or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 99

post #2941 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry R View Post


I just dont get why you think your system that measures well,
would sound the same as another system that measures just as well,
in a different environment, using different drivers in different configurations.

I don't think that "sound the same" is what many of us are talking about.

In the world of speakers and rooms, nothing sounds the same, even the same system from a different part of the room.
post #2942 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

I don't get this question, isn't the goal accurate reproduction at the MLP, no matter how you get there? If they measure identical why wouldn't they sound identical?

Actually, the X curve used in movie mixing exists because folks discovered back in the day that systems that measure the same (with static pink noise signals) sound different. Bigger rooms sound brighter when EQed flat with pink noise. Perhaps because the mic hears all the reflected sound and just adds it to the initial impulse. Our ears do not.

Reasonably interesting, if getting a bit long in the tooth:

www.hps4000.com/pages/general/the_mythical_x_curve.pdf
post #2943 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry R View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I guess you also missed this part of my post: " Unlike amps and electronics, speakers really do sound different one to another..."

No, didnt miss anything, I knew what you were talking about.
I understand, and agree with the electronics comparison.

I just dont get why you think your system that measures well,
would sound the same as another system that measures just as well,
in a different environment, using different drivers in different configurations.

So if all else is equal, wheres the benchmark?

My room is well treated, it measures well, I have well designed
Open baffles with a 12" co-ax for mids and highs and
open baffle servo subs in an "H" frame...Do you think
our two systems would be indistinguishable?
Dont thinks so....

Not trying to be a pain, just trying to figure out where the
"your not hearing what was intended but I am" thing came from,
when you only consider the electronics, and dont take the other
half of the system into account.

 

I'm sorry but you keep missing the point I made when referring to speakers. Like I said, speakers sound very different to each other. Heck, they even the same speakers sound different if you move them around in the room. It's electronics like amps and DACs that all sound similar to each other. 

post #2944 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't think that "sound the same" is what many of us are talking about.

In the world of speakers and rooms, nothing sounds the same, even the same system from a different part of the room.

Thanks Arny, thats what I think as well.
So what I'm getting from all this is that you can measure FR for accuracy, be
that level flat, house curve, or downward slope as the debate goes...
but every room and type of speaker will contribute its own signature...
So, when someone says....mine is more accurate than yours, its only the
FR, not what the artist or engineer wanted to present necessarily...
Different types of speakers in different types of rooms may convey
more accurately what was intended, even if they dont measure as well?
And to state this is what they heard at the time you would have to
of been there......like a live performance in a club, or in the room with
the engineer at the time of recording and mixing.
So unless you were there, there is no benchmark, and it comes down to preference?
Or am I still not getting it?

Thanks
post #2945 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Like I said, speakers sound very different to each other. Heck, they even the same speakers sound different if you move them around in the room. It's electronics like amps and DACs that all sound similar to each other. 

So what makes you think there is such a thing as "hearing what the creator intended me to hear"...???

I bet you could take a hundred people from within this forum that believe in the same goal as you do and we would see a hundred radically different speaker systems and sounding rooms.

As if you say, amps and DACs and media players all sound very similar/the same, then that side of things is a moot point.
post #2946 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I bet you could take a hundred people from within this forum that believe in the same goal as you do and we would see a hundred radically different speaker systems and sounding rooms.

Sure, but then you don't take into concideration that they've lived different lives and had different opportunities. Take the same people, let them chose room, treatments and gear freely with ample correct data on everything and the spread might be much smaller.
post #2947 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Take the same people, let them chose room, treatments and gear freely with ample correct data on everything and the spread might be much smaller.

Maybe, but that is something that will not happen in reality. Just like "hearing what the creator intended me to hear" is not something that will happen in reality either.

Just merely words spouted on an interweb forum. It doesn't mean anything practical or real.
post #2948 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I bet you could take a hundred people from within this forum that believe in the same goal as you do and we would see a hundred radically different speaker systems and sounding rooms.

Because room acoustics and set up profoundly affect how audio systems sound, and because everybody's room is acoustically different, the differences in sound quality must exist.

I think that the vast majority of speaker systems fit into a far smaller number of profiles, but of course their differences cause other audible variations.
post #2949 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Perhaps because the mic hears all the reflected sound and just adds it to the initial impulse. Our ears do not.

Reasonably interesting, if getting a bit long in the tooth:

www.hps4000.com/pages/general/the_mythical_x_curve.pdf
What our ears do and do not hear depends on why we're listening. We're capable of analyzing out reflections, or another things that are incidental to us in a context, but that doesn't mean we always ignore the side issues. When we hear dialog, typically we're interested in what's being said, but there's lots of other information in recorded speech that we might notice -- the speaker is a man? a child? comes from Scranton? is drunk? has his mouth full? -- including what sort of place he's in -- outside? in an enclosed space?
post #2950 of 3048
Quote:
What our ears do and do not hear depends on why we're listening.
Uh, no. Our ears react the same way. How our brains interpret the signals our ears send in may vary.
Quote:
We're capable of analyzing out reflections,
Again, no. We don't "analyze out' reflections at all; in fact, we use them to help with location. When you hear someone talking about a large soundstage, that is in part the result of reflections, which we most definitely are not "analyzing out." And given that this is happening subconsciously, we couldn't "analyze them out" if we wanted to.
post #2951 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Maybe, but that is something that will not happen in reality. Just like "hearing what the creator intended me to hear" is not something that will happen in reality either.

Just merely words spouted on an interweb forum. It doesn't mean anything practical or real.

Of course it does. You put THEORY in place first, then you USE the theory for practical and real.



( And if I ever get the financial backing for my hifi-funpark/museum, I'll make it real too.)
post #2952 of 3048
Quote:
You put THEORY in place first, then you USE the theory for practical and real.

What TF does that mean?

I think going fishing - even if i do not catch anything - is more productive than this thread, that seems just to go from silly to utterly ridiculous...
post #2953 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

What TF does that mean?

If you need to ask that, then perhaps you should not set up sound systems at all. *wink* Fishing sounds like a better idea, for sure.
post #2954 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post


( And if I ever get the financial backing for my hifi-funpark/museum, I'll make it real too.)

Yes, it would be nice if we could all build our dream homes with an ideal listening room in it somewhere out in the quiet countryside away from all of the background noise.

Though would you declare your new room and setup as "what the creator intended me to hear!" or simply that you liked your new room and setup...???
post #2955 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Yes, it would be nice if we could all build our dream homes with an ideal listening room in it somewhere out in the quiet countryside away from all of the background noise.

I'm not talking about a dream house. I mean a huge setup with a big museum of hifi history where you can visit different rooms and experience typical sound of different ages, several fullsize theaters with different sound system capabilities. Demonstration rooms that can show the difference in room size, diffusion, absorption, speaker placement etc etc. Music studios for recording artists to rent. Demonstation facilities for manufacturers. Trade show possibilities. Live music scenes. Some place to go for a fun day with your family. Rooms to book where you can have a special combination of speakers/electronics set up for you to evaluate.

A couple of billion dollars would do the trick, methinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Though would you declare your new room and setup as "what the creator intended me to hear!" or simply that you liked your new room and setup...???

You could sit in on when an artist recorded, mixed and then get to experience the reproduction in different rooms and setups.
post #2956 of 3048
Hey kraut, wait for me... (sound of footsteps running for the door)...
post #2957 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
What our ears do and do not hear depends on why we're listening.
Uh, no. Our ears react the same way. How our brains interpret the signals our ears send in may vary.
Quote:

Generally agree, but there seems to be some feedback in the system.
Quote:
We're capable of analyzing out reflections,
Again, no. We don't "analyze out' reflections at all; in fact, we use them to help with location. When you hear someone talking about a large soundstage, that is in part the result of reflections, which we most definitely are not "analyzing out." And given that this is happening subconsciously, we couldn't "analyze them out" if we wanted to.

Perhaps bit pedantic. He calls it analyzing out, you call it establishing location. How does the brain establish location? It analyses information from the ears.

The term some of us use around here is dereverberation. When you are at a location, your ear/brain dereverberates what you hear at that location so that you hardly perceive or notice all of the echos. T

he brain's dereverberation process does not usually work very well with most recordings, but it does work with binaural recordings. That's one reason why you have to put the mic closer to the source than your preferred listening location.
post #2958 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Like I said, speakers sound very different to each other. Heck, they even the same speakers sound different if you move them around in the room. It's electronics like amps and DACs that all sound similar to each other. 

So what makes you think there is such a thing as "hearing what the creator intended me to hear"...???

I bet you could take a hundred people from within this forum that believe in the same goal as you do and we would see a hundred radically different speaker systems and sounding rooms.

As if you say, amps and DACs and media players all sound very similar/the same, then that side of things is a moot point.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at. I'll repeat what I said for the third time:

 

Electronics such as amps and DACs make very little, if any difference to the end sound quality, assuming the units are working properly and within their design spec. IOW they sound essentially similar and can not be reliably distinguished one from another in ABX tests.

 

Speakers are very different to the above and one set of speakers will usually sound very different to another set, especially when used in different rooms. Even the same set of speakers will sound different to itself when they are moved around in the listening room.

 

The two statements are both correct and not mutually exclusive or contradictory in any way. Because speakers/rooms sound different to each other that is no reason to have amps that also sound different to each other, and indeed they do not when properly designed and working (as most are these days). Just because speakers sound different to each other is no reason to want your amp to act as an additional tone control and introduce further distortion into the chain.

post #2959 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I am not sure what you are getting at. I'll repeat what I said for the third time....

Right... the large range of different speakers that are available and our unique rooms all largely sound different. Modern electronics are very similar in sound.

So when you said this - "Many people, me included, want a system that is transparent to the source. IOW, it plays back what is on the disc as closely as possible to the way the creator of the disc intended it to be heard" ... what exactly do you think you have done differently to anybody else around here to achieve that? You can't claim to of selected accurate electronics and reached your goal, because then just about everybody else here would be achieving that as well.

So then you must have some extra special faithful to the disk speakers and room configuration...??? If you think your system can play back a disc the way it was intended to be heard... then please share with us the secret of your success so we can all make our systems sound just like yours.
post #2960 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I am not sure what you are getting at. I'll repeat what I said for the third time....

Right... the large range of different speakers that are available and our unique rooms all largely sound different. Modern electronics are very similar in sound.

So when you said this - "Many people, me included, want a system that is transparent to the source. IOW, it plays back what is on the disc as closely as possible to the way the creator of the disc intended it to be heard" ... what exactly do you think you have done differently to anybody else around here to achieve that? You can't claim to of selected accurate electronics and reached your goal, because then just about everybody else here would be achieving that as well.

 

Yes, everyone with a decent modern SS amp working to spec is achieving it. Even those who spent $10,000 on their amp (usually). 

 

Quote:
So then you must have some extra special faithful to the disk speakers and room configuration...??? If you think your system can play back a disc the way it was intended to be heard... then please share with us the secret of your success so we can all make our systems sound just like yours.

 

WRT to speakers and room, I only use my HT for movies and I have calibrated it to Reference standard using treatments, automated RC, REW measuring software/mic, EQ, speaker and sub placement etc etc, and I have chosen subwoofers and speakers that are universally acclaimed. That's all anyone can do. If you take as much time and trouble (and you are primarily concerned with movies) then indeed you can do the same. It isn’t a "secret" as such. Aim for reference level SPLs, which means powerful amps and speakers capable of handling the power, and a flat frequency response 30Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB. 

 

I suspect you are not being serious and just looking to argue, so I won't post on this any more. I think I have made my view clear.

post #2961 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Right... the large range of different speakers that are available and our unique rooms all largely sound different. Modern electronics are very similar in sound.

So when you said this - "Many people, me included, want a system that is transparent to the source. IOW, it plays back what is on the disc as closely as possible to the way the creator of the disc intended it to be heard" ... what exactly do you think you have done differently to anybody else around here to achieve that? You can't claim to of selected accurate electronics and reached your goal, because then just about everybody else here would be achieving that as well.

So then you must have some extra special faithful to the disk speakers and room configuration...??? If you think your system can play back a disc the way it was intended to be heard... then please share with us the secret of your success so we can all make our systems sound just like yours.

This reads like arguing for the sake of arguing.

Of course the goal of a system is to get what's on the disc to the MLP as accurately as possible... what else is it for?

How you "describe" that goal is irrelevant. How you get there in your own room is what this hobby is about.

C'mon. rolleyes.gif
post #2962 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Of course the goal of a system is to get what's on the disc to the MLP as accurately as possible... what else is it for?
There's no "of course". Your ending points, "what's on the disc" and the MLP are not my ending points. I go from what's in the performance to me -- that's where the accuracy comes in.
post #2963 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

What our ears do and do not hear depends on why we're listening. We're capable of analyzing out reflections, or another things that are incidental to us in a context, but that doesn't mean we always ignore the side issues. When we hear dialog, typically we're interested in what's being said, but there's lots of other information in recorded speech that we might notice -- the speaker is a man? a child? comes from Scranton? is drunk? has his mouth full? -- including what sort of place he's in -- outside? in an enclosed space?

Nope. This is pretty old science, not, AFAIK subject to serious question. The way our ear/brain system works, the initial impulse and the next (I forget precisely) 30 milliseconds or so get averaged together to be "the sound." Later arriving reflections are interpreted by the ear/brain as part of the sense of space. Haas effect, if you're in a googling mood, is the beginning of this, although it's specifically related more to directional responses . . . .

This stuff is wired into the human machine. We can't think around it, it's just there. While anybody who cares may direct their aural attention to different aspects of a performance, live or recorded, their ear/brain system does what it does.

I suspect the reasons for the inability to sort this stuff out wioth reproduced sounds as identified by Arny above relate to the various disabilities of sound reproduction. First, directional cues are etither largely lost (stereo) or not related to natural directional cues in a room (typical surround). Second, those cues, to the extent they are captured on a recording, emanate from different places than they would in a real room. In fact the recorded sound gets reprocessed by the ear/brain (which evolved a few millenia before the first Edison cylinder) via the spatial characteristics of our listening space. IDK if anybody has tried to sort out the extent to which ambiance captured in a recording is perceived as ambience by our ears/brains or as direct sound with its own ambiance provided by the room, but I'm pretty sure it all gets rather confused vis-a-vis our hearing mechanisms.

It is in fact quite an amazing amount of processing that our brains do with incoming sound, separately identifying new "direct" impluses, screeinng out their reflections while, most likely also hearing new direct sounds and their reflections and sorting all that out too, often before the first direct sound and its ancillary 30 msor so of additional sound have ended. But all that "stuff" happens in a way that is utterly transparent to the listener, and is not something I would know about (okay it's not something I DID know about for the majority fo my adult life) nor is it something we can change through force of will, any more than we can reverse the flow of blood in our bodies by force of will. The machine does what it does.
post #2964 of 3048
Quote:
I go from what's in the performance to me -- that's where the accuracy comes in.
So let's take this apart. We can think of this as a chain with 3 segments:

A: the original performance => what's on the disk

B: what's on the disk => the speaker terminals

C: the speaker terminals => the listening position

You, as the consumer, have no control over A. Therefore, you can't get back to the original performance. The closest you can come is what's on the disk.

B is transparent, for modern solid state digital systems. (Assuming no EQ is applied.)

C is in your control as a user (along with EQ, which is applied in segment B). But no matter how much control you have here, you cannot get back to the original performance. What you can try to do is to create something that sounds like A real performance. But you must understand that it is not THE original performance. And depending on what your sense of what "real" sounds like, it may diverge wildly from the original performance. You'll never know, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that you're happy with the result.
post #2965 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I suspect you are not being serious and just looking to argue, so I won't post on this any more. I think I have made my view clear.
This may shed some light: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1530#post_23038613
post #2966 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

So let's take this apart. We can think of this as a chain with 3 segments:
Let's not. While I don't know a lot about the details, I do understand this engineering approach in broad outline. You split up the process into convenient parts, optimize each part, and that optimizes the whole process. I see that, really I do, but I'm just not persuaded. This divide-and-conquer approach is guaranteed to work only when each link in the chain can be brought close to perfection. But if there are weak links, strengthening the already strong links may not strengthen the chain. See? Your favorite way of looking at it is not the only way.
Quote:
You, as the consumer, have no control over A. Therefore, you can't get back to the original performance. The closest you can come is what's on the disk.
How do you know that's the closest I can come? And besides, I'm not a consumer right now -- I'll go shopping some other day.
Quote:
What matters is that you're happy with the result.
No, that is utterly irrelevant to the question of accuracy.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, maybe it would clarify this issue to consider corresponding issues in TV calibration. I started thinking about this issue of what it is that we're trying to be accurate to after reading some postings here (or somewhere on AVS forum) by Richard Harkness on TV calibration, who was arguing for adjusting a TV by comparing the TV picture with a real scene that you're looking at (as against the more usual approach of metering the accuracy of test images). That was some years ago. I do that, when adjusting my TV, and I think the Harkness approach works very well.
post #2967 of 3048
Well, try calibrating your tv with Lord of the Rings. You can probably get the sequence you pick more natural than on the disc... But when it moves into the next location that's tinted differently, it will more likely look worse. The best you can do is set it neutral using proper calibration and then you'll just have to stand the digital coloration of each scene... And get it like PJ wanted.

Same with music... You may be able to reverse engineer the mixing/mastering errors on one favourite cd, but all the rest that has completely different errors can quite easily begin to sound much worse. Aiming to reproduce just what's on the disc will give you the lowest average error given random cds tested.
post #2968 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

The context of most of this thread has been about what audible changes occur before the speaker input terminals, and how insignificant those are compared to what happens after. In general power cables, interconnects, amplifiers, DAC's etc., all claiming audible differences that somehow are supposed to be discernible in rooms with FR swings as high as 30db.......it's like trying to taste a drop of Kool-Aid in a swimming pool. The main point being if something in the component chain did alter the signal that much, it's no longer true to the media it's conveying, regardless of how good or bad it was recorded.

I agree cables are a joke, but amps and DAC are not at least IMHO
post #2969 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Aiming to reproduce just what's on the disc will give you the lowest average error given random cds tested.
Uh-huh. But you're just making that up as you go, aren't you.

My first approximation adjusting my TV is comparing a recorded rainforest documentary of sun washed Amazon greenery with the foliage I can see through my window just behind the TV, on a sunny day here in Hawaii.
post #2970 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

WRT to speakers and room, I only use my HT for movies and I have calibrated it to Reference standard using treatments, automated RC, REW measuring software/mic, EQ, speaker and sub placement etc etc, and I have chosen subwoofers and speakers that are universally acclaimed.

This brings us back to a question Perry R asked you earlier...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry R View Post

My room is well treated, it measures well, I have well designed Open baffles with a 12" co-ax for mids and highs and open baffle servo subs in an "H" frame...Do you think our two systems would be indistinguishable?

I also measure the frequency response of my room and use room treatments and probably come close to the same standards as well. However I use line array speakers where as Perry R uses open baffle speakers. Between us three do you think our systems would sound the same?

If not, which is more true to source and is what was intended to be heard?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?