Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Bob,

Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about

multisource/multipath interference.

I do understand your distinction. But it seems to me it's still comb
filtering, just more than one set of interference responses.

I also agree with your basic premise. As I see it, the parent property of
all of this stuff is boundary interference. Room modes and comb filtering
are SUBSETS of boundary interference. You can have boundary interference off
a single wall outdoors, and you can have comb filtering when sound waves are
traveling in the same OR in opposing directions.

--Ethan


  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

William,

... listening to a variety of audiophile cables. On my initial listening,

there were huge differences ... Whether or not these differences were
"real", it's obvious that what I heard (or thought I heard) had nothing to
do with comb filtering.

But how can you be sure?

And if not comb filtering, or expectation bias, then what? Magic?

--Ethan


  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
David Grant David Grant is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs



However, I do have a graph already posted that adds to the discussion.
This
graph shows a single location with and without first reflection treatment:

www.realtraps.com/rfz-response.gif


Interesting.

Let us know if you ever do a positional comparison with RFZ. My only
(qualitative) experience with an RFZ is that as you move your head the
soundstage is much more static... I can't say I've noticed a more static
(w.r.t position) spectrum though, and that makes sense since it's sort of
hard to do A/B comparisons (jump up, pull down fibreglass, audition sample
while moving head around, jump up, replace fibreglass, audition sample while
moving head around)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
darkAvenger darkAvenger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs



If impedence with piezo pickups is an issue, why when I plug my contact mics
into the hi-z input on my mixer, it sounds the same as when I plug them into
the regular inputs?


Deafness?

  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Lorin David Schultz Lorin David Schultz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 184
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Paul Stamler wrote:

Yeah, but he was saying that the huge changes in response are not
particularly audible, even though they're easily measurable.



Until last week I would have agreed. Now, I'm not so sure.

I got up to stretch during the news one day last week. I walked away to
take a sip of coffee, and remained standing when I returned to the
console. After a few moments I realized something was horribly wrong
with the sound! I sat down to begin troubleshooting and the problem was
gone. There wasn't anything wrong, I'd just heard the dramatic effect
of my ears being in a different position relative to the speakers and
room boundaries.

Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the
speaker, the sound obviously changes significantly when you move around.
You're right Paul, the brain usually compensates for that. Not always
though. I often have to slide around and/or turn a little at the board
during the show, and I'm often quite aware of how the sound has changed
with the position of my head. In fact, sometimes when I'm bored I
slowly turn my head side-to-side and realize how much I miss my old Boss
Phaser pedal! g

Again, you're right that I *usually* don't notice, but sometimes I do.
In the case of standing up, it was startling. Maybe it was because it
was a change in the *vertical* plane, something I don't do very often,
so it was an unfamiliar difference. Perhaps the more familiar we are
with the "correct" position, the more sensitive we become to variations?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)




  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Kalman Rubinson Kalman Rubinson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 312
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:40:31 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the
speaker, the sound obviously changes significantly when you move around.
You're right Paul, the brain usually compensates for that. Not always
though.


A lot depends on one's state of attention. For example, going from my
dining room into the music/HT/listening room, I am quite aware of the
change in acoustic (and gratefully so in view of the efforts expended
there) as it affects normal conversation. However, there is no
difficulty in identifying voices despite the shift in timbre during
the transition. While continuing the discussion, we all become
completely unaware of that effect. This adaptation is useful and, in
most ways, common to all our senses. It is when we concentrate of
particular aspects of a sensory event that we can somewhat deter the
adaptation.

Kal

  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Buster Mudd Buster Mudd is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Chevdo wrote:

Personally I'd like a static electricity remover for LPs, but as far as I know
only record sleeves and cleaning solutions to reduce static electricity
build-up exist. I don't know of anything that will remove static electricty
after it's already built up.



Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun?

  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Chris Hornbeck Chris Hornbeck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,744
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

On 3 Oct 2006 10:59:07 -0700, "studiorat" wrote:


Excellent article...
And I must say that is the biggest cat I've ever seen!!!!


Anybody who poses with a cat is solid in my book. And
Ethan's stuff is always generous, thoughtful and important.

Chris Hornbeck
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Chevdo Chevdo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

In article , says...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:40:31 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the
speaker, the sound obviously changes significantly when you move around.
You're right Paul, the brain usually compensates for that. Not always
though.


A lot depends on one's state of attention. For example, going from my
dining room into the music/HT/listening room, I am quite aware of the
change in acoustic (and gratefully so in view of the efforts expended
there) as it affects normal conversation. However, there is no
difficulty in identifying voices despite the shift in timbre during
the transition. While continuing the discussion, we all become
completely unaware of that effect. This adaptation is useful and, in
most ways, common to all our senses. It is when we concentrate of
particular aspects of a sensory event that we can somewhat deter the
adaptation.


I understand what you're saying, that if you're not paying any attention (such
as background music at a restaurant while you're having a conversation), you
will be able to recall very few details about what was playing in the
background, but in fact stimulatory delusion occurs most readily when 'over'
concentrating on it. You can see Jesus in the tortilla only if you concentrate
enough to fill in the gaps of the image, and imagine the blot as a whole image.
I think this is how I often end up making mixes that sound terrible the next
day. I keep trying to listen more 'carefully', analogous to squinting the
eyes, and start imagining frequencies being more offensive or less pronounced
than they actually are, and compensating for this, only to listen back to the
mix the next day with fresh, non-squinting ears, and it sounds all wrong. But
this doesn't happen to me as much as it used to, now that I've come to grips
with the mechanism in play.



  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs



So I guess you're the type of person who we were discussing, who, even

after
being told that science says nobody can hear the difference between 10 and

18
gauge cable, you still cling to your cherished delusions. Why is that?

Why
are you so positive that you were hearing what you think you were hearing?



Science is the way to go, I agree! Since test equipment doesn't work by
the same mechanisms as a human brain/ear though, how does one know what to
measure to differentiate between intrinsic or extrinsic effect? Can we
measure what people are actually perceiving? What kind of interface does one
use to quantify human perception?

Sometimes with really subtle things we can approach the threshold of
resolution of our mind/ear capabilities, but we can sometimes measure such
effects with instrumentation, if one wishes to go beyond real-time AB
testing. The hitch is that you have to know what you're trying to measure.
Of course there are some imagined or phantom audio perceptions, but I also
believe that there are some psychoacoustic effects that are indeed audible,
but not necessarily measurable in typical fashion. Some phenomenon involving
distortion, for example, are very hard to measure. There are binaural
effects in which differences -between- channels can be perceived that can be
elusive when it comes to physical measurement. Some people can hear the
difference between various op-amps in audio circuits, which is a pretty
amazing example of what the human ear can do. And even though there are
measurable differences in the devices, more often than not it's really hard
to deal with the subjective effect, what's really perceived. One problem
with common audio test gear that comes to mind, which makes it difficult to
measure tiny effects, and that is that signals are often integrated for too
long to reveal what one might be hearing and wishes to measure. Very low
level distortions can be very difficult to measure too. Another interesting
factor is that there exists considerable variation among people's hearing &
psychoacoustic abilities.

Here's a fun example of a commonly perceived effect that is not so easy
to quantify:

Adjust an Aphex Dominator II, which I'm sure many are familiar with, so
that you have a very longest decay time (many seconds) and just a subtle
amount of limiting being indicated on the meter, like -3 to -6dB on peaks
only. Adjust the gain structure so that effect and bypass are at unity gain,
say with a scope or phase cancellation technique and a sine wave. Okay,
then pipe some program music with rich spectrum content through the
Dominator - in stereo- and use the bypass switch to do an AB comparison.
Subjectively, what you might hear is something like less mid range mud, lots
more prominent high end and perhaps a little more low end, but if you throw
typical test great at the set up, you will probably not measure any
difference in amplitude between the affected and non-affected signal across
the entire spectrum!

What if you sum the two stereo channels; how does it sound? What do you
see if you sample the test signal and then look at it in a higher resolution
in the time domain? What happens if you change the load transducers you're
using? (e.g. headphones, speakers, etc.) Does anything happen to your
measurements if you remove the load? What does the phase response look like?
Non linearity's in phase are often tolerated and not perceived, but what if
about stereo program where phase linearity of two channels is not exactly
the same? These things are all interesting to me because common test gear
with the measurement domains and scales that people usually look at are not
going to catch the effect. What's also really interesting is that a great
number of people will not be able to -hear- the effect or describe the
effect either, not unless there's a lot more limiting going on.

So why does the apparent frequency response of a device like that sound
so altered, even though your scope or your typical FFT shows a flat
response? And why is it that some people can't hear it at all? To me
that's a good example of something that's sonically obvious to allot of
people but pretty easy to miss with test gear.


Schler




  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs


What's your point? I'm not going to beat the guitarist until he admits

his
superstition is just that, but I'm not going to hide facts from him to

protect
his 'feelings' because his 'feelings' are 'harmless', either.



So you're saying you're a jerk? ;-)

Skler


  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs


"anahata" wrote in message
...
Skler wrote:


Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP
demagnetizer.


pantomime chorusOh yes there is!/pc
http://www.musicdirect.com/products/...?sku=AFURDEMAG



Heehee :-)


  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs


Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun?


Those where a pretty cool. You could really zap stuff with it if you got
close too!


  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Chris Hornbeck Chris Hornbeck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,744
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:12:56 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

Ears and brains, in combination, do some very clever stuff. Much of which we
don't understand yet.


Perhaps an interesting parallel is our vision, which
mapped onto the cortex looks like a fish-eye-lens
view of the world. All of the geometric correction
and all of the amazing color stuff is done in post.

Gotta love it.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ABacon ABacon is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

When I was 16 I zapped my GF's "electrode" with my dad's Zerostat...and
she broke up with me that afternoon. It was worth it.

Skler wrote:
Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun?


Those where a pretty cool. You could really zap stuff with it if you got
close too!


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun?

They're still available, new, from various audiophile dealers. Except they
now cost $80. Nevertheless, they're effective at temporarily removing the
charge from an LP.


  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:35:08 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Excellent article...
And I must say that is the biggest cat I've ever seen!!!!


Anybody who poses with a cat is solid in my book. And
Ethan's stuff is always generous, thoughtful and important.


Quite a fox too :-)
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

David,

My only (qualitative) experience with an RFZ is that as you move your head

the soundstage is much more static

If you think about it, what makes RFZ listening more static and stable is
precisely what we've been discussing. The frequency response does not change
nearly as much with head position, and the difference in the spectrum each
ear hears doesn't change as much either. Of course, all RFZ treatment is not
equal. I've seen inappropriate acoustic products sold as suitable for RFZ
use by companies that don't know any better. And even among "good"
materials, some work better than others at shallow angles and high
frequencies, which is important for RFZ.

--Ethan


  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Lorin,

Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the

speaker

Damn, I KNEW there was one more point I needed to make in my article! :-)

Yes, speaker beaming / lobing is absolutely typical, and contributes to the
sound changing even when there is treatment at the first reflection points.
I'll go add that point now. Thanks for the reminder.

--Ethan




  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ron Capik Ron Capik is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Ethan Winer wrote:

Bob,

Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about

multisource/multipath interference.

I do understand your distinction. But it seems to me it's still comb
filtering, just more than one set of interference responses.

I also agree with your basic premise. As I see it, the parent property of
all of this stuff is boundary interference. Room modes and comb filtering
are SUBSETS of boundary interference. You can have boundary interference off
a single wall outdoors, and you can have comb filtering when sound waves are
traveling in the same OR in opposing directions.

--Ethan


Not that I'm an expert on anything, but in support of Bob's position
I have always seen comb filtering as being the special case of
interferance where the frequency response resembles a comb
...thus the name.

I'd be hard pressed to call those lumpy bumpy plots in your paper
clear examples of comb filtering.

Anyone have any guidelines for when a response curve (that may
contain comb filtering components) becomes too complex to be
classed as comb filtering? ;-)


Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training
--


  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

-- Actually, comb filtering can be generally called "constructive and
destructive interference" as well. Constructive means that certain
wave portions are built-up, destructive means that another wave
portions are cancelled.

Generally, it is a bad thing. I consider it one of worst problems in
recording and I always stress that it is much more important where you
put the microphones rather than of what kind of microphones you are
using. OK, the second is also very important; but only if you meet
both of that your recording will suceed. Elementary, Watson.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia



Hey, Coratia... Cool!

When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else where
it isn't so darned hot! ;-)

Skler


  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Chevdo Chevdo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

In article ,
says...

Ethan Winer wrote:

Bob,

Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about

multisource/multipath interference.

I do understand your distinction. But it seems to me it's still comb
filtering, just more than one set of interference responses.

I also agree with your basic premise. As I see it, the parent property of
all of this stuff is boundary interference. Room modes and comb filtering
are SUBSETS of boundary interference. You can have boundary interference off
a single wall outdoors, and you can have comb filtering when sound waves are
traveling in the same OR in opposing directions.

--Ethan


Not that I'm an expert on anything, but in support of Bob's position
I have always seen comb filtering as being the special case of
interferance where the frequency response resembles a comb
...thus the name.

I'd be hard pressed to call those lumpy bumpy plots in your paper
clear examples of comb filtering.


That's because if you BUILT a comb filter to affect a signal on purpose (for
the purpose of creating a reverb, for example), you would render a uniformly
spaced waveform spectrum, but since we are talking about acoustic affects in a
room, the comb filtering that occurs under those conditions will be erratic.
Remember that a comb filter algorhythm employed in a digital reverb is a
synthetic means of modeling what actually occurs in rooms, from physical
objects setting up comb filters in the room. In this context, a room with
objects in it is a more 'real' comb filter than a box full of electronic
components mimmicking the effects of a room with objects in it. In fact,
according to map/territory relation, the synthetically produced comb filter
isn't a comb filter at all, just as a map of Los Angeles isn't Los Angeles. So
philisophically, comb filtering can ONLY occur acoustically in rooms. But
that's only useful in achieving perspective, for practical purposes a device
that synthetically produces a comb filtering effect is a 'comb filter'.




Anyone have any guidelines for when a response curve (that may
contain comb filtering components) becomes too complex to be
classed as comb filtering? ;-)


I doubt that could happen. The 'complexity' or stochasticism of a waveform
doesn't determine whether it was produced by a comb filtering effect or not.

  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Edi Zubovic Edi Zubovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:11:44 -0500, "Skler"
wrote:

-- Actually, comb filtering can be generally called "constructive and
destructive interference" as well. Constructive means that certain
wave portions are built-up, destructive means that another wave
portions are cancelled.

Generally, it is a bad thing. I consider it one of worst problems in
recording and I always stress that it is much more important where you
put the microphones rather than of what kind of microphones you are
using. OK, the second is also very important; but only if you meet
both of that your recording will suceed. Elementary, Watson.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia



Hey, Coratia... Cool!

When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else where
it isn't so darned hot! ;-)

Skler

-- You'd be welcome. Yes, we have a mild climate; if I had to choose
to move somewhere, I'd probably choose New Zealand. It's roughly at
the same latitude, just antipode to us here

Cheers,
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Ron,

I'd be hard pressed to call those lumpy bumpy plots in your paper clear

examples of comb filtering.

Look again, and you'll see that the blue nulls are more or less evenly
spaced, as are the red nulls. Some nulls are much deeper than others, as
some "ride on top of" larger changes in level. But the regularly repeating
pattern of nulls is pretty clear, with about 11 of them between each
vertical major division.

--Ethan


  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs


When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else

where
it isn't so darned hot! ;-)



From Texas to Croatia... you got a fetish for culture shock??



I'm originally from northern Illinois. You think I haven't experienced
culture shock already?

:-)

Schuy


  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 891
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Skler wrote:

What's your point? I'm not going to beat the guitarist until he admits

his
superstition is just that, but I'm not going to hide facts from him to

protect
his 'feelings' because his 'feelings' are 'harmless', either.



So you're saying you're a jerk? ;-)

Skler


Naaaah, that goes without saying.

--
ha
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bob Cain Bob Cain is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Skler wrote:
When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else

where
it isn't so darned hot! ;-)


From Texas to Croatia... you got a fetish for culture shock??



I'm originally from northern Illinois. You think I haven't experienced
culture shock already?


Where? I'm from Oregon, IL, 25 mi. south of Rockford on the Rock
River. Great place to grow up and good place to be from.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html


It explains some audiophile beliefs, no doubt.

Another explanation is that the audio product comparison methodologies that
audio dealers and audiophiles generally use randomize their results on many
grounds, including the one suggested by the article.

Audiophiles seem to obsess on their perceptions of any differences at all,
and tend to perceive any difference as being an improvement. Their abhorance
of formal tone controls and their infatuation with implicit tone controls
that can only be changed by swapping equipment, seems like a big clue to
their true motivations.


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs


Where? I'm from Oregon, IL, 25 mi. south of Rockford on the Rock
River. Great place to grow up and good place to be from.


Bob



Hey Bob,


It's pretty where you live, I think anyway. I grew up in Winnetka, next to
Evanston. My dad's an electrical engineer and commuted to Chicago. My years
there were from about 1957 until 1970. It was a great place to grow up,
small town but connected to the big city by a commuter train that cut
through the center and an expressway a few miles to the west. Schools and
teachers there were amazing. There was interesting, modern architecture
throughout the town & it was a very friendly & safe place too.

Schuy



  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Skler Skler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs


Audiophiles seem to obsess on their perceptions of any differences at all,
and tend to perceive any difference as being an improvement. Their

abhorance
of formal tone controls and their infatuation with implicit tone controls
that can only be changed by swapping equipment, seems like a big clue to
their true motivations.



Hi,

Subjective description and metaphor are a big deal now. Even now that FFT
measurements are easily obtained and could illustrate some interesting
differences in performance, especially with regard to speakers, there's
little of that to be found. Instead it's a bunch of poetic description of
the sound, which is great, but you'd think that people who may actually be
above average in their ability to discern audio quality would want to
quantify it some way, as opposed to the typical consumer for which most gear
is probably good enough and they don't care about specs anyway, just
features. Perhaps the fact that so many audio enthusiasts resort to
subjective metaphor instead of physical measurement specs is an indication
that our measurements are not so good after all, at least in terms of how
they relate and correlate with subjective experience. I think
psychoacoustics still has lots of territory to explore.

Schuy


  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Subjective description and metaphor are a big deal now. Even now that FFT
measurements are easily obtained and could illustrate some interesting
differences in performance, especially with regard to speakers, there's
little of that to be found. Instead it's a bunch of poetic description of
the sound, which is great, but you'd think that people who may actually be
above average in their ability to discern audio quality would want to
quantify it some way...


To do so would destroy the raison d'etre of the magazines.


  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] peteyusenet@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

"It makes perfect sense that the one thing neither camp has ever
considered - acoustic comb filtering - turns out to be the real
culprit."

I gotta say, I have thought comb-filtering a major consideration ever
since I discovered it, and so have quite a few people I've worked with.

Pete



  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

"Skler" wrote in message

Audiophiles seem to obsess on their perceptions of any
differences at all, and tend to perceive any difference
as being an improvement. Their abhorance of formal tone
controls and their infatuation with implicit tone
controls that can only be changed by swapping equipment,
seems like a big clue to their true motivations.



Subjective description and metaphor are a big deal now.


Been so in consumer audio since at least the early 70s.

The rise of similar thinking in pro audio probably came with the
"consumerization" of pro audio.

Even now that FFT measurements are easily obtained and
could illustrate some interesting differences in
performance, especially with regard to speakers, there's
little of that to be found.


Many have been brainwashed to absolutely distrust any measurement.

Instead it's a bunch of
poetic description of the sound, which is great, but
you'd think that people who may actually be above average
in their ability to discern audio quality would want to
quantify it some way,


This sort of information only has global meaning when fixed benchmarks are
used.

as opposed to the typical consumer
for which most gear is probably good enough and they
don't care about specs anyway, just features.


The significance of quality gear and quality implementations is greater with
pro audio because more are affected by its quality.

Perhaps the
fact that so many audio enthusiasts resort to subjective
metaphor instead of physical measurement specs is an
indication that our measurements are not so good after
all, at least in terms of how they relate and correlate
with subjective experience.


The relationships are not always simple.

I think psychoacoustics still has lots of territory to explore.



In some ways.


  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Arny,

their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can only be changed by

swapping equipment

That's a great point. There was a discussion of my Believe article recently
at the Home Theater Talk forum, and below is a brief excerpt from that
thread. It never would have occurred to me that someone would intentionally
use a crappy cable (with HF losses) to "tune" a system.

--Ethan

====================

A guy posted:

"If you have assembled a system and the highs are bugging you a bit and you
get some boutique cable and it tames the highs a bit for some perfectly
scientifically justifiable reason, then that wire is adequate for that user,
no?"

I pointed out:

"Sure, but you could just as easily use the receiver's built-in tone
controls for free. Versus paying big bux for a boutique cable."

The guy comes back with:

"An EQ maybe but with a tone control you may not get the result you want. It
might cut a large swath at 10k while you need a roll-off starting at 12k.
But I get your point."

I replied:

"Well, okay, but for $150 you can get a parametric EQ and have EXACTLY the
curve you want. And you can change it as often as you want, even for every
CD (or LP). Versus endlessly searching, as many do, for that perfect but
elusive synergy by repeatedly buying new combinations to see what "works
well" together."


  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message
Arny,

their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can
only be changed by swapping equipment


That's a great point. There was a discussion of my
Believe article recently at the Home Theater Talk forum,
and below is a brief excerpt from that thread. It never
would have occurred to me that someone would
intentionally use a crappy cable (with HF losses) to
"tune" a system.


snip thread contents which fully substantiate Ethan's claim about
audiophiles using a crappy cable to tune a home system

How about this:

"I couldn't be bothered taking Arny to task about
this equalisers business. Of course that's not the answer; if a system
is not satisfying you change components; equalisers have nothing to do
with it.

"In reality I do own a ten band equaliser but use it only to
make older recordings more listenable when recording onto minidisc. As
far as using it all the time, switching it in and out from CD to CD,
that's nonsense and even Arny must know it.

"Unfortunately it just
confirms what I already knew, that Arny is just a techie with very
little real interest in music or its accurate reproduction.

Then there are the audiophiles who lust over SET amplifiers with very high
output impedances. They change the system's response more-or-less randomly,
based on the speaker's impedance curve.

Should I mention the classic SP article by Michael Fremer where he claims
that volume controls should be avoided and that instead you should swap
phono cartridges to change listening levels.


  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ron Capik Ron Capik is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

Arny Krueger wrote:

How about this:

......snip...

Should I mention the classic SP article by Michael Fremer where he claims
that volume controls should be avoided and that instead you should swap
phono cartridges to change listening levels.


Aren't volume controls just a way to introduce amplitude distortion?
And how is swaping out phono cartrages all that different from
selecting the perfect microphone for the job?
Anyway, there's only one volume at which things should be listened
to, the volume they were recorded at. CDs should list the proper
listening level so folks don't go introducing amplitude distortion;
much like fine beer that lists the proper drinking temperature!


Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training
[ What, me sarcastic? ]
--

  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs

"Ron Capik" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

How about this:

......snip...


Should I mention the classic SP article by Michael
Fremer where he claims that volume controls should be
avoided and that instead you should swap phono
cartridges to change listening levels.


Aren't volume controls just a way to introduce amplitude
distortion?


Its only distortion if you get it wrong. ;-)

And how is swaping out phono cartrages all
that different from selecting the perfect microphone for
the job?


Seems like a hard row to hoe to just change the volume.

Anyway, there's only one volume at which things should be
listened to, the volume they were recorded at. CDs should
list the proper listening level so folks don't go
introducing amplitude distortion; much like fine beer
that lists the proper drinking temperature!


OK. ;-)


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are they Teaching Michael McKelvy Audio Opinions 199 October 15th 04 07:56 PM
Linux is dead...It doesn't even have a pulse. Stormin Mormon Pro Audio 16 June 3rd 04 04:59 PM
HAHA I FIGURED OUT THE holy grail of distorted guitar micing J&L Pro Audio 70 March 3rd 04 04:01 PM
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail? cwvalle Audio Opinions 146 January 18th 04 12:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"