Those of you who believe measurements aren't the whole story, do you have a hypothesis why that is?

[Kal Rubinson]

The question is, is imaging simply our brain fooling us, or is that a practical, measurable element to it?

Imaging is an illusion but, if it can be elicited by a determined set of stimuli, they are the measurable element(s).

Our normal hearing in the real world is capable of letting us pinpoint where something is with pretty good precision. The main factors in this ability are used by normal stereo to help us hear what is an audio illusion. We hear sound coming from a position where there is no sound source.

Good example.

 

[Raindog123]

One theoretical benefit of minimizing the spectral discrepancy between the direct and reverberant sound is this: The ear/brain system examines the spectral content of incoming sounds in order to correctly classify them as either new sounds or reflections (repetitions of a recent new sound). The greater the spectral discrepancy, the harder the ear/brain system has to work to make this classification. The brain has limited CPU power available, and the more it has to devote to subconscious tasks such classifying reflections, the less is available for higher cognitive functions such as focusing on and fully appreciating the music.

In RF comms they call it a Rake Receiver.

 

[Duke]

Expecting a speaker to transform all inputs into some mystical live music experience seems foolish to me.

I don't recall putting it quite that way, but if I had, yes that would certainly seem foolish.

I'm bowing out of this exchange. The way to "win" around here is to mis-characterize the other person's position with words like "mystical" and "magic sauce" and "mysterious". Congratulations.

 

[escksu]

I get all that; I am no expert, but not completely ignorant. The question is, is imaging simply our brain fooling us, or is that a practical, measurable element to it?

I think we're going in circles, I'll bow out. Thank you for the information!

No, I never imply you are ignorant, I know where you are coming from. You believe that since this is something we can hear, can feel, there must be something causing it and we can measure that something...

Yes, you can indirectly measure spatial effects. Since you can edit EQ and create it, you can alter it. You can increase or reduce these effects. You can measure what you have changed in order to create an increase/decrease in these effects.

The problem lies in quantifying this effect. There is no way to quantify this effect objectively. You cannot measure it (like measuring loudness or frequency). You can only assign a subjective number, eg. level 1 - 10. This is essentially same as blind testing. Having said that, it is still possible to at least somehow quantify it. One method I can think of is to use an approach similar to Scoville Heat Units (SHU).

Those EQ settings, we can break it down into minute steps and quantify it (eg. 1 spatial unit or perhaps SPU). We can do a blind test to determine how many times we need to increase before the sample group can detect a change in the spatial effect. I believe we can see a pattern emerging.

Lastly, perhaps you could suggest some answers instead of just questioning. To date, no one has tried to measure spatial qualities and quantify it. Perhaps you could start.

 

[dc655321]

I don't recall putting it quite that way, but if I had, yes that would certainly seem foolish.

I'm bowing out of this exchange. The way to "win" around here is to mis-characterize the other person's position with words like "mystical" and "magic sauce" and "mysterious". Congratulations.

You expect your recipe may produce a speaker to "create the perception of hearing live music", yes? Seems more than a little market-laden to me.

Sorry you're offended, but those words are your own, as is my opinion of them. In the end it's just an opinion...

 

[MaxBuck]

I've said several times that I don't regard measurement-based evaluation of components is entirely "settled science." You can imagine, then, how pleased I was to read an Audio Application Note on Benchmark* that essentially said the same thing. Measurements are great, but there can be things we don't, can't, or don't know we need to, measure that can have profound consequences on the reproduced sound.

*Some wise and kind soul linked to this article earlier in this thread, but I'm (a) too lazy, (b) too stupid or (c) too full of cabernet to find it and give proper credit.

 

[escksu]

I've said several times that I don't regard measurement-based evaluation of components is entirely "settled science." You can imagine, then, how pleased I was to read an Audio Application Note on Benchmark* that essentially said the same thing. Measurements are great, but there can be things we don't, can't, or don't know we need to, measure that can have profound consequences on the reproduced sound.

*Some wise and kind soul linked to this article earlier in this thread, but I'm (a) too lazy, (b) too stupid or (c) too full of cabernet to find it and give proper credit.

Yes fully agreed. Even in the world of Physics where measurements are extremely important, still lots of things cant be measured, phenomena doesnt fit into our theories etc... Its part and parcel of life.

 

[Raindog123]

Even in the world of Physics where measurements are extremely important, still lots of things cant be measured, phenomena doesnt fit into our theories etc... Its part and parcel of life.

Sounds just like the return of a 60-page monster…

 

[oversky]

Oh this again....

Ok, i shall repeat my same answers.

Measurements means to quantify the results, put on paper some numbers to interpret as good or bad. We currently do not have the means to measure most characteristics of audio.

Simple example. Transparency/imaging/staging. This is extremely obvious. Audio does not seems to come from speakers themselves but elsewhere. You can somehow pinpoint location of the instruments. narrow/wide staging.

So, how do you measure this? Our pair of ears listen to sound from 2 speakers and created this perception. Sound are still from the cones.

This is also why I have been critical of arim's reviews in the past. Measuring frequency response isn't going to tell you about transparency/imaging and other characteristics of the sound.

I believe it is possible to derive these characteristics of sound from the wave form. Unfortunately, it is extremely time consuming and $$$.

RTING.com has measurements of imaging and soundstage for headphones.
But I am not sure their definition is the same as yours.

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/imaging
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/passive-soundstage

 

[escksu]

Sounds just like the return of a 60-page monster…

No, I am not here to discuss about it. This is not a physics forum so I won't talk about it. If you are interested, you can go read yourself or join those forums/facebook groups etc.

I also said before in another thread that arguing on the internet is a waste of time. You are not going to get rich just before you won an argument here, neither will you get poorer just because you lose. And worst of all, you are the one getting frustrated while the other person is probably lauching at you.

 

[rdenney]

Remember in room response that slopes down at roughly 1 db/octave is the measurement of a speaker that is flat anechoicly. Getting flat in room response would be for a speaker with rising anechoic response and why it sounds bright. Because it is bright.

Now that we have a flat speaker response, it is up to the recording. If something gets miked up close it will sound it. If it gets miked at a distance it will sound more natural. And of course most recording are heavily manipulated. Still to hear what they had in mind a downward sloping in room response with controlled off-axis response is what people both prefer and is more accurate.

That depends on the room. If a room provides fewer first reflection points, it might well not produce the 1-dB/octave tilt.

Here are my Revel F12’s in my living room with no EQ. These speakers are anechoically flat, but what I see in the room doesn’t attract the word “tilt”. There is a dip in the upper bass and other anomalies around and below the Schroeder frequency. The room is impossible to model. The slopped ceiling eliminates ceiling first reflections, but the large volume adds reverberation without echo. Floor first reflections are blocked at the listening position, and diffused and asymmetric on the sides. Only the wall of windows behind the speakers provides a flat reflective surface.

These do not sound bright at all. But there is a bit of hollowness that emphasizes the modal boominess in the bass.

With EQ only below 300 Hz, i can fix the upper-bass suckout (which is probably above the Schroeder frequency just a touch). But I don’t think there’s anything I could do to turn these flat speakers into a downward tilt.

Granted, the top octave drops off, but I don’t think that’s the issue with spectral tilt.

So, given that these speakers measure flat anechoically, my room isn’t fitting the prediction. Fixing that with EQ above 300 Hz to achieve the predicted tilt would mean they no longer measured flat anechoically.

Rick “will probably try backing the speakers closer to the wall” Denney

 

[magicscreen]

about human hearing that simply can't be captured by science.

Science is constantly evolving.
You cannot be 100% sure there will be no any new scientific method for measuring audio quality in the future.
If you are sure the you are no scientist only a religious zealot.

 

[dshreter]

I actually believe imaging could be represented with quantifiable measures. I wouldn’t attempt to suggest a mathematical formula, but there are things that contribute to stereo image and localization of sound - I consider these interchangeable concepts. Imaging being able to recreate the localization of the recorded sounds.

The amount of channel cross talk is one of these items - how much greater is the sound power from the left speaker into your left ear than into your right ear, and vice versa.

ITD is probably also involved. Reverberant sound would likely diminish ITD effects. ITD could be measured in situ.

I’m sure there are other things you would want to measure.

 

[Frgirard]

Science is constantly evolving.
You cannot be 100% sure there will be no any new scientific method for measuring audio quality in the future.
If you are sure the you are no scientist only a religious zealot.

you express a religious feel tinged with nihilism

 

[Frgirard]

ou

I actually believe imaging could be represented with quantifiable measures. I wouldn’t attempt to suggest a mathematical formula, but there are things that contribute to stereo image and localization of sound - I consider these interchangeable concepts. Imaging being able to recreate the localization of the recorded sounds.

The amount of channel cross talk is one of these items - how much greater is the sound power from the left speaker into your left ear than into your right ear, and vice versa.

ITD is probably also involved. Reverberant sound would likely diminish ITD effects. ITD could be measured in situ.

I’m sure there are other things you would want to measure.

Put your speaker outside far from the wall and listen your stereo imaging ?

Atonio Fischetti (acoustician) the stereo picture is created by small movements of the unconscious heads. (in Initiation à l'acoustique)
Oliver Sacks (neurologist) the stereo picture is created by small movements of the unconscious heads. (in Musicolphilia)

 

[FeddyLost]

I actually believe imaging could be represented with quantifiable measures. I wouldn’t attempt to suggest a mathematical formula, but there are things that contribute to stereo image and localization of sound - I consider these interchangeable concepts. Imaging being able to recreate the localization of the recorded sounds.

ITD is probably also involved. Reverberant sound would likely diminish ITD effects. ITD could be measured in situ.

Basically, I can agree with you.
But just can't imagine how much "rocket science" will be needed for good quantification of proper imaging (width, depth, height, layering and image sizing and placement).
Every piece of system is involved, so all variables must be measured and evaluated with good correlations.
I think, if Bezos would be an audiophile, he could found some psychoacoustic university and solve such problem.

PS After that 90% of listeners on Earth would be satisfied with Amazon Echo Plus advanced array (c)...

 

[dshreter]

Basically, I can agree with you.
But just can't imagine how much "rocket science" will be needed for good quantification of proper imaging (width, depth, height, layering and image sizing and placement).
Every piece of system is involved, so all variables must be measured and evaluated with good correlations.
I think, if Bezos would be an audiophile, he could found some psychoacoustic university and solve such problem.

PS After that 90% of listeners on Earth would be satisfied with Amazon Echo Plus advanced array (c)...

Personally I don’t think is would need so so many descriptors if you figured out how to appropriately measure. Roughly that it could be broken down to soundstage size and focus. Of course these are necessarily in room measurements, not speaker specs

 

[FeddyLost]

Of course these are necessarily in room measurements, not speaker specs

It depends on speaker specs also. For example, Boris Blank uses PSI A21M as nearfields. I think phase corrected speakers are easier to work with when you need some effects and proper blend of "up to 100 tracks".
So, there will be needed full spinorama with ampitude and phase + total room measurement for prediction of sound field at LP.
Then some kind of model might be applied to predict sound field at LP.
Otherwise it's kind of gambling.
For example, why it's so important to have speakers far away from wall to get deep scene? And what kind of wall (reflection, absoprption, diffusion) do we assume?
I don't know for sure but my experience correlate with that idea.

And so on.

 

[DSJR]

Going right back to the OP for a minute Who is it who actually has an interest in so-called 'HiFi' these days? In the UK, i'd suggest the following - Disregarding the handful of traditional audio forum peeps where subjectivity rules absolutely (I doubt there are many contributors apart from a handful who post a lot and I suspect, only buy fairly elderly used gear), you have the High End market, wealthy individuals who maybe missed out when young in the 70's and 80's but who have now 'made it' and want to indulge a hobby. I'm going to say it's all visual and to do with brand cachet and self esteem after shedloads of money has been spent. They neither know nor care much about technical performance, but either box swap because they can, or enter into an emotional relationship with the tribe on offer...

Just a thought.

 

[steve59]

Maybe it's as simple as some of us don't like being told what's best for us. In my case though the missing link is component integration. There's probably as much misrepresentation from both sides that turn constructive conversation into throwing stones. Having never been to the HK listening room I can't speak to it's ability to convert listeners, but having owned a few pair I think expectation bias comes in. When we have all the experts telling us these are the best, speaking for myself I expect something about their performance to draw me to them. The salon 2 has a pretty special tweeter, but now 14 years later many speakers match that level of transparency.