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

[MattHooper]

In the same preparation work, Dr Toole also looked at the differences of rooms. Since blind, fast physical switching between rooms wasn't possible, he used binaural recordings in the comparisons.

Isn’t there a problem with that? As Toole points out “ two ears and a brain” process sound differently than a microphone.

So a recording of a speaker combined with room effects is going to sound different - combine the room sound with the speaker - in a way that wouldn’t happen with a person actually listening in the room.

Unless…. Binaural recordings somehow obviate that factor.?

 

[voodooless]

This is well known by me (and others), but no place to discuss here?

You can discuss whatever you like as long as the mods allow it So go for it!

 

[Salt]

You can discuss whatever you like as long as the mods allow it So go for it!

So we can talk about step response, phase correlations, group delay and resulting FR ...
That is discussed meanwhile in different threads on this forum, and discussed thoroughly.

(Still don't get it why Lars, member here, gets pissed of that hard)

 

[NTK]

Isn’t there a problem with that? As Toole points out “ two ears and a brain” process sound differently than a microphone.

So a recording of a speaker combined with room effects is going to sound different - combine the room sound with the speaker - in a way that wouldn’t happen with a person actually listening in the room.

Unless…. Binaural recordings somehow obviate that factor.?

The updated, formalized technique is called binaural room scanning, and was referred to by Dr Toole in this post.

...
On the research side, using real-time binaural head-position tracking, binaural recordings are now used as laboratory apparatus for "transporting" listening experiences. (called Binaural Room Scanning). It is a "you are there" experience enabling listening tests to be done in different places at different times through calibrated headphones. It is powerful for circumstances that do not permit real-time double-blind listening. I discuss it in my book.
...

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

That's a good list. Under Psychology

Golden Ear: A pseudo-scientific practice asserting that, despite a lack of measurements of objective proof, some people have super-hearing that enables them to hear music and other audio content better and differently than the average human. This is generally applied to the purchase of audio reproduction equipment.

There is an article about that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ear -which features Flyod Toole's research prominently, but I'm not sure there's enough sourcing to add it to the list of pseudoscience topics.

 

[PristineSound]

So the key point for selling otherwise published measurements of their technology is a secret? Usually you would do that the other way around: publish about audibility of your undisclosed technology.

This article so happened to pop up on my feed.

Microsoft figured a way to use lead in quantum computing which until now haven't been used by others and the used of "quasiparticles known as Majoranas, which had not been proven to exist until Microsoft claimed to have observed them."

"Its claims have kicked off a flurry of criticism among physicists who say Microsoft has not publicly released enough data to verify its claims."

If I was Microsoft, I sure as hell ain't sharing nothing, these physicists can cry their heart out as far as I care. So maybe Purifi figured something out? Just giving Lars the benefit of doubt

https://www.reuters.com/business/microsoft-reveals-new-quantum-chip-made-with-ai-says-it-will-have-systems-by-2026-06-02/

 

[kemmler3D]

And… not remotely related, but I’d rather they did research into a (relatively) full range driver. Say from around 200Hz to 16khz.

For traditional VC designs, isn't there an inherent problem with beaming and/or doppler distortion?

You can get LF and HF in a small driver with crazy excursion and no beaming, but then the diaphragm's motion causes distortion.

I think one thing Purifi also noted in their posts about their tweeter is that once you start trying to get high SPL out of a very small diaphragm you start getting thermal effects in the air and the air itself causes distortion. (The SPL at the surface of the dome / cone goes to crazy high levels.)

Or you can get LF and HF in a big driver with low excursion, but you get beaming at HF because the sound radiating off the diaphragm cancels itself out.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong!

 

[DMill]

Ok, didn't want to come to that but now I'm gonna tell you a secret. An Ai can play chess or model a protein better than anyone. What it cannot do is winning a phylosophical debate, and it's easier to detect than a 6th finger on a picture, because first of all it doesn't understand concepts, nor what it is to be right or wrong, and also it has no grasp on reality, while part of phylosophy is to learn to interact with it. So it's gonna keep feeding you with out of touch answers no matter what and miss the point, something you have in common.
Stop all of this and save the planet.

Mostly correct. But AI will NOT model a protein better than anyone. But will assist in said modeling providing hundreds (or more) outcomes. It is a predicting model based on prompts. It will NOT feed you out of touch answers, but will rather make assertions, based on prompts, that back your claim… with extreme confidence. I realize the nuance I’m talking about, but it is an important distinction. It will always require a human user to determine its value. That said, for purposes in audio fidelity, it can already model a speaker with a perfectly flat FR if fed the right prompts (based on Klippel measurements if that is the criteria). And likely even optimize with driver/crossover suggestions that would increase Sensitivity. Like your chess analogy, it is already nearly impossible to defeat when using a predictive model. Unfortunately, if the standard is a Toole model or something else, designers who abide by “what we know” are likely nothing more than someone who can solder a connection or will be soon.

I realize this is a rather dark take on the industry and people who make their livings in it. And will likely will get some backlash. I also realize we aren’t here yet. But if you don’t see this happening SOON you are out of touch. My hope is we keep finding innovators in our industry who challenge current thinking and make it better. AI can’t do that… yet.

 

[Oddball]

https://www.gearpatrol.com/audio/mcintosh-ma2375-integrated-amplifier/

Could this be a bridge between the tribes? Not really cheap but looking like Mac with some alien glow. Perhaps no need to measure it as its lava lamps could do the hypnosis and make you fall in love with it, regardless of the tribe. Love is kind of independent of measurements and tribes as at least history taught us. If Mac is doing the tubes, then perhaps we should all reconsider?

 

[PristineSound]

https://www.gearpatrol.com/audio/mcintosh-ma2375-integrated-amplifier/

Could this be a bridge between the tribes? Not really cheap but looking like Mac with some alien glow. Perhaps no need to measure it as its lava lamps could do the hypnosis and make you fall in love with it, regardless of the tribe. Love is kind of independent of measurements and tribes as at least history taught us. If Mac is doing the tubes, then perhaps we should all reconsider?

My Yamaha probably measures like shit. The UV meters, the silver aluminum faceplate, the 50lbs weight, the big volume dial, there is no SINAD in the world that can convince me to part ways with it. I'm sure that's how these glowing tube enthusiasts feels.

 

[Keith_W]

@MattHooper posted those grainy pictures but he missed a point. Grain can actually improve acutance.

Look at the above two photos. One looks sharper than the other. This is especially evident in the hair follicles and the skin creases. The only difference: noise was added. Image taken from this article.

This is an example of why an understanding of the science of perception matters. Or in our case, psychoacoustics. The photo with the added grain is objectively, measurably worse. There is noise in there which was not present in the original image. Yet it looks sharper. You can see the noise if you look closely, but step a few feet back from your screen and look again. The noise disappears, and all that remains is the perception of improved acutance.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we should muddy up our systems by injecting noise into our music. There is no evidence for that either way. But we do have a somewhat similar example: why don't we treat listening rooms until they are almost anechoic? Listening rooms are adding reflections that were not present in the recording. If we throw in Dr. Toole's circle of confusion argument, reflections are an uncontrolled variable that means that everybody's experience of the recording is going to be different from originally intended. But the reason we don't do it is because we know that overtreated rooms sound worse, it can paradoxically affect subjective clarity.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Well, just like audio perception, visual perception is also subjective and varies from individual to individual. I see what you are showing and believe what you are saying about the expected perception in these two images, but to my eye the image on the right looks like an under exposed digital image that was corrected... hence the noise.

Back to audio:

If we throw in Dr. Toole's circle of confusion argument, reflections are an uncontrolled variable that means that everybody's experience of the recording is going to be different from originally intended. But the reason we don't do it is because we know that overtreated rooms sound worse, it can paradoxically affect subjective clarity.

I would submit, that our recordings sound worse because they were recorded to be played back in live rooms. If we all agreed to use dead rooms for playback and made recordings appropriate for those rooms, I think we could significantly reduce the errors in the circle of confusion.

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper posted those grainy pictures but he missed a point. Grain can actually improve acutance

Yes indeed. That wasn’t the point I was making, of course, but yes that is another interesting subject. As a long time home theatre nut (as well as having majored in film and photography) i’m aware of such effects.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we should muddy up our systems by injecting noise into our music. There is no evidence for that either way.

Reading that comment I was going to mention the effect of room reflections on perceived clarity as well, but you got there

But the reason we don't do it is because we know that overtreated rooms sound worse, it can paradoxically affect subjective clarity.

Indeedy,

As for not injecting noise into our music, I will personally demur

I seem to enjoy a little bit of noise injected into my system (tubes, vinyl). I speculate that some of the added noise increases my perception of more texture and more vivid textural edge to the sound, which to me can make things sound a little bit more palpable and present.

 

[test1223]

I have a question about something in the text.

I just don't understand what he is saying.
How do the harmonics get temporally separated from the fundamental (and each other?) during a sweep?
To me, he says that for a 1kHz tone (at the respective moment in the sweep) the 2, 3, 4 kHz harmonics will not reach the ear at the same moment as the fundamental. What is he talking about?
Are my ears broken, as I seem to hear the fundamental and harmonics all at the same time?

EDIT:
Nobody, who can explain Risbo's statement? After all this is an AES keynote, there should be substance. Genuinely confused and curious.

Are you nitpicking that he doesn't say something like: the k-th harmonic is equivalent to a time-translated copy of the exponential sweep? And used the common time shifted copy as a brief explanation? Since neither time nor phase shift is entirely correct how would you word it?

The point he is trying to make is, that difficult strict time or frequency-domain problems can easily be detected by cleverly using none linear high time resolution (time of arrival) methods alongside with a transformation.

Exponential sine sweep - frequency multiplication becomes "time translated shifts".

Cochlea - frequency content becomes place coding along the membrane.

In bothe the none linear high time resolution (time of arrival) is critical for correct functionality and enables to detect small distortions.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

They actually may have already but don't want to publish anything, as it may be considered as IP and why give free help to competition?

So maybe Purifi figured something out? Just giving Lars the benefit of doubt

If so, then their criticizing others and demanding more research is even more repugnant, hypocritical, and self-serving

 

[RexrothPigeon]

As for this grainy picture::"grainy" sound analogy, well, it's broken by design.

When trying to explain something whose existence is strongly contested AND has not been quantified or proven in any way, you simply can't analogize with something whose existence is universally accepted AND is easily quantified and proven.

It's like making claims about the strength and speed of Bigfoot by extrapolating the strength and speed of primates that have been empirically quantified.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

In reality it isn't at all like saying that. You can't check every location on earth simultaneously at a point t in time the way you'd do in your kitchen. But he was smart to precise that nonetheless, he kinda felt what the trick was about.

Funny enough the example of not being able to prove with absolute certainty that unicorns do not exist on Earth is something all my first year bio students understood by end of lab on day 1 in regards to how the scientific method works.

 

[test1223]

But it is not me.

I think the pendulum started with many believers in every snake-oil audio product. As a result, it has swung to the other extreme on this forum: believing only in standard measurements and denying almost all potential improvements that fall outside that scope. This may not be your position, but it is certainly a viewpoint that exists here.

It creates an environment that is not particularly friendly to innovation. For example, Purifi has delivered genuine audio innovations, as have many other audio companies that tend to fly under the radar in this regard. Why are so many of these companies under the radar? Because they do not want to fight a battle with the "objectivist tribe", reveal their innovations to competitors in the process, and lose anyway, since many of you are unwilling to buy a slightly better product if it costs much more due to the research and development behind it.

As a result, these companies often blend in with the "subjectivist tribe" to some extent and try to convince people through the perceived sound quality of their products instead.

Needless to say, the current state of the audio community is not particularly satisfying for these kinds of engineers and companies.

 

[Mort]

It creates an environment that is not particularly friendly to innovation. For example, Purifi has delivered genuine audio innovations, as have many other audio companies that tend to fly under the radar in this regard. Why are so many of these companies under the radar?

You'll have to name these numerous scientific advancements that we ignore here.

 

[amirm]

How can you know when Toole hasn't really tested some quality treatment or done any comparisons here?

He and his team have performed extensive research into perceptual effect of various room reflections. One of the awards he received was on topic from what I recall.

And what exactly does "listen through rooms" mean?

Listeners were tested after a few minutes of acclamation to the room. Their verdict became far more reliable as a result of that experience.

Really, stuff you are asking about is covered in Dr. Toole's book.