The ASR "objectivists tribe" ;) has to read the Keynotes at the AES160th by Lars Risbo

[JPA]

That room is used for different kinds of studies as it has no speaker shuffler. You can see the front of the room better in this picture I took:

Behind that projection screen there is a rotating column that lets you/them test three different in-wall speakers. The speaker setup is also used for multichannel research of Auto EQ systems in a few papers.

The room was built to be IEC compliant so has a lot of absorption that is not recommended for people to deploy. Its purpose is to have a room whose results can be replicated by others.

Floyd stated, somewhere on this forum, that the acoustic treatments in that room were for show only, and were ineffective.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for replying.

You can both be right, can't you?

I don’t really think so; not on the specific point I was replying to, which was the claim that when it comes to describing an as-yet-unproven phenomenon, you cannot use any analogy to proven phenomena.
That’s about as wrong really as you can get in terms of reasoning generally, and science in particular. As I pointed out, among countless examples, it would have ruled out the concept of artificial intelligence. (and also ruled out advances in artificial intelligence derived from analogies to humans).

Whether Lars was descriptive enough about the particular distortion, or was even referencing a real phenomenon, is a separate question.

I know RexrothPigeon and some others may have some trouble with Purifi’s claim.
But making fallacious statements about the nature of empirical reasoning, and claims doesn’t help get us to a proper critique.
I believe I broke down the issues in a more clarifying way.

 

[MattHooper]

I agree with you that you can qualify something you experience without having it measured. But at the same time, it's just your qualification.

But just like we all pretty know what it means for a photograph to be a “ grainy photograph,” we can discuss a proposed sonic description and converge on agreement.

So we have the proposal that Hysteresis causes some kind of distortion.

OK.

What does that distortion sound like?

Then we can move onto a description of its perceptual qualities. It’s not going to have the same precision of the measurements.
But it can be useful, and helpful for a listener to know what to listen for. (including in controlled listening tests.)

You'll have to be very specific with what you see to deduce the actual type of noise. And even if you don't know the noise source, it's still helpful to qualify it as accurately as possible. "granular texture", and some flowery prose around it, is not nearly exact enough.

What would be exact enough?

In a previous post I went through the concept of grain for images and then grain applied to Sonic description, and I proposed a definition:

Grain is the perception of a fine-textured roughness superimposed on sounds that should be smooth and continuous.

And then I elaborated citing physical examples that would bring to mind the sound of a grainy texture, as well as examples of how that superimposed grainy texture could affect the sound of recordings.

What more you would need?

If somebody uses the term grainy to describe a sound, I have a good idea what they’re talking about. In fact, as I’ve mentioned before, my sound effects work depends on knowing what people are talking about when they use such terms. And if necessary, we can narrow it down and get more specific.

I did a ghost movie with a director who wanted communications from a ghost to be accompanied by some sort of distortion or static. So the question was: “ do you want a bright solid, narrowband static hiss that is really prominent and cuts through the mix?” Or a subtler, softer, smooth but granular tone? Or a more aggressive, gritty static broken up with sharper pops and ticks like a record or a tire rolling over gravel?

“ let’s do the softer, smooth granular tone”

Got it!

If we were all “ I just don’t know what you’re trying to get across with these subjective descriptions” people in my work could never collaborate to accomplish our goals.

So for me, if somebody like Lars says a distortion is going to cause an added grainy or granular texture…. that already gives me a pretty good idea what to listen for. And if I really needed something more specific, I would ask some questions to narrow it down.

 

[amirm]

Floyd stated, somewhere on this forum, that the acoustic treatments in that room were for show only, and were ineffective.

In person I was told that for the real room I post the pictures of, not this one. This one actually has an AES paper on it.

 

[sam_adams]

If anyone wants my opinion (well, when has that ever stopped me?)

I think opinions on that vary almost as much as in the audiophile world.

 

[Suono]

I don't understand how we can still talk about high fidelity if we don't absorb or diffuse, depending on the case (energy and distance), the 12 early reflections of a room in the stereophonic reproduction of a single violin, thus losing focus. Statistical preferences make little sense. This doesn't mean we need to create a dead room; we know full well that the subsequent reflections are pleasant.

 

[amirm]

I don't understand how we can still talk about high fidelity if we don't absorb or diffuse, depending on the case (energy and distance), the 12 early reflections of a room in the stereophonic reproduction of a single violin, thus losing focus.

How can you talk about reality of that violin coming out of two point sources??? That is much more fantastical than the idea that some widening of those two sources is a good thing.

Statistical preferences make little sense.

Why? Being an audiophile is like being fooled by the presentation being more than it is. If side reflections make your brain enjoy the experience more, then doing otherwise is the anthesis of being an audiophile.

 

[Sal1950]

That one is more easily explained with demographics and economics... people getting into the hobby don't have any damn space for speakers the way people did in the 50s-80s. Good sound is much more achievable with headphones if you have roommates...

Absolutely.
But it doesn't explain how they can have good sound without room reflections.
Isn't that what's being claimed to certain extent?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the jest of the discussion?

 

[Suono]

How can you talk about reality of that violin coming out of two point sources??? That is much more fantastical than the idea that some widening of those two sources is a good thing

And what do you prefer when you listen? I prefer a violin coming from two in-phase point sources than listening to 14 sources. I always speak on a case-by-case basis (room, distance, energy).

 

[Suono]

Why? Being an audiophile is like being fooled by the presentation being more than it is. If side reflections make your brain enjoy the experience more, then doing otherwise is the anthesis of being an audiophile.

I know very well what I feel with only the first reflections treated and the secondary ones free to take me to the recording location.

 

[Suono]

Why? Being an audiophile is like being fooled by the presentation being more than it is. If side reflections make your brain enjoy the experience more, then doing otherwise is the anthesis of being an audiophile.

Have you ever listened to a recording of a band filmed in an acoustically treated room and then listened back to the recording of that event through the stereo system? Stereo isn't as flawed as it's made out to be.

 

[amirm]

And what do you prefer when you listen? I prefer a violin coming from two in-phase point sources than listening to 14 sources.

It never comes from 14 sources or that is what you would hear live! Our brain has evolved to filter out constant sounds. This is why your loved ones sound the same in different rooms.

 

[amirm]

I know very well what I feel with only the first reflections treated and the secondary ones free to take me to the recording location.

What you know or think you now is neither here, nor there. Folks believe in all kinds of things. What matters is what you can prove.

 

[amirm]

Have you ever listened to a recording of a band filmed in an acoustically treated room and then listened back to the recording of that event through the stereo system?

The what?

Stereo isn't as flawed as it's made out to be.

Sure is. What is the frequency response of the phantom center? You know, where the signer would be or your single violin.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

But making fallacious statements about the nature of empirical reasoning

What exactly is empirical about theorizing about something whose very existence has not been established? Where's the empiricism involved in that process? Genuine questions, because all I see is a priori reasoning.

 

[Suono]

It never comes from 14 sources or that is what you would hear live! Our brain has evolved to filter out constant sounds. This is why your loved ones sound the same in different rooms

What do the voices of my loved ones have to do with stereo playback? The example I gave you is more pertinent. Record a violin in a room, then play the recording back in the same room, address the early reflections, and then tell me the differences

 

[Ype]

What do the voices of my loved ones have to do with stereo playback? The example I gave you is more pertinent. Record a violin in a room, then play the recording back in the same room, address the early reflections, and then tell me the differences

What they have to do with each other is that you hear both in a room with your ears and brain.

Stereo is fundamentally compromised in the sweet spot.
Reflections help fill in that spectral dip.

I am not going to write a novel as to why that is, as Floyd Toole explains all of this in Sound Reproduction, 4th edition
See chapter 4.3.1 The System of Stereo—How It Works

I am aware that your post was not directed at me, so don't feel obliged to reply, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean this knowledge doesn't exist.

Perhaps I am missing something but I truly have no idea what you are trying to say or argue against.
It might help if you could try to ask your questions in a different way and presume others might know things you do not yet know.

 

[Suono]

What they have to do with each other is that you hear both in the room your ears and brain.

Stereo is fundamentally compromised in the sweet spot.
Reflections help fill in that spectral dip.

I am not going to write a novel as to why that is, as Floyd Toole explains all of this in Sound Reproduction, 4th edition
See chapter 4.3.1 The System of Stereo—How It Works

I am aware that your post was not directed at me, so don't feel obliged to reply, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean this knowledge doesn't exist.

Perhaps I am missing something but I truly have no idea what you are trying to say or argue against.
It might help you could try to ask your questions in a different way and presume others might know things you do not yet know.

I'll try to explain better. I'm not saying that room reflections aren't useful; aggressive ones negatively impact focus. If a live violin is played in front of me, I get the maximum focus possible. If I lose focus in stereo playback, I've lost high fidelity.

 

[TimVG]

The great thing is that anyone can do absolutely anything they want in their own space.
Online discussions often have a lack of nuance. If a study shows certain trendlines, and your experience doesn't happen to fall within the median, that doesn't invalidate the study.

 

[Keith_W]

Error bars on that are so big I wouldn't bet $10 on the real outcome ...

Those huge error bars are kind of the point. It tells you that the confidence of study participants of one intervention over another was really low. So really the conclusion supports the null hypothesis - none of these interventions is superior to the other.