or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A DBT designed specifically for soundstage?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A DBT designed specifically for soundstage? - Page 3

post #61 of 98
Visual dominance is the reason I have kept my HT unchanged for years while permanently on a quest to upgrade my 2.0 system. With video, the sound merely has to be sufficient as accompaniment. In the stereo, with no visual cues, the sound must be far more perfect.
post #62 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Visual dominance is the reason I have kept my HT unchanged for years while permanently on a quest to upgrade my 2.0 system. With video, the sound merely has to be sufficient as accompaniment. In the stereo, with no visual cues, the sound must be far more perfect.

Same here....I've had my Outlaw 950 pre/pro since 2002 for gosh sakes, lol.
post #63 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I've run through the link you provided machani. On page 22 he states, "Visual dominance
over hearing has been shown also in modern experiments, for example with the ventriloquism effect, where a voice is perceived to emerge from other than the actual sound source [6]. There visual domination is however not universal. In accordance to Gestalt principles, conflicting sensory information can result in a totally unexpected perception, as demonstrated by the McGurk effect and related experiments [7, 8]."


This indicates as others have repeatedly stated that your sighted tests need to be conducted unsighted in order to obtain any validity. Also, on page 41 he states, "The perceived direction can be manipulated by adjusting signal amplitudes [83]." Now this directly contradicts your personal assessment that varying the volume doesn't change the soundstage within a certain range,

What I noticed is that the "apparent" dimensions of the soundstage do change (increase) as you increase the volume (amplitude) from zero to a medium-high level, while at the same time the imaging becomes more distinct and the size of the soundstage stabilizes.

Once you reach that point, and go slightly higher (medium - high level, as I pointed out), the position of the images do not change if you vary the volume approximately +/- 15%.

At first I got the impression the soundstage was directly proportial to the volume (amplitude), but after repeat experiments I figured the soundstage stabilizes after a point.

Quote:


As it stands right now machani, you've not taken to heart the recommendations of people here and ignored the admonitions in the paper you cite. So, you're making predictions and speculations on personal investigations that do not approach even a modicum of rigorousness. You use information from the paper out of context (you read the entire thing?!) to support your non-rigorous investigations and have not proposed an invesigation that will do so.
.

I have not quoted anything from this paper other than citing the information of the threshold (resolution) of ITD and also about the ability of the brain to interpret spatial sound as "hard wired" in the brain. (But, I admit, those are my choice of words).

I feel my testing was rigourous, under sighted conditions and its more than enough to convince me. However, I will take the recommendations and buy a SPL meter.
post #64 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani View Post


I feel my testing was rigourous, under sighted conditions and its more than enough to convince me. However, I will take the recommendations and buy a SPL meter.

Sighted testing is always convincing. But if you do the blind test properly, it will undo that conviction. Glad to hear you're going to do it right.
post #65 of 98
It's not an SPL meter, although you ought to have one (and btw, then you can use John Dunlavy's method for optimizing the imaging!) but it's a VOM. Then what you do is burn a test tone, say at 1 kHz...plenty available off the web for download...and measure the voltage using the VOM at the speaker terminals. Cheap enough even in Canada to buy or maybe you can borrow one from wherever.

Not trying to be a dick here machani, but if you're going to place credence in some of the published links, then somehow you've got to be able to appreciate the need for a degree of rigorousness. This ain't about you being right or wrong with your findings as they stand but it's about seeing how they correlate once you've been a bit more careful. No harm, no foul. Just a matter of further work is required. You take care now.

BTW, what did that Onkyo cost up there?
post #66 of 98
I found this link on Linkwitz's site. Kind of interesting and somewhat related.
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_hear_hear/
post #67 of 98
I just skimmed this thread so I may have missed it but there seems to be a basic first step that is being ignored: machani, have you had you're hearing tested? Have you ever participated in a hearing test that checked for your ability to detect spatial information in the first place?

In addition to participating in a couple of DBT's in my life I've spent some time in a couple of audio research labs. The results may surprise you. As you suggest the phase and timing of the signals reaching you're ears are extremely important. You seem to be coming around to the fact that volume also plays a role but it's equally if not more important.

The surprising thing is that a lot of the results are not easy to reproduce; a signal you place in front and to the left you may later place back and to the right. It takes a lot of practice to even begin to know how to do the listening tests to get semi consistent results. It's tedious and requires a lot of time just to be able to consistently localize relatively simple test tones, never mind complex music. If you ever get a chance to do the testing the extent to which your brain is playing tricks on you will probably amaze you.
post #68 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Have you ever participated in a hearing test that checked for your ability to detect spatial information in the first place?

How do you have that tested specifically for audio? What is the test called?

I assumed that it was likely a byproduct of the spatial reasoning aptitude which can be measured at a place like the Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation. I guess they specifically test the visual aspects of spatial reasoning, but I know I usually hear things in three dimensions on a well set up system (the better the setup, the more three dimensional the audio landscape gets for me), so I just assumed they correlated.
post #69 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post

How do you have that tested specifically for audio?

I've been involved with three very different tests (we didn't bother to name any of them): the first was a standard room with speakers arrayed around the room, the second used an anechoic environment outfitted with speakers in an array in front of the subject (and was more a by-product of other testing being done at the time), the third a sound proof room and a pair of head phones.

The latter tests could probably be done at home. Something as simple as starting with the same signal in both ears and changing the relative volume until the subject indicates an apparent change in location then repeat using phase and frequency as the variables. Run multiple trials and have a look at how well the results from each trial correlate; with untrained listeners not only do the results not correlate between listeners they also don't have a heck of a lot of correlation between runs with the same listener.

The listening tests I've been involved with have all been standalone tests. I guess the people doing aptitude testing could also test hearing if that's what you're getting at?
post #70 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

I've been involved with three very different tests (we didn't bother to name any of them): the first was a standard room with speakers arrayed around the room, the second used an anechoic environment outfitted with speakers in an array in front of the subject (and was more a by-product of other testing being done at the time), the third a sound proof room and a pair of head phones.

The latter tests could probably be done at home. Something as simple as starting with the same signal in both ears and changing the relative volume until the subject indicates an apparent change in location then repeat using phase and frequency as the variables. Run multiple trials and have a look at how well the results from each trial correlate; with untrained listeners not only do the results not correlate between listeners they also don't have a heck of a lot of correlation between runs with the same listener.

The listening tests I've been involved with have all been standalone tests. I guess the people doing aptitude testing could also test hearing if that's what you're getting at?

I always thought everyone could hear very well three dimensionally until I had one particular friend over and he couldn't hear any depth to the soundstage, just a flat image. It never crossed my mind that some people might be dimensionally challenged auditory-wise until that day. All I could think was... God, that would really suck. Then again, I guess I wouldn't really know it until someone pointed it out, and I likely wouldn't be as into music as I am today if I didn't hear a lot of depth to the soundfield.

I wonder if there is a correlation between auditory depth perception and an interest in playing music and listening to music (also, which came first, the chicken or the egg). I know there is a connection between the O'Connor music related aptitudes and an interest in the music field. Both can facilitate each other before a certain age, and then the aptitudes continue to increase the person's appreciation of music after the teenage years while aptitude development stops at around age 15 or so with one aptitude and even earlier with others.
post #71 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Not trying to be a dick here machani, but if you're going to place credence in some of the published links, then somehow you've got to be able to appreciate the need for a degree of rigorousness. This ain't about you being right or wrong with your findings as they stand but it's about seeing how they correlate once you've been a bit more careful. No harm, no foul. Just a matter of further work is required. You take care now.

The listening tests I've performed may not be sufficient for a scientific journal, but they were reasonably rigorous and were more than conclusive to me that there can be more than subtle differences in soundstage between CDPs.

In any case, I will take your suggestion and add both a SPL meter and a VOM in my arsenal, as they are bound to help in my tweaking. (I doubt, though, that there is any instrument that can measure soundstage).

Quote:


BTW, what did that Onkyo cost up there?

I got it online for $479 from B&H Photo Video. I could not find a local dealer that sold it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

I just skimmed this thread so I may have missed it but there seems to be a basic first step that is being ignored: machani, have you had you're hearing tested? Have you ever participated in a hearing test that checked for your ability to detect spatial information in the first place?

My hearing is perfectly normal as far as I know. I have scored well in some online hearing tests ((http://www.digital-recordings.com/)), albeit the test tones were in the range 250Hz to 8KHz.

Quote:


You seem to be coming around to the fact that volume also plays a role but it's equally if not more important.

To be clear, I said that once the volume was at a "medium-high" listening level the soundstage "stabilizes" and the image positions do not change. At this volume level, a small amout of variation in the volume knob (+/- 15%) did not affect the soundstage.

I never said that volume did not play a role in sound localization in an audio set up. It most definitely does. Of course, if you turn the volume dial way up everything will sound "bigger", not necessarily more distinct, and beyond a certain point may destroy the soundstage as other interactions are emphasized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post

I always thought everyone could hear very well three dimensionally until I had one particular friend over and he couldn't hear any depth to the soundstage, just a flat image. It never crossed my mind that some people might be dimensionally challenged auditory-wise until that day. All I could think was... God, that would really suck. Then again, I guess I wouldn't really know it until someone pointed it out, and I likely wouldn't be as into music as I am today if I didn't hear a lot of depth to the soundfield.

I wonder if there is a correlation between auditory depth perception and an interest in playing music and listening to music (also, which came first, the chicken or the egg). I know there is a connection between the O'Connor music related aptitudes and an interest in the music field. Both can facilitate each other before a certain age, and then the aptitudes continue to increase the person's appreciation of music after the teenage years while aptitude development stops at around age 15 or so with one aptitude and even earlier with others.

I am sure that "training" does improve one's hearing abilities. The Scientific American published some studies a couple of years ago where they found the brain of a musician "rewires" itself over time. And trained students were able to distinguish and remember complex musical passages better than untrained ones.

From what I've been reading, spatial hearing is "hard wired" into the brains of mammals. It probably took billions of years to evolve. The paper I quoted earlier stated that "ITD processing requires far better resolution (10-20 μs) than any other neural process ".

I don't claim to be a Golden Eared Audiophile, nor do I claim to have any special hearing abilities. But, IMO, both the recording AND the system have to be highly resolving, in order to produce the 3D holographic sounstage I have been talking about. I recently had a friend over who was convinced I had hidden speakers in the walls and ceilings. (I was playing Dire Staits live version of "Your latest trick", from their "Best of/Sultans of Swing" CD/HDCD).
post #72 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani View Post

An you continue parroting stuff you've been fed but never experienced.

Don't need to experience everything to know. But, some reinvent the wheel at every turn and never get anywhere.
post #73 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani View Post

I feel my testing was rigourous, under sighted conditions and its more than enough to convince me. .

That is what the golden ears keep repeating
post #74 of 98
Machani, it's not so much that your tests wouldn't pass muster for a scientific publication, it's that the very thesis you cited with respect to ITD and other matters contradicts your approach in at least one instance. As it stands presently, your hypothesis, using the methods you've already indicated, says there are more than subtle differences in soundstage between CDP's. That's fine. As you've indicated you plan on getting an SPL and VOM and will perform more critical level matching which if done properly will essentially eliminate loudness differences from the equation. At this point you can repeat your evaluations sighted if you will and make note of matters. After that, the final approach ought to be an unsighted series of tests sufficient to draw some statistical meaning. Let's say a dozen. That needn't be done in one sitting but the intermediate results need to be recorded by another person who won't divulge the results till the end. Coin flipping (not by you!) is a decent way to ensure some randomness. If you don't intend to do the blind part, well then don't buy anything.

BTW, how the hell do you do multichannel without a VOM?? As to an instrument that measures soundstage, well, none that I know of. There is the ear of course but in your particular scenario this subjective evaluation needs to be confirmed by objective means.

Not a bad price for the Onkyo up in Canada. I'd thought it might be signicantly more due to taxes and what not.

You take care now...and don't worry about NAFTA
post #75 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Machani, it's not so much that your tests wouldn't pass muster for a scientific publication, it's that the very thesis you cited with respect to ITD and other matters contradicts your approach in at least one instance. As it stands presently, your hypothesis, using the methods you've already indicated, says there are more than subtle differences in soundstage between CDP's. That's fine. As you've indicated you plan on getting an SPL and VOM and will perform more critical level matching which if done properly will essentially eliminate loudness differences from the equation. At this point you can repeat your evaluations sighted if you will and make note of matters. After that, the final approach ought to be an unsighted series of tests sufficient to draw some statistical meaning. Let's say a dozen. That needn't be done in one sitting but the intermediate results need to be recorded by another person who won't divulge the results till the end. Coin flipping (not by you!) is a decent way to ensure some randomness. If you don't intend to do the blind part, well then don't buy anything.

BTW, how the hell do you do multichannel without a VOM?? As to an instrument that measures soundstage, well, none that I know of. There is the ear of course but in your particular scenario this subjective evaluation needs to be confirmed by objective means.

Not a bad price for the Onkyo up in Canada. I'd thought it might be signicantly more due to taxes and what not.

You take care now...and don't worry about NAFTA


ChuGai,
Well I'd just like to give the matter a rest for now. I really don't have the time to get into DBTs about things that are quite clear to me (and, to others). Otherwise, I'd end up having to DBT every change.

On the subject of Canadian prices, yes typically Hi-Fi components cost about 15 - 20% more here. I live just 30 minutes from the US border, so a lot of local purchasing is done in the US.

If I find the price differential high enough, I order on-line from US vendors who ship UPS expedited (which does not incur the horrendous brokerage costs). BHphotovideo, JR, audioadvisor, musicdirect, etc. all ship to Canada with the UPS expedited option.

Taxes in Canada are becoming less of an issue. The last couple of years the govt has been shaving a point off the GST each year.
post #76 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machani View Post


On the subject of Canadian prices, yes typically Hi-Fi components cost about 15 - 20% more here. I live just 30 minutes from the US border, so a lot of local purchasing is done in the US.

You're lucky Machani. Here in Mexico audio gear cost 20-40% more!

Now I'm worried about NAFTA....

Sorry for the off topic.
post #77 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

BTW, how the hell do you do multichannel without a VOM??

ChuGai,
Sorry, for some reason I thought VOM meant "Volume Output Meter". I guess you mean voltmeter. I already have a couple of multimeters which I use for biasing my tube amp, etc.

So you're saying play a test tone and measure the AC voltage accross the + and - terminals. If its that's simple, I'm back in business already .

FYI, as regards multi-channel, like some others I used multi-channel only for HT (I use a DLP projector). Volume output has been set using simple test feature in my receiver and using my "ears". I pay fare more attention to my two channel stereo.
post #78 of 98
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

You're lucky Machani. Here in Mexico audio gear cost 20-40% more!

Sorry for the off topic.

Last year the CAD overtook USD for the first time since the Rocky era (1976). We started to get livid at the high local prices. A lot of vendors (Sears, Best Buy) have lowered their prices such that the differential is now on par or less than 10 - 15%.

"Accross the border" shopping is easy, at the max you pay around 12% tax at the border. If you stay more than two days in the US you can bring in $400 pp without any duty (or $1,600 per family of four), $750 pp if you stay more than a week.

Still I find more bargains in the US through online vendor deals (BHphotovideo, JR, Adorama, MusicDirect, AudioAdvisor, Expansys all ship to Canada). But they don't include free shipping offered in the US. Typically I get things shipped by UPS expedited or USPS, which do not incur the horrendous "brokerage" fees. A lot of Canadians make the mistake of going cheap on the shipping (UPS standard), only to be slapped with huge brokerage fees.

Sorry for the "off topic" post.

Quote:


Now I'm worried about NAFTA....

I wouldn't pay too much heed to posturing by the presidential candidates. In the end they will probably end up making policies that favor big business, which usually amounts to lower tariffs...
post #79 of 98
Yes, it's that simple. Make good solid contacts.
post #80 of 98
No one is saying you have to be the one to prove that CD players do make a difference, but:

"I constructed a test, it was sighted, I think it was rigorous enough, and it convinced me what I already assumed to be true and thats good enough for me."

Thats the circular logic that we're trying to get rid of in the first place. You made an assumption, you constructed a test that was likely to validate it, and now you think thats enough proof.

It isn't. Experimentation is not about what is convenient, it is about constructing a test that, if succesful, would DISPROVE your beliefs. Then if you're "wrong" you're actually right. Like, a sighted, unmatched, largely uncontrolled, unrandom, with experimenter's bias test is likely to not produce any new information than all the other casual observers have provided.

Now if you can still determine that different cd players are distinguishable in an unsighted test with matched volume levels and randomness and an experimenter that isn't you and isn't biased to record and calculate the results, and you can STILL reliably distinguish CD players, that would be the test that would shut all of us up.

Peer review exists because science is often about determining the proper relationship of cause and effect in a system. Restating the effects without attempting to attribe them to a cause is just spinning your wheels. The cause may not be that properly engineered CD players sound different. It may be: Mismatched levels, experiment bias, and all the other things we've already mentioned.

As it stands, you've concluded that CD players make a difference, but not with anywhere near 95% certainty. It takes a lot more rigorous testing to hit a high level of certainty and so far your tests don't get there. (Ok, actually there wouldn't be any associated numerical certainty here, but the point is the margin of error based on your experimentation methods is just too big for us to agree with your conclusions).
post #81 of 98
Does proof matter? If the person who spends the money believes they hear an improvement, is any other opinion relevant?
post #82 of 98
Quote:


Does proof matter? If the person who spends the money believes they hear an improvement, is any other opinion relevant?

Not to him. But then his opinion is irrelevant to anyone else.
post #83 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Not to him. But then his opinion is irrelevant to anyone else. [Emphasis added.]

If, and only if, everyone else, as you put it, accepts the premise that the scientific method is the only way to prove or disprove the existence of an audible difference.

For better or worse, not everyone else subscribes to the scientific method, at least in this particular application. IOW, relevancy is in the eyes or, in this case, ears of the beholder.
post #84 of 98
If you don't subscribe to the scientific method, then you ought to live in a cave and forage for food.
post #85 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

If you don't subscribe to the scientific method, then you ought to live in a cave and forage for food.

First, when reading that stated hereinafter, please keep in mind that I do subscribe to that method.

Having stated that, however, I guess there is only one way to live. I guess there is only one way to view the world. I guess that the majority of the planet (that majority holding religious views of one kind or another, all of which hold out principles that do not withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method) ought to live in a cave. If one is not a rationalist, one must be banished to the caves. The world according to mcnarus proclaims it so.
post #86 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Party View Post

First, when reading that stated hereinafter, please keep in mind that I do subscribe to that method.

Having stated that, however, I guess there is only one way to live. I guess there is only one way to view the world. I guess that the majority of the planet (that majority holding religious views of one kind or another, all of which hold out principles that do not withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method) ought to live in a cave. If one is not a rationalist, one must be banished to the caves. The world according to mcnarus proclaims it so.

Ron,

On your way to the cave, you might pick up the Primal Twang DVD if you haven't already done so. If you do, be sure, and go to the special features and watch Eric Johnson with the houseband doing Crossroads. Fun DVD.

Now back to your regualarly scheduled mastodon hunt.
post #87 of 98
Quote:
Having stated that, however, I guess there is only one way to live. I guess there is only one way to view the world. I guess that the majority of the planet (that majority holding religious views of one kind or another, all of which hold out principles that do not withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method) ought to live in a cave.

If you think religious people can't believe in the scientific method, then you're the one who's being narrow-minded here.
post #88 of 98
Come on now Ron, that's not what he's saying! I don't mind having psychics or dowsers or other alternative medical practitioners. Licence them and as a criteria for the licence, have them demonstrate their talents. Can't do it, you can't practice it.
post #89 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Ron,

On your way to the cave, you might pick up the Primal Twang DVD if you haven't already done so. If you do, be sure, and go to the special features and watch Eric Johnson with the houseband doing Crossroads. Fun DVD.

Now back to your regualarly scheduled mastodon hunt.



Before we resume the hunt... Eric sure can shred. I'll look into the DVD. I just picked up a copy of Roll Away by Back Door Slam, a group of 20 year olds who sound eerily similar to old Clapton or The Yardbirds. Highly recommended.
post #90 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

If you think religious people can't believe in the scientific method, then you're the one who's being narrow-minded here.

Of course, religion and the scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But I stand by my assessment. Your statement is absolute. It allows for no exceptions. Subscribe to the method or get ye to the caves.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A DBT designed specifically for soundstage?