• 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!

Our perception of audio

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
I tried a similar thing, with the treble boost toned down compared to the bass boost to try to mimic better the equal loudness curves. I think one reason I didn't persist with it much was that I rarely listen to headphones at low levels, i.e. headphone listening for me is usually at a pretty moderate SPL level. So I found that when the loudness function was active at a level I might actually listen at, it seemed like too much, while in the range where it was active, it always seemed to make things too bright.

I'm gonna revisit it though out of interest. Perhaps I should try without any treble boost at all...

I'm assuming I listen pretty softly, at least most of the time anyway. The lo volume ref on the profile for my HD650's is -45dBr (Auto Ref).
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I'm assuming I listen pretty softly, at least most of the time anyway. The lo volume ref on the profile for my HD650's is -45dBr (Auto Ref).

I'm not with the DAC atm to check what level I keep it on, but I use NAD HP50s on the low volume ref and from memory have it at slightly higher levels than that... Will check though. Also, when not working with audio or music I mostly work from home, so I listen to quiet music in the background through the speakers rather than headphones. The headphones I mostly use as a second reference point for getting mixes right - definitely not a situation in which you want to listen too low (or high) in level or play around with the EQ. But I did have a fiddle around with it out of interest, and will do so again :)
 

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
The point being that 'the signal' is not a monolithic object in itself, yet audiophiles treat it as though it is.
I totally agree with this. As said, I think "musical stuff" are somethings at higher abstract level, above "audio/sound" in general.
But so, even a system of 100€ can satisfy those great higher level. Otherwise, it means that audio take part of it, and thus its directly linked to it; thus, a change of it, change the "music".

But lets examine some of your "objects" example:
  • a guitar and a singer
  • a singer and an audience
  • a singer and a church
  • a sad voice and a happy voice
  • a woodwind section and a string section
  • a lone voice in a silent room
  • a melody and a harmony
  • a melody and percussion backing
  • a sweet harmony and an angry voice
  • a modern sound and an old-fashioned melody
All of them don't require at all any 10k systems or advanced environments. Brain will process it and recognize every "objects" you have listed.
I would call them "macro objects".

The interesting things happens when you are listening (i.e. recognize) "micro objects".
Fortunately you have listed one of them (but there are many of them, and they will increase the more you are into music and stuff):
  • an increase in tension and a resolution
Tension (and dynamics, in general) will change every time you play it, whatever different systems or also the same, with different setup/values.
If you introduce this concept (as well of timbre, and such), than the object itself is identify from "what audio you are processing".
Thus, the more you fall into details and "low-level" objects, the more they are related to the source.

And here start the paradox of searching the setup that minimize distortion for a sort of "objective listening", when the simple fact of choosing it introduce differences (else, you won't choose it at all). After all, if no discriminations happens, you won't choose it.

Easily: you will reach a point where take a different setups won't "improve" objects, just change them.
Just think to a different frequency response of two QUALITY speakers (take whatever you want, over 10k each if you want): the timbre you got will differs a bit.
Or take the speaker you think is "better" than the other: it still sounds different in different situations. ALWAYS.

Here's the trap I don't get... hehe
 
Last edited:

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
Why should our perception of audio be any different from reading a book? If we read the same book more than once we will perceive it differently from any other time we read it, but it doesn't mean that the accuracy of 'reproduction' therefore doesn't matter.
Why it should matter? In any case you have perceived it differently! I think the mood you are reading is more incisive than the distorted font you are reading it. Of course the distortion must not be so HUGE, but hey..

A point is differences between systems of 10€ and 1000€... but what about different systems at parity of money? Really do you feel you are "improving" things swap between them and not just coloring differently?
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Do any others get the feeling that this 'hobby' is going around in ever decreasing circles and trying to disappear up a metaphorical philosophical arse. o_O
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
708
Likes
464
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
I would say that it has already done so.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,606
Location
Central Fl
Do any others get the feeling that this 'hobby' is going around in ever decreasing circles and trying to disappear up a metaphorical philosophical arse. o_O
Swallowed up by a black hole of illusion and delusion. LOL
 

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
Argument instead!
Most of the comments are from spectators instead of curious... you should have an opinion I believe...
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Argument instead!
Most of the comments are from spectators instead of curious... you should have an opinion I believe...

Really? Well my opinion is that that is not my opinion. :facepalm:
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Argument instead!
Most of the comments are from spectators instead of curious... you should have an opinion I believe...

Do you have any spectators in mind?

One of my hands-on projects. Built from a schematic of the Soldano Atomic 15 guitar amplifier. Lots of mods including a fully active tube effects loop. As quiet as a mouse at idle(not bad for a very high gain build) and roars like a lion when it should.

A gift for my daughter on her 21st birthday.

IMG_0523.JPG
IMG_0524.JPG
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,606
Location
Central Fl
Do you have any spectators in mind?

One of my hands-on projects. Built from a schematic of the Soldano Atomic 15 amplifier. Lots of mods including a fully active tube effects loop. As quiet as a mouse at idle(not bad for a very high gain build) and roars like a lion when it should.

A gift for my daughter on her 21st birthday.

View attachment 16431View attachment 16432
Incredible professionally finished project. My hats off to you for this one Wombat!
Great Job!
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Your perception of Wombat's audio mirrors that of mine.
Tipping hat (and possibly pants) off head as well !

Building something is one thing. Finishing it off nicely is another thing.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I totally agree with this. As said, I think "musical stuff" are somethings at higher abstract level, above "audio/sound" in general.
But so, even a system of 100€ can satisfy those great higher level. Otherwise, it means that audio take part of it, and thus its directly linked to it; thus, a change of it, change the "music".

But lets examine some of your "objects" example:
  • a guitar and a singer
  • a singer and an audience
  • a singer and a church
  • a sad voice and a happy voice
  • a woodwind section and a string section
  • a lone voice in a silent room
  • a melody and a harmony
  • a melody and percussion backing
  • a sweet harmony and an angry voice
  • a modern sound and an old-fashioned melody
All of them don't require at all any 10k systems or advanced environments. Brain will process it and recognize every "objects" you have listed.
I would call them "macro objects".

The interesting things happens when you are listening (i.e. recognize) "micro objects".
Fortunately you have listed one of them (but there are many of them, and they will increase the more you are into music and stuff):
  • an increase in tension and a resolution
Tension (and dynamics, in general) will change every time you play it, whatever different systems or also the same, with different setup/values.
If you introduce this concept (as well of timbre, and such), than the object itself is identify from "what audio you are processing".
Thus, the more you fall into details and "low-level" objects, the more they are related to the source.

And here start the paradox of searching the setup that minimize distortion for a sort of "objective listening", when the simple fact of choosing it introduce differences (else, you won't choose it at all). After all, if no discriminations happens, you won't choose it.

Easily: you will reach a point where take a different setups won't "improve" objects, just change them.
Just think to a different frequency response of two QUALITY speakers (take whatever you want, over 10k each if you want): the timbre you got will differs a bit.
Or take the speaker you think is "better" than the other: it still sounds different in different situations. ALWAYS.

Here's the trap I don't get... hehe
I don't believe that you will always be able to perceive the 'objects' regardless of the quality of reproduction.

(Your definition of macro and micro are the opposite to mine, I think: I started the list off with what I thought were 'micro' - or at least well-bounded discrete 'objects' - and ended with the more 'macro' in that they emerge from the combination of several other 'objects'.)

But say, for example, the difference between a sad voice and an angry voice is partly the way the voice goes from quiet to loud, and your system just can't help but compress the dynamic range (could be a Homepod type thing with clever DSP volume limiting) then you may not be able to perceive the angry 'object' as clearly. Similarly, a 'menace' 'object' might require adequate reproduction down to very low frequencies and if your speakers can't do it, you just can't perceive it in the same way. Not only will you not hear the 'menace' but the relationship between the other 'objects' is altered.

I'm not claiming that we always hear things the same way if the system remains constant or anything like that; merely that the recording contains a set of 'objects' that have a relationship to each other that means something. Poor (i.e. non-neutral) reproduction damages those relationships, deletes certain 'objects', and/or substitutes meaningless 'objects'. People can still enjoy the result just as they enjoy McDonalds food, but I think we should be aiming for the real thing if we can.

I'm not advocating 10k systems, just adequate ones that do minimal vandalism on the signal.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
The differences between some of the more expensive transducers (headphones as well as speakers) I find to be in the 'ease' with which one can 'separate' instruments. Tonal balance differences are usually smaller between higher priced/performing transducers.

Of course, this is no rule, there are plenty of exceptions all around. There are also a few 'gems' to be found in lower price ranges but in general they still aren't nearly as 'good' when compared directly to most of the more expensive ones.

For amps and DAC's I don't think the differences between them are that audible (if at all), and when they are something is done to it on purpose to make it 'different' but is usually quite visible in measurements.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
The differences between some of the more expensive transducers (headphones as well as speakers) I find to be in the 'ease' with which one can 'separate' instruments. Tonal balance differences are usually smaller between higher priced/performing transducers.

Of course, this is no rule, there are plenty of exceptions all around. There are also a few 'gems' to be found in lower price ranges but in general they still aren't nearly as 'good' when compared directly to most of the more expensive ones.

For amps and DAC's I don't think the differences between them are that audible (if at all), and when they are something is done to it on purpose to make it 'different' but is usually quite visible in measurements.

Class A and class AB or B amps can be somewhat initially judged by their weight(PS transformer mass). The rest follows.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Class A and class AB or B amps can be somewhat initially judged by their weight(PS transformer mass).

And their heat production :D
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,606
Location
Central Fl
I'm not advocating 10k systems, just adequate ones that do minimal vandalism on the signal.

Speaking of speakers, at what pricing do you believe the point of diminishing returns become large?
Without much (any) listening experience at this level but some knowledge in the market I would estimate this.
1. At the very top end about $20,000 looks to put you at the bleeding edge. Things from the Harman Revel's and JBL's statements are there, the current raves of Kii and D&D sit there, lots more. MHO is that the six digit products from companys like Wilson are much more of a fashion-wealth statement and their ability to deliver HiFi at a level much if any better than the formers is very debatable.
2. About 85% of the very best is obtainable for approx $500 a pair minus some type of bass enhancement (subwoofer/s). There are any number of stand mounted speakers out there that will fit this category thought their strengths and weaknesses will vary widely. Pick your poison here.

Just some food for thought to be kicked around.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Speaking of speakers, at what pricing do you believe the point of diminishing returns become large?
Without much (any) listening experience at this level but some knowledge in the market I would estimate this.
1. At the very top end about $20,000 looks to put you at the bleeding edge. Things from the Harman Revel's and JBL's statements are there, the current raves of Kii and D&D sit there, lots more. MHO is that the six digit products from companys like Wilson are much more of a fashion-wealth statement and their ability to deliver HiFi at a level much if any better than the formers is very debatable.
2. About 85% of the very best is obtainable for approx $500 a pair minus some type of bass enhancement (subwoofer/s). There are any number of stand mounted speakers out there that will fit this category thought their strengths and weaknesses will vary widely. Pick your poison here.

Just some food for thought to be kicked around.

Totally agree with the first statement, but I'd put the 85% point at more like $1k-2k for standmounts (e.g. Revel's Performa series, KEF's R series, some high quality active monitors, etc). $500 doesn't go quite far enough for passive standmounts IMHO, mostly because in this price range it's impossible IME to find speakers that don't suffer from having undersized ports and/or cabinet resonances.

85% is very subjective in this context of course though :)
 
Top Bottom