The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[fas42]

That Robert Johnson clip posted by Ray actually demonstrates some of the aspects of the matter. On laptop speakers running normally this projects a cartoony quality, in the performance; elements of the vocals almost seem as if he's parodying or making light of what he's singing. The "transformation" with better sound is that you can "see" a serious performer in a space, working his voice and instrument to get the song across - he's a real person, and can be fully appreciated as such, in the auditory sense.

 

[Thomas savage]

We are left with two variables and two schools of thought it seems..,
A. We are not a reliable constant and expirance undefined changes as humans physical and or phycological that make us a inherently flawed and unreliable judge, leading us to inconsistent subjective appraisals of our audio systems. The audio system it's self is consistent at least in any audibly relevant way.

B. We are always reliable despite any such fluctuations in our physical or phycological selfs and it's the audio system that varies in quality. We can always tell if the play back in not convincing and the resulting dissatisfaction is the effect of unknown electrical changes in the audio system. That system not containing ourselves.

 

[Purité Audio]

I am sure vinyl replay can and will change with time and conditions, that's why no one uses it , if they are serious for evaluation.
But solid state?
Keith

 

[Cosmik]

it's when you put on the "dreadful" stuff, and yet you say, "Wow!!" that count - it's experiences like this that are game-changers. I'm very familiar with with what he experienced - a dodgy recording that can sound like it's coming from an old kitchen radio on most systems dramatically transforms into an enveloping, immersive musical experience, that draws you into its world effortlessly...

...Recordings of Nellie Melba, just post 1910, are another good one: a squeaky, almost comical voice becomes a powerfully intense operatic projection by a real person, nicely balanced by a realistic piano, well behind her.

This makes no sense to me. Recording and playback equipment are prone to similar 'problems' (e.g. distortion, noise, frequency response, dynamic compression, mains interference if you must). As with the dodgy contacts thread, you seem to be saying either that (a) recording equipment is always top notch because it has been built and set up by very special people, or (b) that the playback equipment can not only be true to itself, but that it can also correct all the problems with the recording equipment. I go for option (c): you're imagining it all.

Recording and playback equipment must reach a certain minimum standard to sound good, and that is in no way mysterious. Transformation from kitchen radio to immersive hologram does not happen without very large, measurable changes to the signal.

 

[Thomas savage]

I am sure vinyl replay can and will change with time and conditions, that's why no one uses it , if they are serious for evaluation.
But solid state?
Keith

Yes I agree , that's why we have digital. It's consistent every play back the same.. No ware and tear, not in any critical sense.

 

[Thomas savage]

This makes no sense to me. Recording and playback equipment are prone to similar 'problems' (e.g. distortion, noise, frequency response, dynamic compression, mains interference if you must). As with the dodgy contacts thread, you seem to be saying either that (a) recording equipment is always top notch because it has been built and set up by very special people, or (b) that the playback equipment can not only be true to itself, but that it can also correct all the problems with the recording equipment. I go for option (c): you're imagining it all.

Strictly speaking Cosmik we are all imagining it all

 

[fas42]

This makes no sense to me. Recording and playback equipment are prone to similar 'problems' (e.g. distortion, noise, frequency response, dynamic compression, mains interference if you must). As with the dodgy contacts thread, you seem to be saying either that (a) recording equipment is always top notch because it has been built and set up by very special people, or (b) that the playback equipment can not only be true to itself, but that it can also correct all the problems with the recording equipment. I go for option (c): you're imagining it all.

Recording and playback equipment must reach a certain minimum standard to sound good, and that is in no way mysterious. Transformation from kitchen radio to immersive hologram does not happen without very large, measurable changes to the signal.

It look me a long time to get the answer as to what was going on - and that was courtesy of John Kenny, when he brought up the ideas of Auditory Scene Analysis research. Which has as major components the concept that all of the information doesn't have to be there, and that the information which doesn't belong - distortion, noise - can be separated from the stream of sound which is the main focus. "Problems" in the sound can be discarded by the listening brain if enough information gets through, and if the layering of distortion doesn't become too complex for the brain to handle.

So, the recording distortion is one layer, and because high power levels are not part of the process the type of distortion is more benign; the best that the playback gear can do is not add another layer of "corruption". Fortunately, this appears to be enough, IME - strangely, some recent classical recordings have been the worst I've come across, because of sloppiness in using the equipment - successive tracks in a single album have different levels of quality, and this is jarring because it is unexpected.

You get kitchen radio when the sound falls completely back into the speaker - the spatial information of the recording is so damaged or sufficiently discarded by the playback system that there is only the sense of the driver projecting the direct sound of what was recorded - the hologram occurs when that spatial information that is always captured by the microphones gets through with sufficient integrity for the brain to 'grok' what it's supposed to mean. So, the measurable changes that matter are the quality and levels of the low level sound carrying that spatial information - not a trivial thing to separate out with instrumentation.

 

[amirm]

Sounds good to me on my cheezy PC speakers that are firing into the back of the monitors (no room on the desk).

Sounds very enjoyable to me too on my computer speakers!

 

[Blumlein 88]

It look me a long time to get the answer as to what was going on - and that was courtesy of John Kenny, when he brought up the ideas of Auditory Scene Analysis research. Which has as major components the concept that all of the information doesn't have to be there, and that the information which doesn't belong - distortion, noise - can be separated from the stream of sound which is the main focus. "Problems" in the sound can be discarded by the listening brain if enough information gets through, and if the layering of distortion doesn't become too complex for the brain to handle.

So, the recording distortion is one layer, and because high power levels are not part of the process the type of distortion is more benign; the best that the playback gear can do is not add another layer of "corruption". Fortunately, this appears to be enough, IME - strangely, some recent classical recordings have been the worst I've come across, because of sloppiness in using the equipment - successive tracks in a single album have different levels of quality, and this is jarring because it is unexpected.

You get kitchen radio when the sound falls completely back into the speaker - the spatial information of the recording is so damaged or sufficiently discarded by the playback system that there is only the sense of the driver projecting the direct sound of what was recorded - the hologram occurs when that spatial information that is always captured by the microphones gets through with sufficient integrity for the brain to 'grok' what it's supposed to mean. So, the measurable changes that matter are the quality and levels of the low level sound carrying that spatial information - not a trivial thing to separate out with instrumentation.

I am pretty sure ASA is being mis-applied in regards to judging audio accuracy of reproduction gear.

One of things you wrote in bold above: How can that be so when most recordings are monophonic arrayed around the soundfield synthetically. How could an omni mic create spatial holograms. They simply record pressure at one point in space. Theoretically they aren't directional, and in practice goods ones get close enough. Two or more as in stereo might create a soundfield or record it in some fashion. Yet few indeed are recordings done so simply.

 

[fas42]

I am pretty sure ASA is being mis-applied in regards to judging audio accuracy of reproduction gear.

One of things you wrote in bold above: How can that be so when most recordings are monophonic arrayed around the soundfield synthetically. How could an omni mic create spatial holograms. They simply record pressure at one point in space. Theoretically they aren't directional, and in practice goods ones get close enough. Two or more as in stereo might create a soundfield or record it in some fashion. Yet few indeed are recordings done so simply.

The accuracy of the reproduction gear can be either:

a) How well it measures using conventional measuring techniques, the ones that have been used for yonks, ... or

b) How well the key information that the brain requires to reassemble a coherent picture of the recorded event is presented - the latter is what ASA is concerned with

Completely synthetic recordings present precisely as how they were recorded. In a complex mix of many sound elements, Bad by Michael Jackson is a good example, you can "see" each instrument or special effect in its own space, at a certain distance back from the speakers, at a certain lateral position in the sound field. It's like monitoring something like 20 recordings booths placed at various points in front of you, and subjectively being able to switch between them, and watch what's going on in just one alone. Might sound like it takes the fun out of listening, , but that's not the case - you get a tremendous kick seeing how the part is being constructed, appreciate the creative skill that went into just that little contribution.

A purist recording using some classic two mic technique just feeds you a big picture space, and the sound field comes across just like it does with listening to a live ensemble - you don't get the multiple "sound booths" presentation in this case. Both styles have their own validity and appeal, I can happily listen to either ...

 

[Cosmik]

Perhaps we have to accept that what people need from a sound system varies from person to person. In my case, I want plain, basic, engineered accuracy, making something like the Beolab 90 top of my list, but I'll happily take the Kii Three (even though I haven't heard it yet).

Some of the systems at RMAF involving wooden speaker cones and valve amplifiers with a control labelled "Hum" leave me shaking my head. There is no secret sauce made from sticking plasters and paxolin that will reproduce recordings well. Any system using nothing but a 6" full range driver is not hi fi in my book. I think that a lot of the recordings people have been playing at RMAF are the opposite of what you need to show what a system is capable of. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[fas42]

Perhaps we have to accept that what people need from a sound system varies from person to person. In my case, I want plain, basic, engineered accuracy, making something like the Beolab 90 top of my list, but I'll happily take the Kii Three (even though I haven't heard it yet).

I certainly agree that people's expectations will vary. However, I have heard, achieved "special" sound, which has been described a number of times lately - and there's no going back; conventional audio, no matter how brilliant the numbers are, just doesn't cut it, anymore. The Kii Three appears that it's capable of such, but it's not a slam dunk ...

Some of the systems at RMAF involving wooden speaker cones and valve amplifiers with a control labelled "Hum" leave me shaking my head. There is no secret sauce made from sticking plasters and paxolin that will reproduce recordings well. Any system using nothing but a 6" full range driver is not hi fi in my book. I think that a lot of the recordings people have been playing at RMAF are the opposite of what you need to show what a system is capable of. Coincidence? I think not.

People buying these are chasing some certain qualities, which don't interest other people. Which is fair enough. The real point is, no-one has worked out, yet, how to measure systems to precisely nail those qualities, and other ones - if it were otherwise, you could read off a spec sheet, and confidently purchase some gear having never heard it, and be assured you would be satisfied.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The accuracy of the reproduction gear can be either:

a) How well it measures using conventional measuring techniques, the ones that have been used for yonks, ... or

b) How well the key information that the brain requires to reassemble a coherent picture of the recorded event is presented - the latter is what ASA is concerned with

Completely synthetic recordings present precisely as how they were recorded. In a complex mix of many sound elements, Bad by Michael Jackson is a good example, you can "see" each instrument or special effect in its own space, at a certain distance back from the speakers, at a certain lateral position in the sound field. It's like monitoring something like 20 recordings booths placed at various points in front of you, and subjectively being able to switch between them, and watch what's going on in just one alone. Might sound like it takes the fun out of listening, , but that's not the case - you get a tremendous kick seeing how the part is being constructed, appreciate the creative skill that went into just that little contribution.

A purist recording using some classic two mic technique just feeds you a big picture space, and the sound field comes across just like it does with listening to a live ensemble - you don't get the multiple "sound booths" presentation in this case. Both styles have their own validity and appeal, I can happily listen to either ...

We don't need ASA to find out if the signal is transmitted accurately. Perhaps it is useful to see why certain distortions are heard as they are. The effect of 20 recording booths isn't sign of some accuracy beyond conventional measures. It is the result of processing to fake the effect. Other aspects that our ASA abilities prefer also can be tricked. Again not a reliable sign of some sort of accuracy beyond the measurements.

 

[fas42]

We don't need ASA to find out if the signal is transmitted accurately. Perhaps it is useful to see why certain distortions are heard as they are. The effect of 20 recording booths isn't sign of some accuracy beyond conventional measures. It is the result of processing to fake the effect. Other aspects that our ASA abilities prefer also can be tricked. Again not a reliable sign of some sort of accuracy beyond the measurements.

We need ASA to explain, when conventional measurements don't show anything useful, why some systems sound "special" - like real music, as they say - and others do not.

When a system is truly transparent, and you "see" the 20 recording booths that were effectively used - rather than a wall of blended sound - I would find it hard to see that the latter was more accurate. Of course our hearing senses are being tricked, that's what the core of ASA is about: plenty of experiments have been done where a sound is always heard, when it is not there; a hint of what should be there is given at that moment, and the mind obligingly fills in the blanks!

Consider what the point of listening to music is: total accuracy, or being swept away by the musical message? If I want total accuracy from a live violinist I would walk up to him and place my ear a foot away from the instrument throughout the entire performance, minimising external "noise and distortion" - but would I feel really happy at the end of the show, ?

 

[fas42]

Further on 853guy and his take on the Aries Cerat system, this quote from a recent post is a classic marker of what happens:

I left shortly afterward and then spent most of the rest of the afternoon listening to the Aries Cerat system. It was only later, after a bathroom break, that I went back in to hear the (YG Acoustic) Carmel’s for a second time. And although I love Peter Gabriel’s So (and especially Us), the music just wasn’t connecting in the same way. In all likelihood, I’d been spoilt by just how good the Aries Cerat system was, and through no fault of its own, the Carmel’s up-stream components weren’t in the same league rendering it sounding a little hi-fi and flat.

Bingo ...

Edit: Is this Carmel any good as a speaker ... http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0112/yg_acoustics_carmel.htm - hmmm, appears so ...

 

[tomelex]

May I remind you good fellows that there is no natural analog in a musical performance as two point sources separated about 6 to 8 feet apart and you sitting in the sweet spot listening. May I remind you (though no one ever takes me up on this because no one has a mono switch on their pre-amp anymore) to push in that mono switch and listen to music in mono for a few days to get used to mono then pop that switch back to stereo and right at that moment listen to how artificial that stereo sound is, then the light may go off and you can realize you are listening to a recording, a very artificial one at that. Get used to the idea that it is a recording and listen for songs that move you, then after that, if you must analize your system, determine what the hell it is missing (bass, clarity, etc) and then go about a systematic process of improving it....that would say be 70% the room and the speakers and the position of the speakers and you in the room and 30% the amp speaker interface. Borrowing from DonH50 just my .000000000000001 pence.

 

[fas42]

Ahhhh, Tom ... wouldn't be the same if we didn't have that bit in here, eh ... ?

 

[Blumlein 88]

May I remind you good fellows that there is no natural analog in a musical performance as two point sources separated about 6 to 8 feet apart and you sitting in the sweet spot listening. May I remind you (though no one ever takes me up on this because no one has a mono switch on their pre-amp anymore) to push in that mono switch and listen to music in mono for a few days to get used to mono then pop that switch back to stereo and right at that moment listen to how artificial that stereo sound is, then the light may go off and you can realize you are listening to a recording, a very artificial one at that. Get used to the idea that it is a recording and listen for songs that move you, then after that, if you must analize your system, determine what the hell it is missing (bass, clarity, etc) and then go about a systematic process of improving it....that would say be 70% the room and the speakers and the position of the speakers and you in the room and 30% the amp speaker interface. Borrowing from DonH50 just my .000000000000001 pence.

I know that very well. I have said that small groups of musicians might be better presented by having several speakers up front and each speaker only playing that one musician. Not quite real, but a good step closer than stereo is. A real source in a place in your room with the typical up close recording and few effects might get close to a "they are here experience."

My disagreement with Frank is thinking ASA will show us how current gear is inaccurate in ways missed by conventional measures. I don't think so because I don't think anything is being missed. Now if ASA can be used to determine what is possible to process the signal and improve our enjoyment of it fine. Messing with connections, and trivial tweaks like that and saying you'll know it when you hear it because of ASA is some bastard child of audiophillia which like much of modern audiophillia is leading us away from the truth. Especially so if that ASA aha experience is subjective only, and never tested for consistency.

 

[fas42]

Messing with connections, and trivial tweaks like that and saying you'll know it when you hear it because of ASA is some bastard child of audiophillia which like much of modern audiophillia is leading us away from the truth. Especially so if that ASA aha experience is subjective only, and never tested for consistency.

Tsk, tsk ... never heard of the devil's in the details, eh? Trouble is, just about everyone in the audio game has been conditioned to believe that the answer has to be BIG, because speakers are "big", and "good" amplifiers are "big", and "big" money has to be thrown around to get results at the moment. Unlike most people who get a glimpse of something significant, and then discard it because it doesn't fit in with the thinking of the rest of the mob; or it's too exciting playing with new, shiny toys all the time, I like to understand what's going on, and exploit it. As a result I have a pretty good handle on what the characteristics of the "Aha!!" experience are, and how to make it happen - with feedback from those around me that they hear it too.

Unfortunately, the "truth" is per this thread's title - and something like the Kii Three speakers would be an excellent way to demonstrate that - just by manipulating the environment and manner in which they were working I could transform the sound of a pair from something where you want to run from the room with your hands over your ears, to perhaps the best playback you had ever heard ... this is the elusive nature of the "Aha!!" experience, and why it is a troublesome child to tame, and demonstrate ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Tsk, tsk ... never heard of the devil's in the details, eh? Trouble is, just about everyone in the audio game has been conditioned to believe that the answer has to be BIG, because speakers are "big", and "good" amplifiers are "big", and "big" money has to be thrown around to get results at the moment. Unlike most people who get a glimpse of something significant, and then discard it because it doesn't fit in with the thinking of the rest of the mob; or it's too exciting playing with new, shiny toys all the time, I like to understand what's going on, and exploit it. As a result I have a pretty good handle on what the characteristics of the "Aha!!" experience are, and how to make it happen - with feedback from those around me that they hear it too.

Unfortunately, the "truth" is per this thread's title - and something like the Kii Three speakers would be an excellent way to demonstrate that - just by manipulating the environment and manner in which they were working I could transform the sound of a pair from something where you want to run from the room with your hands over your ears, to perhaps the best playback you had ever heard ... this is the elusive nature of the "Aha!!" experience, and why it is a troublesome child to tame, and demonstrate ...

Your second paragraph is more or less what I take your premise to be. I don't buy into the idea it is a "parameter", you can't even define the parameter.