and to cater to individual taste preferences - that can change with time and program.

Finally, let us not ignore the profound limitations of two-channels in delivering anything resembling a live unamplified listening experience. Thoughts of "realism" or "accuracy" from stereo are themselves misguided. This is 2019; it is time to move on. That is a worthwhile objective.View attachment 31037

Let's get real. My contributions to this discussion have most often been recitations of portions of my papers and book, meaning that important information is already in print, and obviously not read or understood by some of the parties to this discussion. I attach the last diagram from the 3rd edition of my book.
The last studio I was in for recording of a musical group of my friends had his monitors so rolled off it was hard to believe. As in, "hey dude are your tweeters blown, and how much roll-off is in your midrange?" While not chopped clean off, it had response of very little above 5 khz. Bass was ample. I wondered if having been in the business his whole life maybe he didn't hear anything up there anyway. BTW, it was fairly recent JBL studio monitors he was using.

Then I heard his mix. Sweet Jesus! compression and limiting galore. Enough sharpness it sounded somewhat balanced on his monitors. Not natural, but a balance of trebly muck and everything else. An all acoustical and voice recording had DR 6 on it. Just flat slammed. Guy had only been doing this like 33 years. Some of the musicians couldn't hear anything that they thought were the instruments they were playing. "I know I played the fiddle on this, but I don't hear anything that sounds like a fiddle???"

They finally got him to tone it down to something reasonable after two more round abouts with him. With such a radically altered response as his norm he couldn't do a transparent recording to save his life. Nor is he trying to in any way, shape or form.

It has been my opinion speakers are a much weaker link than good microphones. But yes, when you look at how recording studios conduct business and what they do after the microphones, they are the biggest, most awful, weakest link in the chain by a couple of orders of magnitude. It doesn't have to be this way. They could do the creative processing without being so far from neutral, but they aren't. And I've talked in person to a couple such people, and seen responses on forums. They are flat pig headed in their denial. They are pros, they do great and know their stuff because they make a living, and people like me are full of it. The ways they mangle and mutilate sound quality are actually a sign of expertise in their world, and you won't get them to think otherwise.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
The last studio I was in for recording of a musical group of my friends had his monitors so rolled off it was hard to believe. As in, "hey dude are your tweeters blown, and how much roll-off is in your midrange?" While not chopped clean off, it had response of very little above 5 khz. Bass was ample. I wondered if having been in the business his whole life maybe he didn't hear anything up there anyway. BTW, it was fairly recent JBL studio monitors he was using.

Then I heard his mix. Sweet Jesus! compression and limiting galore. Enough sharpness it sounded somewhat balanced on his monitors. Not natural, but a balance of trebly muck and everything else. An all acoustical and voice recording had DR 6 on it. Just flat slammed. Guy had only been doing this like 33 years. Some of the musicians couldn't hear anything that they thought were the instruments they were playing. "I know I played the fiddle on this, but I don't hear anything that sounds like a fiddle???"

They finally got him to tone it down to something reasonable after two more round abouts with him. With such a radically altered response as his norm he couldn't do a transparent recording to save his life. Nor is he trying to in any way, shape or form.

It has been my opinion speakers are a much weaker link than good microphones. But yes, when you look at how recording studios conduct business and what they do after the microphones, they are the biggest, most awful, weakest link in the chain by a couple of orders of magnitude. It doesn't have to be this way. They could do the creative processing without being so far from neutral, but they aren't. And I've talked in person to a couple such people, and seen responses on forums. They are flat pig headed in their denial. They are pros, they do great and know their stuff because they make a living, and people like me are full of it. The ways they mangle and mutilate sound quality are actually a sign of expertise in their world, and you won't get them to think otherwise.

Oh boy. Isn’t it somewhat symptomatic for discourse on ASR that one can call a mastering engineer a pig head and nobody on ASR takes notice? Calling someone a pig for the job they’re doing is quite insulting, isn’t it? In some cultures, pigs are the worst of animals.

Are we surprised that so few mastering engineers populate ASR? I wish we had more mastering engineers here to have them talk about practical music production.

It’s not the first time mastering engineers are criticized on ASR. Critique is fine, of course (however, calling people pigs is not), but isn’t the critique of mastering engineers a bit like criticizing pop music for being popular?

The preferred mode of scientific inquiry on ASR seems to be preference seeking blind tests. Vox populi processes are designed to create a market place of sound reproduction characteristics that are in demand in such a market; hence, true preferences are seeked out.

Music is a market place too. So what sells is good by definition of market theory. Because a market is a higly complex computer of information, more powerful than any man on his own, one should think twice before criticizing the market. The market is right, isn’t it?

So why is it that a market designed to seek preferences in sound reproduction is right, while a market for music gets it wrong? It’s the same mechanism that gives us say good speaker characteristics that gives us popular music. An important distinction is the fact that buyers of music have skin in the game; they pay with their own money to voice their preference.

Is it ok to call mastering engineers that are successful in a competitive market pigs, while marvelling at what comes out of markets designed to uncover popular speaker characteristics?
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Oh boy. Isn’t it somewhat symptomatic for discourse on ASR that one can call a mastering engineer a pig head and nobody on ASR takes notice? Calling someone a pig for the job they’re doing is quite insulting, isn’t it? In some cultures, pigs are the worst of animals.

Are we surprised that so few mastering engineers populate ASR? I wish we had more mastering engineers here to have them talk about practical music production.

It’s not the first time mastering engineers are criticized on ASR. Critique is fine, of course (however, calling people pigs is not), but isn’t the critique of mastering engineers a bit like criticizing pop music for being popular?

The preferred mode of scientific inquiry on ASR seems to be preference seeking blind tests. Vox populi processes are designed to create a market place of sound reproduction characteristics that are in demand in such a market; hence, true preferences are seeked out.

Music is a market place too. So what sells is good by definition of market theory. Because a market is a higly complex computer of information, more powerful than any man on his own, one should think twice before criticizing the market. The market is right, isn’t it?

So why is it that a market designed to seek preferences in sound reproduction is right, while a market for music gets it wrong? It’s the same mechanism that gives us say good speaker characteristics that gives us popular music. An important distinction is the fact that buyers of music have skin in the game; they pay with their own money to voice their preference.

Is it ok to call mastering engineers that are successful in a competitive market pigs, while marvelling at what comes out of markets designed to uncover popular speaker characteristics?
 
Top Bottom