Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
True or false claims about audiophiles & science
Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
// "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 1. Soundstage capability. 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s. 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s. 4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in capturing simultaneous events in speaker response. Very good article in HiFi News and RR as well. Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any given point in time." (quoted from http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...5&postcount=43) I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I might cede taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation methods, and waterfall plots for audio. Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles their proper due. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 1. Soundstage capability. 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s. 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s. 4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in capturing simultaneous events in speaker response. Very good article in HiFi News and RR as well. Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any given point in time." (quoted from http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...5&postcount=43) I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I might cede taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation methods, and waterfall plots for audio. Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles their proper due. I'll comment on #2 (lack of sonics, whatever that means). There were amplifiers designed to have very low THD *at low frequencies* that do not sound good. This is not surprising at all because some of these amps show excessive distortion at high frequencies at high output powers. Basically, some of these amps have insufficient open-loop bandwidth and linearity, so that at higher frequencies, that is not enough loop gain to minimize distortion of the closed-loop amplifier. (Or you can think of it as not having sufficient speed in the loop.) I am not sure if audiophiles can take credit for discovering this or not, because a full-power, full frequency distortion sweep would have showed the problems. Seems like to me that that was a marketing problem: manufacturers were trying to come up with the lowest THD number (at 1 KHz), and ignoring other important parameters of the amps. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed, the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile community. 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s. What on earth does "lack of sonics" mean? 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s. Nonsense, mechanical engineering had solved this problem by the late 1930's. Take a look, for example, on the vibration isolation methods used for high-accuracy, high-sensitivity optical galvanometers. 4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in capturing simultaneous events in speaker response. Well, even as far as speakers go, this is old news. Consider the articles published in the AES journal priro to 1976 by Fincham at KEF. And before that we have Heyser in the 1960's doing basically the same thing. Hell, I was doing similar stuff in the late 1970's, well before the MLSSA system hit the market. Very good article in HiFi News and RR as well. Far better articles in JASA, JAES, and more decades before mere shadows of them appeared in the popular press. Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any given point in time." True, and most NON-scientist will fail to recognize the limits of non-science, and assign far to much credit to their "discoveries" which, in fact, are hardly discoveries at all. I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I might cede taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation methods, and waterfall plots for audio. Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles their proper due. Nor do I, as soo as they have some due. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 1. Soundstage capability. 2. Correct tonality of instruments. The soundstage thing I agree with. This is a perception that depends on your stereo hearing, and there is no instrument that can communicate what this sounds like in a given setup. Such a measurement would be meaningless anyway, because each of us would have to relate it to the actual sound anyway, so why do it. What we CAN do is vary the parameters of the speaker and room and see how each variable affects soundstaging, and thus learn what causes what. In my experimentation, it is clear to me that what we are hearing is a comination of the summing localization between the two speakers, and between the speakers and the reflections of their output from the room surfaces. If you pull the speakers out from the front wall, for instance, you notice an immediate increase in depth of imaging (soundstage), then if you push them back toward the wall, the soundstage collapses into the speakers again. Same with sidewall reflections. Bring them away from the sidewalls and you get more spaciousness, especially with the more omnidirectional speakers. Then you can experiment with radiatin pattern, and see the effects of that. And so forth. Gary Eickmeier |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed, the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile community. This was my understanding as well. So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue -- were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as of the late 1960's? Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed. CD |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 1. Soundstage capability. Given that every person's room is different, likely so. Though, it could be measured on a case by case basis. They do this for concert halls all the time. 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set, for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey, though. Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. Which is no longer a factor, thankfully. At least on decent quality players. 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s. Try 50s or earlier. Most of audio technology isn't new, and sonic isolation was implimented soon after the first movie studios started using sound. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Feb 2005 01:00:07 GMT, "Robert C. Lang"
wrote: Aren't "digital" timing errors still being learned about and harnessed? Not by people in the telecomms industry. Of course, so-called 'high-end' audio tends to be technically incompetent. There have defintely been modern day patents issued to deal with the problem (if it indeed is an audible problem). Here's one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5329556.html Can't imagine how that one got past the PTO examiners, as similar techniques were in use in digital transmissions for *decades* before 1993. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set, for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey, though. "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no, not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately. Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, & categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct" in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset, for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and hence, measures) different? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Codifus" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed, the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile community. This was my understanding as well. So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue -- were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as of the late 1960's? Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed. It was the golden ears who first advocated the use of 2 boxes and their accompanying jitter in place of the many mass market and audiophile single box players that were available at the time having no, little, or less jitter. The golden ears did not notice the jitter. Something like polishing up your CDs with Armor All (having no effect whatsoever) and then having to throw them all out. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Buster Mudd wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set, for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey, though. "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no, not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately. Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, & categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct" in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset, for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and hence, measures) different? So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed? It should be possible , though, to conduct this sort of test: compare a recording of a real instrument to the synthetic one, and ask a competent listener to determine which they think is real, and which isn't. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
jitter became an issue when audiophiles started using outboard or
separate DACs. Some people bypass the DACs built into CD players and use a separte DAC. They may be able to buy a better DAC but there some some severe issues with syncing up the signal coming from the pickup with the DAC if you have two separate systems. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set, for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey, though. "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no, not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately. Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, & categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct" in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset, for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and hence, measures) different? So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed? It should be possible , though, to conduct this sort of test: compare a recording of a real instrument to the synthetic one, and ask a competent listener to determine which they think is real, and which isn't. The main problem with *measuring* tonality or sound stage is that there is no scientific definition of what these things mean. Until there is a definition that allows quantitative measurements to be made, it is rather pointless to say whether science can measure it or not. Science cannot measure something that is not defined in a measureable way. On the other hand, frequency response, separation, signal-to-noise ratio and distortion can be measured easily on amplifiers and players, and these parameters are strongly related to the sense of tonality and soundstage one perceives. Of course, speakers have the biggest effect, by far, on these subjective qualities. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message ... Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening: 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s. Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed, the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile community. This was my understanding as well. So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue -- were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as of the late 1960's? Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed. It was the golden ears who first advocated the use of 2 boxes and their accompanying jitter in place of the many mass market and audiophile single box players that were available at the time having no, little, or less jitter. The golden ears did not notice the jitter. Something like polishing up your CDs with Armor All (having no effect whatsoever) and then having to throw them all out. Actaully Armor All turned out to have an effect on CDs -- a physically degradative one. Much embarassment ensued for Sam Tellig, IIRC. y |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Norman M. Schwartz wrote: Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed. It was the golden ears who first advocated the use of 2 boxes and their accompanying jitter in place of the many mass market and audiophile single box players that were available at the time having no, little, or less jitter. The golden ears did not notice the jitter. Something like polishing up your CDs with Armor All (having no effect whatsoever) and then having to throw them all out. Actaully Armor All turned out to have an effect on CDs -- a physically degradative one. Much embarassment ensued for Sam Tellig, IIRC. And, of course, one needs to be reminded that the entore armor-all CD thing started as an April Fool's joke, posted by Barry Ornitz on this very newsgroup in April of 1990. And people like Tellig. apparently, fell for it hook, line and sinker. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Codifus wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue -- were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as of the late 1960's? Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed. As others have pointed out, jitter either was or should have been a non-issue from the get-go, assuming the people designing CD players and DACs knew what they were doing. Apparently, a few didn't. And whoever finally informed those stragglers, it probably wasn't the audio consumer. What I think drives the jitter issue is the fact that jitter is the only--or at least the best known--form of distortion unique to digital audio. As such, it's become the de facto "scientific" explanation for all that's supposedly wrong with digital reproduction, the thimble into which the technically challenged subset of vinylphiles tries to cram all that they hate about CDs. Plus, if jitter *is* a problem, then you've got a reason to upgrade, which makes digital almost as much fun as analog! Interestingly, I can't ever recall seeing an audiophile on a discussion board raise the issue of jitter in reference to an A/V receiver--the most common case of an outboard DAC. Why not? Could it be because there's no real analog alternative, so no reason to raise a fuss about it? bob |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 2. Correct tonality of instruments. Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set, for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey, though. "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no, not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately. Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, & categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct" in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset, for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and hence, measures) different? So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed? Yes, it most certainly is an inherantly flawed claim...semantically if nothing else. The entire notion of "correct tonality" when describing timbre is indefensible. (And don't get me started on the viability of "correct tonality when describing musical harmony!) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Buster Mudd wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed? What do you mean by 'correct?' Analysis of existent acoustic instruments or evaluation of new creations? Yes, it most certainly is an inherantly flawed claim...semantically if nothing else. The entire notion of "correct tonality" when describing timbre is indefensible. It's not much different than the absurd notion of a 'correct' preference. (And don't get me started on the viability of "correct tonality when describing musical harmony!) Started in what way? Musical theorists do that all the time. Are Pythagoras, Kirnberger, Werckmeister, Rameau, Messiaen, et al all wrong? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote: Started in what way? Musical theorists do that all the time. Are Pythagoras, Kirnberger, Werckmeister, Rameau, Messiaen, et al all wrong? But the more savvy music theorists will use a term like "proper" or "appropriate" or maybe even "contextually dictated", rather than "correct". They know there is no universally "correct" tonality, because that implies that certain notes and harmonies would be "incorrect". That pedantic notion only exists in college exams; in music there is only the infinite gray continuum which extends from Contextually Acceptable to Contextually Ill-Suited. Oh, sometimes......... It's hard to argue about Pythagoras being 'contextually accetable or ill suited' as an octave or musical fifth for instance has audible beats or it does not, (except to a deaf person) as it's simple physics. He was also quite contemptous of those who disregarded his insistance on a mathematical approach calling the practices of those who tuned more randomly as 'toturing the tuning pins.' Rates of beats within temperaments of course, is contextual. Even the French, with the oft repeated phrase of 'bon gou^t' can be very rigid and dogmatic. Take a look at Marcel Dupre's improvisation treatise sometime. Not that I disagree with your point, though. ;-) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
gcrain wrote:
1-3 you should have said the audiophiles found out they were important. The engineers knew about them, they just didn't think they were important. I'm not a big fan of current measuring systems. Almost no measaurment is being done in the time domain which to me is the most important. A mediocre frequency response I can listen to even if it's less than thrilling. Bad time information gives me a headache. Amplifiers are typically minimum-phase systems, so the time-domain response is dictated by the frequency domain response, and vice versa. You only need to make measurements in one domain. Can you provide examples of a product with good frequency response, but has a time-domain response so bad that it gives you a headache? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this: // "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measu 1. Soundstage capability. 2. Correct tonality of instruments. The soundstage thing I agree with. This is a perception that depends on your stereo hearing, and there is no instrument that can communicate what this sounds like in a given setup. Such a measurement would be meaningless anyway, because each of us would have to relate it to the actual sound anyway, so why do it. What we CAN do is vary the parameters of the speaker and room and see how each variable affects soundstaging, and thus learn what causes what. In my experimentation, it is clear to me that what we are hearing is a comination of the summing localization between the two speakers, and between the speakers and the reflections of their output from the room surfaces. If you pull the speakers out from the front wall, for instance, you notice an immediate increase in depth of imaging (soundstage), then if you push them back toward the wall, the soundstage collapses into the speakers again. Same with sidewall reflections. Bring them away from the sidewalls and you get more spaciousness, especially with the more omnidirectional speakers. Then you can experiment with radiatin pattern, and see the effects of that. And so forth. Gary Eickmeier I absolutely agree with Gary. The effect of a wide soundstage can be extended to the point that the soundstage includes the listener and the instruments are heard all around you, you seem to be on the stage yourself. I get this perception when I have my omnidirectional speakers only 2feet away in the middle of the room. The instruments then seem to be 10 to 30 feet away and are arranged in a horseshoe shaped form around the center. This is with an acoustic 2 mike recording. Uakti, Mapa, a Brazilian group. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Wherever God closes a door, somewhere he opens a window | Pro Audio | |||
Retraction | Audio Opinions | |||
Google Proof of Unprovoked Personal Attack from McKelvy | Audio Opinions |