AVS Forum banner

201 - 220 of 469 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
and that was my point.

“a) a microphone is a more accurate device than our ears

b) we can simulate two ears with two microphones arranged in a fake head”

and yet the one MAJOR thing NO ONE can duplicate is the human brain.

there is NOTHING on this planet that can replicate human perception. it doesnt matter what processors, what mics, how loud, how clean...the biggest variable IS the human brain.........and EVERYONE’S brain is different.

hash it out however you want. it still wont make any sense because of that one large variable...the human mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty close. I think I hear differently, or more accurately perceive differently or maybe even wired differently since I come from Mars.

I've told this story many times, in that I was exposed to live, large scale, unamplified music since the age of three .... 1947. Mostly big band then and classical a few years later. It was at least a decade before I listened to any amplified music or 'studio' creations. All of those venues sounded different and of course seats within the venue, which of course can affect tonality, dynamics, etc., but all of them included, for no extra charge, the sound of the space …. back wall, side walls, ceiling, HVAC, etc. How I listen / hear / perceive might be different. It's obvious just from how my system / speakers are placed that I'm nuts. Its sorta like a 3-D projector and you hear absolutely nothing 'coming out' of the speakers. Caveat: unless an object is hard panned all the way right or left. Then the image is on the face of the speaker and game over for me.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
3d sound isnt common imo. magnepan does it really well. sopra 3's did it very well. my audioengine 2's do it. its not a cost thing. but its spooky real...like you can walk around and touch the musicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scotth3886

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #203
“detectable differences may be able to be measured...but perceived differences cannot.”

Citation needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think he's basically saying the human brain adds even more variables. So, like, if you're hot one day and cold the next, you may perceive music differently, but we'll never be able to measure how you perceived it on day 1 vs. day 2 -- we can only "measure" your ability to relay your perceptions accurately to us (and we know that's flawed too, plus we have crap acoustic memory).

It's philosophy as much as science...and I can't disagree. But, I don't know if it "matters", because....
and that was my point.

“a) a microphone is a more accurate device than our ears

b) we can simulate two ears with two microphones arranged in a fake head”

and yet the one MAJOR thing NO ONE can duplicate is the human brain.

there is NOTHING on this planet that can replicate human perception. it doesnt matter what processors, what mics, how loud, how clean...the biggest variable IS the human brain.........and EVERYONE’S brain is different.

hash it out however you want. it still wont make any sense because of that one large variable...the human mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, it is a variable, but we can take it as much out of the equation as possible through more controlled tests.

We can measure the limits by which we hear THD, then see if a device exceeds those limits. If it doesn't then we shouldn't be able to hear the THD generated by the device. If we measure enough people, we'll create a bell-curve, and until we find another person outside it, it's what controls the "THD-mind-variable".

Now, replace THD with other measurable differences in amplifiers and select the things to measure based on the science of amplifiers and what could possibly (given our knowledge of the circuits) be different. Now measure those things just like THD.

Once you do all that, you have taken the brain out with respect to those variables. Your only remaining leg is, "we haven't included enough variables". The funny part, it's the exact opposite of what some whine about here, "science needs too many variables"...yep, it does! The more the better; so long as they are controlled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
Wait -- we don't have metrics for 3D audio, or we don't have metrics for 3D soundstaging?

If it is the latter -- I'd ask, "what is a 3D soundstage"? Personally, I've never heard one -- maybe it is my ears. I can "pretend" I hear it, because with my current setup every sound, however wide or narrow, gets rendered in front of me in a "bubble" of its own and that "bubble" may be louder or softer than another one. But, to me, that's not "3D", it's just a different SPL level. I can "pretend" it is 3D because the "softer" bubbles may either be softer or they may be further away (and the louder closer to me). Alas, my brain mostly goes with "they are softer / louder" rather than "they are further / closer".

So, if by "3D soundstage" you mean you feel like the instruments are actually in a 3D space, as if you know exactly where it is positioned front to back and could walk up to it and touch it...well, that I've never experienced, neither live nor reproduced. I've been to plenty of live concerts (my brother plays saxophone, bass clarinet, and oboe; I go see him play when I can) and even there I can't say I hear it "3D" by that definition. It's not like I can shut my eyes and tell the exact spot in 3-dimensions where my brother is playing, that's for sure! Can you? If so, guess your ears are better or more trained than mine....

That said, despite posting about the 3D sound via headphones stuff (which I know exists), I've never tried it...so, it's possible my ears work, just not live or with reproduced sound, lol. If I couldn't perceive 3D with those sims then I'd put a nail in it; my ears are "broke", lol. Honestly, it's the reason I don't try them, hahaha!

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree -- you're not reading what we're posting. Is it possible to design something that is not transparent? YES! Is it desired? Maybe by you, not by "us".

So, I'd argue that if two things sound different, then either:

a) one of them is not transparent
b) neither of them is transparent
c) the test was flawed
d) the listener was super-human and should be experimented on to see why their hearing is better than everyone else in the world, on average -- in other words, we finally found a listener that may actually be hearing the measurable differences that likely exist, but are below our threshold of audibility.

You pick, no matter what, I don't want the one that isn't transparent! Anything a device can do to f-up the signal, I'd prefer to be defeatable. I don't want to bake it into my signal chain and I sure a fck don't want to pay out the nose for the "privilege" of doing so!

Further, I want more of "us" than "you" in the "music making business" because then I can play back a known, controlled, entity and cease to be encumbered by the circle of confusion.
I offered. I work out of my house so just about anytime, I'm here. So next time you're in the neighborhood, give me a shout and stop on over.

And again, my goal for an audio system is to come as close as I can to reproducing 'live unamplified music, played by real musicians, playing real music in a real space'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
I offered. I work out of my house so just about anytime, I'm here. So next time you're in the neighborhood, give me a shout and stop on over.



And again, my goal for an audio system is to come as close as I can to reproducing 'live unamplified music, played by real musicians, playing real music in a real space'


Circle of confusion. The source is what it is. It’s not always trying to be what you think it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #206
I offered. I work out of my house so just about anytime, I'm here. So next time you're in the neighborhood, give me a shout and stop on over.

And again, my goal for an audio system is to come as close as I can to reproducing 'live unamplified music, played by real musicians, playing real music in a real space'
You miss the part where I state I hear "real musicians playing real music in a real space" every time I see my brother and it's not like I feel as though I can reach out and touch his precise location on stage when I close my eyes?

If I ever get a chance to hit up OH, which is only a day's drive for me in NJ, I'll take you up on it, though, thanks :D. Looks like you have a nice setup, and control your room. I have my M2s pulled out into my room and set as close to 60 degrees (as it appears you have), too. Alas, I don't get front-to-back, I just get variance in level and an exceptionally clear sound-stage left-to-right. But, I don't have the width you have, my poor M2s have to be nearly jammed next to my walls, which is a pity.

That said, as I mentioned, I don't hear things like you describe them live, either. Of course, I don't get to...alter...my perceptions when going out to listen live because I need to drive home, so....lol. I will admit, my system sounds so much better when I'm "altered".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
I think he's basically saying the human brain adds even more variables. So, like, if you're hot one day and cold the next, you may perceive music differently, but we'll never be able to measure how you perceived it on day 1 vs. day 2 -- we can only "measure" your ability to relay your perceptions accurately to us (and we know that's flawed too, plus we have crap acoustic memory).



It's philosophy as much as science...and I can't disagree. But, I don't know if it "matters", because....



Yes, it is a variable, but we can take it as much out of the equation as possible through more controlled tests.



We can measure the limits by which we hear THD, then see if a device exceeds those limits. If it doesn't then we shouldn't be able to hear the THD generated by the device. If we measure enough people, we'll create a bell-curve, and until we find another person outside it, it's what controls the "THD-mind-variable".



Now, replace THD with other measurable differences in amplifiers and select the things to measure based on the science of amplifiers and what could possibly (given our knowledge of the circuits) be different. Now measure those things just like THD.



Once you do all that, you have taken the brain out with respect to those variables. Your only remaining leg is, "we haven't included enough variables". The funny part, it's the exact opposite of what some whine about here, "science needs too many variables"...yep, it does! The more the better; so long as they are controlled.


you are talking about control. that control is needed for any scientific experiment. the problem lies in you cant controll the variable of the human peprception. sure, you can measure how people perceive certain things, but unless you measure every person on the planet, the science doesnt mean anything. you can measure 100,000 people and quantify their perceptions in a nice and tidy spreadsheet, but then you would have 100,000 other people that would be complete opposite of said measurements.

you can’t make assumptions when you’re talking about science. you cant measure a fraction and make it fact for the whole.

i feel like we are splitting hairs here. on the one side we have people saying “measure everything! that is the proof”. and on the other “you cant measure everything accurately”.

there honestly is no easy answer. we can measure the things we can measure. THD. Hz. distance. response time. i get it.....but we cant measure human pwrception. it is IMPOSSIBLE.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
3d sound isnt common imo. magnepan does it really well. sopra 3's did it very well. my audioengine 2's do it. its not a cost thing. but its spooky real...like you can walk around and touch the musicians.
True, properly placed dipoles come the closest, but the ESLs trounce the Magnepans in this respect, but the Magnepans are far easier to live with day in day out. My only solution is to have both. I'd have MBLs too if I could afford it, but the smaller $38,000 ones, not the 101 Extremes, which I have a bunch of issues that I don't how I would cure through placement. I still would like the chance though. These

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #209 (Edited)
you are talking about control. that control is needed for any scientific experiment. the problem lies in you cant controll the variable of the human peprception. sure, you can measure how people perceive certain things, but unless you measure every person on the planet, the science doesnt mean anything. you can measure 100,000 people and quantify their perceptions in a nice and tidy spreadsheet, but then you would have 100,000 other people that would be complete opposite of said measurements.

you can’t make assumptions when you’re talking about science. you cant measure a fraction and make it fact for the whole.

i feel like we are splitting hairs here. on the one side we have people saying “measure everything! that is the proof”. and on the other “you cant measure everything accurately”.

there honestly is no easy answer. we can measure the things we can measure. THD. Hz. distance. response time. i get it.....but we cant measure himan pwrception. it is IMPOSSIBLE.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uhhh...didn't I see you say you're in the medical field. How do you post, "you cant measure a fraction and make it fact for the whole" -- a "fact", ok, that's true -- a 99.9999% statistical likelihood? Yeah, that you can do. I'll accept 99.9999%, you go find me the outlier where audio is concerned. Is it a "fact", I guess "not"...in this regard, you can't prove it 100% until you measure everyone. Unfortunately that's not going to happen, doesn't stop science from moving forward, thank baby jeezus!

Plus, I'm not trying to control perception -- it's the same person perceiving it, their perceptions shouldn't be altered (and if they are, only by the thing under test, which is why we try to control other variables).

So, I shall assume your argument for the reason ABX testers end up looking like they are guessing is not that they can't hear a difference, rather it's that their perceptions are changing underneath them too much to hear it? I mean, what would cause that? If it's a thing, it's just another thing we must control -- spoiler alert, I doubt it'd change the results much.

edit -- for clarity of mind, lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
more controlled...this study/science is so complex we really have little clue. waiting for science to examine sound with different heartbeats and twitch muscles :) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433932/ crazy science going on....with conclusion of....more investigation needed. its best to just go listen and buy stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scotth3886

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #211
Circle of confusion. The source is what it is. It’s not always trying to be what you think it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In this case, I think most of what he listens to that sound-stages three-dimensionally has been recorded without much circle of confusion in the loop. It'd be two mics going straight to the recording with, I'd believe, as little as possible in between. I'm sure @Rex Anderson could tell us more about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
True, properly placed dipoles come the closest, but the ESLs trounce the Magnepans in this respect, but the Magnepans are far easier to live with day in day out. My only solution is to have both. I'd have MBLs too if I could afford it, but the smaller $38,000 ones, not the 101 Extremes, which I have a bunch of issues that I don't how I would cure through placement. I still would like the chance though. These

https://youtu.be/A6uYgtO-NBI

when you go to axpona check out the new polk legends....they the opposite of dipoles...they fill the entire room with vibrant sound. it took me a few minutes to figure out what was going on as there was no center/phantom image...but I could tell where instruments were. I am going back for more listens...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
You miss the part where I state I hear "real musicians playing real music in a real space" every time I see my brother and it's not like I feel as though I can reach out and touch his precise location on stage when I close my eyes?

If I ever get a chance to hit up OH, which is only a day's drive for me in NJ, I'll take you up on it, though, thanks :D. Looks like you have a nice setup, and control your room. I have my M2s pulled out into my room and set as close to 60 degrees (as it appears you have), too. Alas, I don't get front-to-back, I just get variance in level and an exceptionally clear sound-stage left-to-right. But, I don't have the width you have, my poor M2s have to be nearly jammed next to my walls, which is a pity.

That said, as I mentioned, I don't hear things like you describe them live, either. Of course, I don't get to...alter...my perceptions when going out to listen live because I need to drive home, so....lol. I will admit, my system sounds so much better when I'm "altered".
I did NOT miss that as that's what I'm trying to reproduce as much as possible in my listening room.

"it's not like I feel as though I can reach out and touch his precise location on stage when I close my eyes"

I never said this. Some images are sharp such as a triangle and some are defuse such as massed strings, but the sharp small objects should sound sharp, precise and small. A reproduced Imperial Grand, cello, viola or double bass should sound bigger than a piccolo or triangle, etc. Something called surface loudness of let's say a sq inch on the sound board of a large wood instrument and the comparative loudness of a sq inch of your speaker diaphragm.

And thanks. I have a budget system. Even my better system is budget. After the 2008 and 2009 commercial real estate crash and then having to come back to Ohio to take care of two parents' with Alzheimer's until they passed five years later, ten cleaning out there family home to sell , which took another year so I lost about 7 years of the income I was accustomed to out in SoCal.

Maybe, pulling my reigns in was a good thing after decades of throwing money around. I still knew exactly what I expected a home audio system to do and now I had to do it on a tight budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Uhhh...didn't I see you say you're in the medical field. How do you post, "you cant measure a fraction and make it fact for the whole" -- a "fact", ok, that's true -- a 99.9999% statistical likelihood? Yeah, that you can do. I'll accept 99.9999%, you go find me the outlier where audio is concerned. Is it a "fact", I guess "not"...in this regard, you can't prove it 100% until you measure everyone. Unfortunately that's not going to happen, doesn't stop science from moving forward, thank baby jeezus!



Plus, I'm not trying to control perception -- it's the same person perceiving it, their perceptions shouldn't be altered (and if they are, not by the thing under test, which is why we try to control other variables). So, I assume your argument is the reason they end up looking like they are guessing in ABX tests isn't that they can't hear a difference, it's that their perceptions are changing underneath them too much to hear it? I mean, what would cause that? If it's a thing, it's just another thing we must control -- spoiler alert, I doubt it'd change the results much.


you’re talking about playing odds. it is not possible to test a fraction and make it statistically acceptable to say “99.999%” because of that “human mind”.

yes. i am a medical professional. and medicine is mostly about guessing “believe it or not”. you get lab results or imaging results or even pathology results and most will say “could be this, this, or this”. and the biggest farce is people actually believe that we say “yep, you 99.999% chance you have this...”. of course i am exaggerating a bit, but the point is made. that being said, there ARE certain things we can say “yes, you have this, i am 100% positive”. but it isnt as many things as you would like to think.

the saying “there are no sure things in life” comes to mind. and while 99.999% iant a sure thing, 99.999% isnt realistically achievable most of the time when discussing human perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
In this case, I think most of what he listens to that sound-stages three-dimensionally has been recorded without much circle of confusion in the loop. It'd be two mics going straight to the recording with, I'd believe, as little as possible in between. I'm sure @Rex Anderson could tell us more about that.
Naw. Go to the ghosts of Bob and Wilma Fine and Jack Pfeifer. Simpler the better. The earlier the better post 1954 if RtoR and 1958 if Stereo LP. Almost like Sheffield did with direct to disk in the late 60s up to late 70s. Or even what we did five decades back when we recorded live two track Ampex at the Country Dinner Playhouse east of C-Bus. Sure he was a recording engineer who was also an audiophile (very rare) and right after we got back to his house, played the unaltered master back on his Tympani's. Just unreal how real it sounded as compared to what we just hear live. That's my standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
when you go to axpona check out the new polk legends....they the opposite of dipoles...they fill the entire room with vibrant sound. it took me a few minutes to figure out what was going on as there was no center/phantom image...but I could tell where instruments were. I am going back for more listens...
Not gonna be my thang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Not gonna be my thang.

yea...they sounded way different than my lrs and my focals and every speaker I have heard recently...very different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
more controlled...this study/science is so complex we really have little clue. waiting for science to examine sound with different heartbeats and twitch muscles :) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433932/ crazy science going on....with conclusion of....more investigation needed. its best to just go listen and buy stuff.
Definitely buy stuff.

But yeah, a whole big world yet to discover. Still to early to close that patent office. More to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #219
I did NOT miss that as that's what I'm trying to reproduce as much as possible in my listening room.

"it's not like I feel as though I can reach out and touch his precise location on stage when I close my eyes"

I never said this. Some images are sharp such as a triangle and some are defuse such as massed strings, but the sharp small objects should sound sharp, precise and small. A reproduced Imperial Grand, cello, viola or double bass should sound bigger than a piccolo or triangle, etc. Something called surface loudness of let's say a sq inch on the sound board of a large wood instrument and the comparative loudness of a sq inch of your speaker diaphragm.

And thanks. I have a budget system. Even my better system is budget. After the 2008 and 2009 commercial real estate crash and then having to come back to Ohio to take care of two parents' with Alzheimer's until they passed five years later, ten cleaning out there family home to sell , which took another year so I lost about 7 years of the income I was accustomed to out in SoCal.

Maybe, pulling my reigns in was a good thing after decades of throwing money around. I still knew exactly what I expected a home audio system to do and now I had to do it on a tight budget.
Where, in your bolded statement, is there anything with a 3rd dimension. I consider 3d listening to mean I can close my eyes and triangulate in 3d space the location of the image. I can't do that, not in a live performance, not in my 2-channel rig. I don't know if I can do it with headphone 3D stuff, but I'd bet I have a better shot at it because there everything needed to do it can be controlled in the tiny room around each ear (unlike your room which would need to be dead as heck with flashlight speakers pointing strictly to your left and right ears to be headphone like, right?).

Now, the things you are describing in that paragraph -- that I can perceive with my system. It is incredible! And, I get similar effects on modern music, too. Little tiny bright artificial objects that twinkle around my sound-stage are the most fun. I also really love when I can hear an overdub, like voice-on-voice right next to one another, one a bit quieter than the other. None of this, IMO, is "3D", though.

That said, ALL OF IT, is something I'd LOVE to join up with some exceptional signal processing folks and try to create an "AI listener" to show me -- like: "I", the AI listener, at 1:10 in the track, hear: signal x, 5' from the left wall, it has width 4", dB level q, it lasted for 2 seconds; in addition, "I" hear signal y, 6' from the left wall, etc, etc. That would be some bad-arse computer program! AND, should I be able to one day create it, I may recreate my Dad's dream of an algorithmic, true-to-source, "light show" -- like artificial synesthesia!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
the sales guy when playing the polks as I sat in the prepositioned listening chair...said no, these arent those speakers...get up walk around. I was like wtf...very different in a great way party/whole room/house speaker/sound. most chest slam I have ever heard at low volumes. was listening to old rock and roll.
 
201 - 220 of 469 Posts
Top