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

[MatrixS2000]

But as always: don't let your brain fall out!

And yet, this is exactly what he does. And this is exactly the criticism I have!

He says:

• Don’t overread studies
• Don’t lean too hard on secondary endpoints
• Don’t draw conclusions a study was not designed to support

And then he does exactly that with:

• ITD work
• distortion audibility in sweep contexts
• crossover/group-delay hints
• room-mode reinterpretations
• and Toole-adjacent preference research

Spot on.

I also don’t believe the two camps should be separate in people with a balanced view. Everyone is born a subjectivist. We all filter everything we take in through our senses. To become an objectivist, people start to question why those senses feed back the information they do. But the objective view should not replace the subjective view; it should guide and inform it, because anyone who’s delved into the accuracy of our senses knows they are not great.

I also understand the need to differentiate your business in a crowded space. But, imo, this is where the objective view must override the subjective view unless you want to get caught up in potentially misleading marketing. I’m not claiming magnetic hysteresis is a marketing only claim. But supporting evidence was not offered, so I remain skeptical about the claim because my objectivity tells me that if the claim were evidence supported, skepticism would be more difficult to maintain. That’s my hysteresis loop…

 

[voodooless]

But, imo, this is where the objective view must override the subjective view unless you want to get caught up in potentially misleading marketing

The thing is. Purifi really doesn’t need any of this. Their engineering excellence is clear, and the measurable results can stand on their own. They have always been super open with their data. Leagues better than most others. They have driven transducer transparency further with every new generation of drivers. This is a massive achievement.

 

[CtheArgie]

So? What is this famous hard endpoint? Is Lars talking about speakers or psychoacoustics? They are two different issues, even if related.

 

[MattHooper]

Let’s remember that you don’t need to have a technical explanation for a phenomenon before testing for it. Observations often come first; technical or scientific explanations later.

Please define "granular texture". If I have a pile of sand I can explore the grain sizes, but no such properties exist for sound.

This shouldn’t be that hard.

Take the two photos below. And imagine we have no technical explanation for the difference in these photos yet.

But there is an observable difference.

So how do we describe the difference?

Well, it’s fairly natural to apprehend the left photo as having the type of granular, speckled texture we would associate with something like grains of sand. So it’s not surprising that the type of distortion on the photo on the left has come to be known “grainy” images.

And you could run tests to see whether people perceive this texture or can distinguish photos via this grainy texture.

The same issues carry over to identifying different sonic traits.

So we could say, in sound quality terms:

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

Like the audible equivalent to the difference between a piece of polished glass versus fine sandpaper.

Or in sonic terms it can mimic the quality of lightly rubbing sandpaper on an object, lightly pouring fine sand, or grains of sand being agitated over a sheet of paper. Ultimately when this is imposed on a recording it makes for a slightly rough, granular texture.

Grain imposed on an otherwise smooth recording can cause the perception that, for instance: Violins sound slightly scratchy rather than silky. Cymbals might sound sandy rather than shimmering. Quiet details may seem surrounded by a subtle haze.

And there’s nothing in principle against the idea that one can do controlled listening tests for whether an individual or groups can distinguish between sounds that have this added textural quality and those that don’t.
And then we can seek an explanation for what is causing that specific type of Sonic texture.

Or…conversely… one may technically identify a distortion via measurements… and then test whether the distortion is audible, at which point the character of that distortion can be described as “grain.”

(I would certainly describe some of the distortions I can hear from a vinyl record as grainy…. And I would describe sometimes the effect of close reflective wall surfaces to a loudspeaker as adding a hashy or grainy/granular distortion in upper frequencies. Also…in my DAW I have plug-ins some of which are used to degrade or low fi the sound or add sci fi character… and some of them have names like “granulation” and…yup… they make the sound “grainy” … so I guess those who designed such plug-ins were able to arrive at the technical features required to produce the sense of granulation).

 

[voodooless]

Let’s remember that you don’t need to have a technical explanation for a phenomenon before testing for it. Observations often come first; technical or scientific explanations later.




This shouldn’t be that hard.

Take the two photos below. And imagine we have no technical explanation for the difference in these photos yet.

But there is an observable difference.

View attachment 536611

So how do we describe the difference?

Well, it’s fairly natural to apprehend the left photo as having the type of granular, speckled texture we would associate with something like grains of sand. So it’s not surprising that the type of distortion on the photo on the left has come to be known “grainy” images.

And you could run tests to see whether people perceive this texture or can distinguish photos via this grainy texture.

The same issues carry over to identifying different sonic traits.

So we could say, in sound quality terms:

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

Like the audible equivalent to the difference between a piece of polished glass versus fine sandpaper.

Or in sonic terms it can mimic the quality of lightly rubbing sandpaper on an object, lightly pouring fine sand, or grains of sand being agitated over a sheet of paper. Ultimately when this is imposed on a recording it makes for a slightly rough, granular texture.

Grain imposed on an otherwise smooth recording can cause the perception that, for instance: Violins sound slightly scratchy rather than silky. Cymbals might sound sandy rather than shimmering. Quiet details may seem surrounded by a subtle haze.

And there’s nothing in principle against the idea that one can do controlled listening tests for whether an individual or groups can distinguish between sounds that have this added textural quality and those that don’t.
And then we can seek an explanation for what is causing that specific type of Sonic texture.

(I would certainly describe some of the distortions I can hear from a vinyl record as grainy…. And I would describe sometimes the effect of close reflective wall surfaces to a loudspeaker as adding a hashy or grainy/granular distortion in upper frequencies).

You just added a bunch of noise to the image. Next to being super obviously visible, it’s also trivially measurable with a simple difference, or even if you do a FFT of the image.

If this were the case in audio, it should be trivial to measure and quantify, and then also trivial to model and create a testable hypothesis.

 

[rdenney]

Just remember that, next to a scientist and an engineer, he is also a businessman.

And also that the point of a keynote address is to entertain people and get them thinking, not to present the conclusions of specific research.

Rick "suffering from PTSD from all the keynote addresses I've heard over the years" Denney

 

[MatrixS2000]

The thing is. Purifi really doesn’t need any of this. Their engineering excellence is clear, and the measurable results can stand on their own. They have always been super open with their data. Leagues better than most others. They have driven transducer transparency further with every new generation of drivers. This is a massive achievement.

No disagreement from me. This is in Purifi's realm to answer why the departure from their norm. The fact that this happened for this claim only strengthens my loop towards skepticism.

 

[MattHooper]

You just added a bunch of noise to the image.

Of course. Grainy images, whether the grain is added or whether the grain arises from the particular use of a film stock, are a type of distortion or noise.

But different distortions have different character. And the point was characterizing a specific type of distortion (I was answering a question about that).

Next to being super obviously visible, it’s also trivially measurable with a simple difference, or even if you do a FFT of the image.

If this were the case in audio, it should be trivial to measure and quantify, and then also trivial to model and create a testable hypothesis.

Well…yes… that’s all in keeping with what I wrote.

(With the caveat that possibly not every audible quality may be “trivial” to measure.
Some might be easier to measure than others).

 

[rdenney]

Let’s remember that you don’t need to have a technical explanation for a phenomenon before testing for it. Observations often come first; technical or scientific explanations later.




This shouldn’t be that hard.

Take the two photos below. And imagine we have no technical explanation for the difference in these photos yet.

But there is an observable difference.

View attachment 536611

So how do we describe the difference?

Well, it’s fairly natural to apprehend the left photo as having the type of granular, speckled texture we would associate with something like grains of sand. So it’s not surprising that the type of distortion on the photo on the left has come to be known “grainy” images.

And you could run tests to see whether people perceive this texture or can distinguish photos via this grainy texture.

The same issues carry over to identifying different sonic traits.

So we could say, in sound quality terms:

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

Like the audible equivalent to the difference between a piece of polished glass versus fine sandpaper.

Or in sonic terms it can mimic the quality of lightly rubbing sandpaper on an object, lightly pouring fine sand, or grains of sand being agitated over a sheet of paper. Ultimately when this is imposed on a recording it makes for a slightly rough, granular texture.

Grain imposed on an otherwise smooth recording can cause the perception that, for instance: Violins sound slightly scratchy rather than silky. Cymbals might sound sandy rather than shimmering. Quiet details may seem surrounded by a subtle haze.

And there’s nothing in principle against the idea that one can do controlled listening tests for whether an individual or groups can distinguish between sounds that have this added textural quality and those that don’t.
And then we can seek an explanation for what is causing that specific type of Sonic texture.

Or…conversely… one may technically identify a distortion via measurements… and then test whether the distortion is audible, at which point the character of that distortion can be described as “grain.”

(I would certainly describe some of the distortions I can hear from a vinyl record as grainy…. And I would describe sometimes the effect of close reflective wall surfaces to a loudspeaker as adding a hashy or grainy/granular distortion in upper frequencies. Also…in my DAW I have plug-ins some of which are used to degrade or low fi the sound or add sci fi character… and some of them have names like “granulation” and…yup… they make the sound “grainy” … so I guess those who designed such plug-ins were able to arrive at the technical features required to produce the sense of granulation).

Come on, Matt. It's super-easy to measure the grain difference in those two images. One dimension would be comparing the percentage of adjacent pixels with colors that exceed a threshold of difference, compared to an image that has standardized patterns for which the correct dimension is known.

And that's just 30 seconds of thinking about it.

But the point is not that grain is easy or difficult to measure--I would expect it to be easy once we define it--it's that the people who use the word have no idea what it means, or even what it sounds like in a way they can convey to someone else.

Rick "visual and aural share undefined adjectives only under protest" Denney

 

[Karmacoma]

The gist of it is that to a certain extent, we can seperate room from source, and that while sound quality obviously differs between rooms, the overall preference ranking of the loudspeakers tested remained the same, independent of the room in which they were placed.

It works a bit like color constancy, you can recognize a color under different lights, but the color looks nonetheless different.

 

[voodooless]

And also that the point of a keynote address is to entertain people and get them thinking, not to present the conclusions of specific research.

… also not to denigrate parts of your audience. As far as keynote speeches go, this a poor one.

 

[olieb]

If this were the case in audio, it should be trivial to measure and quantify, and then also trivial to model and create a testable hypothesis.

What I do not understand, why should that not hold for hysteresis, too?
Electromagnetism and ferromagnetism are quite evolved theories. It should be no problem to calculate, model, demonstrate, measure and simulate the effect of hysteresis in iron of the motor on the movement of the diaphragm for all kinds of signals at least to a good approximation.
And then one could test for audibility.
What is the problem? Or is the effect so small that it is by all probability not audible and therefore one starts to poke holes in “audibility“?

 

[Karmacoma]

While I agree, but I think Lars has earn the benefit of doubt. However, I am still eagerly waiting for the science of any claims.

And he's also playing with the histrionics of a keynote exercice, the context matters a lot here.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Or is the effect so small that it is by all probability not audible and therefore one starts to poke holes in “audibility“?

This is where I think the truth probably lives.

 

[olieb]

This is where I think the truth probably lives.

Seems a logical conclusion, but somehow it does not make sense.
Inaudibility of distortion did not stop Purifi from reducing distortion even further in amps.
And Lars' posts here for me seem to come from an attitude of a pragmatic and sincere engineer.
However, what he says here about temporal phenomena strikes me as half-baked.
Somehow I do not understand all this.

 

[Oddball]

Lol an entertaining thread for sure. Lots of great minds and thoughts.

So if we agree that more research is needed in psycho-acoustics, which should not be difficult to agree, then the two practical questions:

1) Who will pay for that and why? Last time I checked there is no free lunch, not only in America but globally.

2) How will we determine the relevancy of such research? I would think that Statistics is a branch of science that would bear relevance to that, but then seems that that is also in a bit of disarray except at the macro level - which I don't believe we will ever reach in the psycho-acoustics area?

Wikipedia:Statistics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am linking the Wiki main page, that just might show how complex the perception and understanding of statistics is. There are many links in there and one could spend quite a bit of time following them and understanding better where the friction points are.

Not that I want to argue any of great points raised, but this is something practical that might or might not be worth it.

 

[Geert]

If you’re going to say that any such specific phenomenon is not a “ something” or that you’re going to restrict to the type of “somethings” you can dream up that cannot be evaluated/falsified …. Then that’s actually rigging the game. (This all runs along the line that people will say you can’t prove a negative … which is at best and exaggeration at worst just false).

He didn't run his claim via his editor or lawyer. They would have told him he probably meant a universal negative can’t be proven when you can't search an entire, infinite space. Specific negative statements, like is there an elephant in my kitchen now, are easily proven through inspection and logic.

 

[Timcognito]

… also not to denigrate parts of your audience. As far as keynote speeches go, this a poor one.

and sell to both "tribes"

 

[Mort]

and sell to both "tribes"

Or at least present something balanced. His approach attacks and shames the exact people he believes are the solution to the problem. Notice that he didn't assign subjectivists any responsibility or participation in the solution. It's all on the objectivists to abandon the 'tribe' and pursue honest science.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Seems a logical conclusion, but somehow it does not make sense.
Inaudibility of distortion did not stop Purifi from reducing distortion even further in amps.
And Lars' posts here strike me to come from an attitude of a pragmatic and sincere engineer.
However, what he says here about temporal phenomena strikes me as half-baked.
Somehow I do not understand all this.

The distinction as I see it (and I am only guessing as I cannot be in Lars’ mind) is that distortion in electronics is easily measurable, so if you can lower it, why not? That claim would be measurement supported, regardless of whether audible or not. All objectivists would see that as “Yes, it there, but it’s not audible.” Very much like all the above audible SINAD rankings that are here - bragging rights only in true hearing terms.

Whereas this claim being “just this side of audible” seems to be a like there should be a measurement supporting it because the claim is telling us its audible! That is the contradiction that has my loop stuck in scepticism.