The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[watchnerd]

I'm quite happy being an audience member in a row near the stage, getting that intensity hit from the orchestral climaxes - it sounds impressive, but the actual SPLs are quite reasonable; it's the harmonic richness that does the job, to my ears.

You're not understanding the point:

Microphones are transducers, they are flawed like speakers. They all add color, they all have different radiation patterns, they all add distortion, they all have non-linear spots in their dynamic range, etc. They are not capturing what you experience live -- they're capturing a colored, flawed version of it.

I can go to any given point in the audience that you pick and use two different microphones and get two different results. Neither of which will be transparent to what you are hearing with your ears at that same location at that very moment.

This brings up several points:

1. The best thing most audiophiles could do, in terms of getting a more realistic perspective in what is achievable in sound reproduction, is to learn more about recording and sound engineering. Do field recordings, join the AES, etc.

2. We are trying to address the *science* of sound, not the personal epiphanies people may have as those are subjective and unmeasurable and thus of little to no help in advancing engineering solutions. The fact that a listener may reach a personal nirvana listening to "I Will Survive" on his waterproof clock radio in his shower because of "system synergy" doesn't do me much good when thinking about engineering solutions for living rooms or for other people.

3. Everything said so far about the brain and sound is well-known within the realm of psychoacoustics. It's useful knowledge, to be sure. But despite that knowledge, it has yet to be translated into technologies that break truly revolutionary ground and fool people into thinking reproduced sound is live.

4. What extreme audiophiles seek -- a home experience that is indistinguishable from live -- cannot be defined as a goal until we have objective metrics for what that even means. Throwing out the term "system synergy" is unquantifiable and thus is not a goal we can engineer towards.

 

[fas42]

You're not understanding the point:

Microphones are transducers, they are flawed like speakers. They all add color, they all have different radiation patterns, they all add distortion, they all have non-linear spots in their dynamic range, etc. They are not capturing what you experience live -- they're capturing a colored, flawed version of it.

I can go to any given point in the audience that you pick and use two different microphones and get two different results. Neither of which will be transparent to what you are hearing with your ears at that same location at that very moment.

You're probably not aware of the discussion earlier, about the field of ASA. This examines the fact that the ears don't care what the information is that hits the ear, so long as it is sufficient to tell the story - the mind "adjusts", fills the gaps - if the story is that you're listening to a symphony being played in a large hall, that's what you'll hear ... but, the ears are also fussy - if it's aware of too many anomalies in the sound it then rejects the illusion, completely, it just hears the characteristic sounds of a typical hifi, and it's obvious what's in front of you - it's not foolin' anyone!

2. We are trying to address the *science* of sound, not the personal epiphanies people may have as those are subjective and unmeasurable and thus of little to no help in advancing engineering solutions. The fact that a listener may reach a personal nirvana listening to "I Will Survive" on his waterproof clock radio in his shower because of "system synergy" doesn't do me much good when thinking about engineering solutions for living rooms or for other people.
3. Everything said so far about the brain and sound is well-known within the realm of psychoacoustics. It's useful knowledge, to be sure. But despite that knowledge, it has yet to be translated into technologies that break truly revolutionary ground and fool people into thinking reproduced sound is live.

Not needed. At all. The solution is so simple that people "can't get it" - simple raise the quality of the reproduction until the mind switches into the "I accept this illusion" mode; all the science has to do is determine the precise levels of anomalies that matter in this respect, and create quality engineering solutions that guarantee this needed quality, every time.

I've heard sound reinforcement systems that make the grade, several times. Which makes the abominable quality of most of them even more disturbing - bulldozer sound, with treble ripping shreds of skin off my eardrums - what is it with these, "pros" - how close to being totally deaf to what it actually sounds like, must they be?

4. What extreme audiophiles seek -- a home experience that is indistinguishable from live -- cannot be defined as a goal until we have objective metrics for what that even means. Throwing out the term "system synergy" is unquantifiable and thus is not a goal we can engineer towards.]

I don't use the term "synergy" - I use, convincing. Which means the machinery that is creating the sound, in the room, becomes completely acoustically invisible - this is something I've done over and over again, in different rooms, different systems, different "qualities" of gear. It's not easy, but, is achievable - and the answer is nothing more than reducing audible anomalies below a critical level.

 

[watchnerd]

You're probably not aware of the discussion earlier, about the field of ASA. This examines the fact that the ears don't care what the information is that hits the ear, so long as it is sufficient to tell the story - the mind "adjusts", fills the gaps - if the story is that you're listening to a symphony being played in a large hall, that's what you'll hear ... but, the ears are also fussy - if it's aware of too many anomalies in the sound it then rejects the illusion, completely, it just hears the characteristic sounds of a typical hifi, and it's obvious what's in front of you - it's not foolin' anyone!

I'm completely aware of ASA (as I alluded to earlier).

It's also completely irrelevant when we're talking about systems engineering, as a belief in "strong ASA" would argue fidelity doesn't matter at all.

 

[watchnerd]

I don't use the term "synergy" - I use, convincing.

How do I quantifiably measure "convincing"?

 

[fas42]

By having blindfolded listeners attempting to point to where the sound is "coming from", when they are positioned in various places in the room - the level of convincing could be "measured" by how accurate they were in locating the speakers.

 

[fas42]

I'm completely aware of ASA (as I alluded to earlier).

It's also completely irrelevant when we're talking about systems engineering, as a belief in "strong ASA" would argue fidelity doesn't matter at all.

Which means that you don't understand ASA - the core of which in this context is that the quality has to be sufficient - it doesn't mean mediocre, nor perfect - but somewhere on the line between those two "extremes".

 

[fas42]

With ASA, I have a visual analogy that I feel rather nicely sums up what happens - you stand quite some distance from a road, which has lots of tall trees with trunks which create a forest of verticals, blocking most of the actual area which is the road itself. A car goes down the road, and you watch, track that car as it goes along - in your head you can clearly "see" the car travelling, even though you only get glimpses of part of the shape between the trees, less often than more. That car feels real, as a visual experience, even though your vision of it is severely limited - your head is constantly "filling in the gaps" ...

 

[fas42]

As a simple tip, a better system to "fix up" is the raucous, fun, high energy one - as contrasted to one which is a refined variant of what Granny would listen to at a retirement village. With the latter, so much has been done to dull down any offending unpleasantness, that to unpick all of that might just be too much effort - you end up with a raucous rig, which is what you started with if you made the other choice.

 

[watchnerd]

By having blindfolded listeners attempting to point to where the sound is "coming from", when they are positioned in various places in the room - the level of convincing could be "measured" by how accurate they were in locating the speakers.

Seriously?

That's like the old demos for the Bose Acoustimass system that sprayed sound randomly around the room...

 

[fas42]

Seriously ... we're not talking about Bose sprayers, we're talking about "normal" speaker arrangements. As in, the cones on either side, in a column, sending everything straight to "the sweet spot". Except, with convincing sound there is no sweet spot - it exists everywhere. Which is why it becomes impossible to point to the drivers working, because you can't "hear them" ...

 

[watchnerd]

As in, the cones on either side, in a column

Are you referring to a di-pole?

 

[fas42]

No, the most boring two speaker in a box assembly you can imagine will do it - I was just emphasising that the direct sound is far more intense than any indirect contribution.

 

[fas42]

A solid post by Ken Newtown on the other forum, talking about The Future - in it he mentions an 'ideal':

As far as audiophile future visions go, the holy grail, it seems to me, is for absolute audio verisimilitude. Imagine that you were blindfolded and taken to some other physical location and seated. While still blindfolded, you hear music begin to play. At that moment, you believe that you are in a concert hall or other public venue listening to a live performance. After enjoying the performance a long while you remove the blindfold to discover that you have been listening to a reproduction in a domestic sized room. An completely convincing auditory illusion that's perceptually indistinguishable from reality. Is that even possible in a future along established technology paths?

This is the type of sound that I call "convincing" - which apparently requires blind testing, because I have a staggeringly powerful imagination which can conjure up such an illusion from the most mediocre of playback systems, if I can see it ... so, I think have decided to buy a cheap all in one system from the local electrical, and let my "powerful imagination" do the hard work of making it sound good ... .

 

[watchnerd]

the other forum

What's the other forum?

Do you have a link?

 

[tomelex]

You're probably not aware of the discussion earlier, about the field of ASA. This examines the fact that the ears don't care what the information is that hits the ear, so long as it is sufficient to tell the story - the mind "adjusts", fills the gaps - if the story is that you're listening to a symphony being played in a large hall, that's what you'll hear ... but, the ears are also fussy - if it's aware of too many anomalies in the sound it then rejects the illusion, completely, it just hears the characteristic sounds of a typical hifi, and it's obvious what's in front of you - it's not foolin' anyone!

Not needed. At all. The solution is so simple that people "can't get it" - simple raise the quality of the reproduction until the mind switches into the "I accept this illusion" mode; all the science has to do is determine the precise levels of anomalies that matter in this respect, and create quality engineering solutions that guarantee this needed quality, every time.

I've heard sound reinforcement systems that make the grade, several times. Which makes the abominable quality of most of them even more disturbing - bulldozer sound, with treble ripping shreds of skin off my eardrums - what is it with these, "pros" - how close to being totally deaf to what it actually sounds like, must they be?

I don't use the term "synergy" - I use, convincing. Which means the machinery that is creating the sound, in the room, becomes completely acoustically invisible - this is something I've done over and over again, in different rooms, different systems, different "qualities" of gear. It's not easy, but, is achievable - and the answer is nothing more than reducing audible anomalies below a critical level.

I agree, the guys who mix sound at concerts in my experience have lost their mid and high frequency hearing pretty badly IME.

 

[fas42]

What's the other forum?

Do you have a link?

www.whatsbestforum.com. Click New Posts, go to thread, "The Future".

 

[watchnerd]

www.whatsbestforum.com. Click New Posts, go to thread, "The Future".

Well, I'd agree with this statement:

"it feels to me like current audio technologies on are a path of diminishing returns that may never fully realize the desired objective of a totally convincing illusion of live. "

However, that doesn't mean that we're due for a new wave of innovation. At a certain point technologies get 'good enough'.

Nobody wastes time trying to make a better spoon any more, but millenia ago they probably did.

 

[RayDunzl]

Nobody wastes time trying to make a better spoon any more

http://www.designswan.com/archives/15-cool-and-innovative-spoons.html

The first one could even be distantly related to audio...

 

[watchnerd]

http://www.designswan.com/archives/15-cool-and-innovative-spoons.html

LOL, okay...so some crafters do...

 

[fas42]

Always on the look out for new ideas, implementations that snare the key parts of what good music reproduction is about, in spite of "issues" elsewhere - and this could be speakers, cables - or amplifiers ...

Here's one I've been pointed to - the subjective impressions tell the story, that this manages to resolve some of the weaknesses of many amplifiers,

http://www.davidberning.com/products/qz