The Holy Grail of Audio Playback ?

[fas42]

Now things are getting interesting ... I am not sure I fully understand what you're saying here, but the implication is that you're micro manipulating the waveform envelope with the end result that phase effects are perceived, a type of subtle "pre-distortion" so to speak. Put it this way: if one were to monitor the digital input to the DAC, and use Diffmaker, say, to compare what, say foobar delivers, there would be a significant difference - correct?

I think at least we agree that the goal is achieving a subjectively high quality experience: you believe that physics is the key, I believe that "fooling" the ear/brain system is key. In one sense the process is the same; it's feeding the ear/brain with precisely the right information so that the mind registers the result as high quality sound. And my technique for generating the right information is different: I scrub the final sound as clean of certain types of underlying distortion generated by the playback system as I possibly can, which allows the ear/brain to dismiss the remaining audible distortion as irrelevant. So, I rely on the listener's mind to do the "physics", the untangling of the sound; in my experience this is highly effective.

I work with whole system tweaking, which means that it is not fragile in the face of the replay mechanism. The ideal is that the sound can go from barely audible to literally deafening, PA levels, peaking in the 120 to 130dB range, with no change in perceived tonality. The limitation in the loud end is obviously the capabilities of the combination of amplifier and speaker, but I see no inherent reason why a smooth gradation to that sound level is not possible. My current system is capable, as a good guesstimate, of about 106dB  peak at close listening distance, which is perfectly adequate so far, I have no trouble having my ears ringing after a couple of tracks with the "right" material.

Intrigued,
Frank

[fas42]

What I'm talking about is the listener. No, I'm talking you versus me, I'm talking about me versus me(or you versus you) on different days or, perhaps, at different times of the same day. Somedays everyday just sounds so radiant, clear and perfect and other days, with the very same equipment plugged into a clean power regenerator, it all sounds just a little bit off.

This has been suggested many times, and I believe that "good sound" is beyond this. Take the example of a real piano in your listening room: if you were in a "foul" mood, and a brilliant practioner sat down to play on it, you might be offended about the choice of material, the creak of the foot pedal, his breathing, etc, and quickly walk out on the performance. But you would still have no trouble registering the quality of that sound; if asked by someone at that moment, you would never say that doesn't sound like a real piano, or it sounds "off" ...

Frank

[PeterSt]

I am not sure I fully understand what you're saying here, but the implication is that you're micro manipulating the waveform envelope with the end result that phase effects are perceived, a type of subtle "pre-distortion" so to speak. Put it this way: if one were to monitor the digital input to the DAC, and use Diffmaker, say, to compare what, say foobar delivers, there would be a significant difference - correct?

Sadly Frank, no. The difference shown will be 0.00000.
Now *that* must be intrigueing without further elaboration, right ?


But this is a strange one :

you believe that physics is the key, I believe that "fooling" the ear/brain system is key.

So, there's a solid solution built from physics, and now you are rather be fooled ? I knew it, you guys from down under are strange.

Nobody says when you first have it "physically" all right that next further tricks are not allowed to be applied, although I would NEVER allow that to happen to myself. Why ? because I would not be able to continue on the physical side.

So Frank, I saw it coming for a few posts ... this is not an arbitrary thing. Audio, to me, is an absolute matter and no guessing or hokus-pokus is needed to let it work. If you, for example, perceive the better sound with knots in your LS cables, then there's still a good explanation for it. For 100% everything there's a good explanation. Yes, even in audio.

Peter

[PeterSt]

Nobody says when you first have it "physically" all right that next further tricks are not allowed to be applied, although I would NEVER allow that to happen to myself. Why ? because I would not be able to continue on the physical side.

This is not just blahblah you know. Many tricks can be applied but without exception the tricks lead to anomalies. Overhere we say that only the sun comes up for free, and you might say there is no free lunch. This too is physics. Filter out noise ? it doesn't exist. Not without other effects and these effects are unwanted always. It's just an example.

Read in the link I'll provide below how it is true that I really can not live with tricks. It's a small topic which refers to one that may take half a day of reading. This too (by coincidence) is about an SPL which gets 100% the same in 100% of the room up to 1.5 meters from the speakers (closer and and SPL finally rises); This is a physical trick so not even an illusion. But it can't be for the better, in the end it is not for the better and all you do is diffuse. Remember, no free lunch, but the better one is that sun coming up for free, because energy is not created and will not get lost. This is how the in the end verdict "less accurate" meets physics. IT CAN'T stay as accurate. Better sound and pleasure ? the h*ll with that. Better sound is to come from better accuracy. Those who don't believe in that should be, well ... eh, audiophiles ? haha

Re: Peters Mystery Feet.

Peter

[fas42]

This is good ... we are making progress in understanding each other ...

First of all, I don't use any "funny stuff". As an example, the cables I use are bog standard, straight from the electrical store; there are no expensive, "magical" things involved in getting my sound, it's all based on trying to understand what the influences on sound quality are, and mitigating them. I will admit I have done funny things at times because there was an impact on the sound, but there is always a progression to reaching an engineering understanding of what's going on. Just so you know, I am an EE, but this as a profession never happened for me, I ended up doing computing instead ...

Also, I feel you're misunderstanding my term "fooling" the hearing system. The intrinsic nature of us as physical creatures has meant that our ability to listen has been refined, has evolved to a very sophisticated level - we are able to perform remarkable feats of hearing if we are so inclined. Like listening to a musician busker on a busy city street, the signal to noise ratio could be atrocious, yet we can pick subtleties of the instrument's tone and playing technique with no trouble at all; the mind can switch to another gear where it can filter out all the irrelevant racket with little effort.

So, that's what I believe a system can be tweaked to do: lifted to a level where the mind easily separates what it wants to perceive, the musical performance, from the "racket", which are all the distortions of the recording process and the remaining ones of the playback setup. In that sense the hearing system is being "fooled", because there are no actual performers in the listening space, yet the brain wants to interpret what it hears as being the same as the real thing.

I misunderstood you, because I was forming the impression that you're manipulating the sound, using physical, as in electrical,  "tricks" to make the sound appear more realistic.

Yes, tricks will cause anomolies. But reduction of distortion is not a trick, it's an eminently sensible thing to do - and the brain appreciates what has been achieved by hearing everything more clearly, in a more satisfying way.

The illusion that I mentioned with mono occurs because the brain "wants" to believe what the soundstage messages are telling it; hence the effect. Another one is the completely invisible tweeter: running at normal volume you are able to go up to adjacent to the speaker, put your ear a few inches from the tweeter, and not be able to perceive the sound as coming from the driver. Caution: for advanced practioners only ...

Frank

[PeterSt]

So, indeed we are making progess. Good !

Here is another quite contradictionary example of my personal behaviour. Well, at least it should be contradictionary to your ideas;

When I listen for merits, I do NOT close my eyes. Why ? because speakers and everything disappear, and all what remains is music in my head like wearing headphones. So, this is good eh ? mind tricks and things.

But it is not good at all. It is not good, because with many worse or worst settings this will happen, and while actually the reproduction is poor, it is perceived as nice. It is now just up to mood and whatever I like to see in the performance what will be in my mind. But I am NOT listening to the real merits of the system.

With eyes normally open, the music will not get into your head (like with headphones). It will be perceived from where it comes from, and where it comes from is determined by the quality of the lot. So, come from speakers = bad, come from nowhere = good (to name the extremes).

I apply more tricks not suitable for all;
I hardly ever listen from a sweet spot. Why ? it is a waste of time for me in the first place. I'm doing things - always (u/i lifting glasses ). From this though, springs the idea that sound is not to be perceived from any sweetspot while in the mean time the image has to be there just the same. Can't be done ? then I'm further with my system then you. This is just because it *can* be done. And to give the example : with Windows 8 this is impossible (and this is because something is wrong in there). So, all is very fragile, but in the end it meets with what I said in the first post in this topic.

What it comes down to is that one can "tweak" far beyond normal satisfaction, if only theories are attempted to put into practice. So there's now "theories" which is similar to knowledge and no matter it doesn't workout, one can always attempt to let it do that. The example of that is the standing waves, which will just all vanish once playback approaches 100% (good). Never mind those who won't believe it, if you only know it is one of my measures and which *is* based on theories, never mind they are my own.

Regarding our abilities with hearing and how this is NOT smart of the brain or anything, think of this and relate it to that LPS system I developed :

We know GPS, right ? We do know how many satellites must be received in order to poper receive location data, right ? this is one more than the number of dimensions involved, which number is 3. So, 4 satellites are needed. We are now able to localize and this includes altitude (height).

Now go out and listen for birds. You are able to localize the bird whereever it is in the 3d space. If you can't you probably have one ear only. So ...
how ?
Because we have a smart brain ?

Of course not. This is just how all the different phases of frequencies can be worked out for distance. But think of it with your two ears only 30cm or whatever it is apart. The bird is at 100m distance and with your two antennas as close as 30 cm you can still instantly see where the bird is, which makes the phase difference used maybe 0.0001 degree (I'm just typing a small number, but someone like Pythagoras will be able to tell you the real difference with a 30cm base and 10000cm sides). Twist your head a little may help, because the phase differences will become larger (think about angles here).

Smart eh ?
Still official math and science etc. will tell you that this can't be done with two antenneas only. Ok, so we can't localize birds at all.
Indeed, with one frequency only we will not be able to do that. For the 3D space phase differences this will provide non-unique locations (phase differences) all over the place. But combine it with more frequencies and less non-unique positions remain. Combine it with enough frequencies and one unique position remains.

For fun, now try to find the flute bird. A flute bird exhibits one frequency only and (this is because) it is a sine (sinus). I am fairly sure that the flute bird has never been seen because it can't be localized ...

I made up the above right on the spot. But having finished it I have the real example : the cuckoo. Not sure whether everybody has them in their surroundings, but we do and never saw one. You just can't localize them especially not for distance. And they exhibit this nice rounded sound of two sine frequencies, cu and ckoo.


Anything else ?
This is how I deal with audio. Nothing much special. No tricks, no illusions.
And hopefully the best music reproduction through speakers on the globe, although these days this is more and more doubtful with all the phools listening to me and/or getting stuff we provide.
haha

Peter

[fas42]

Agreed. I do not close my eyes, or listen in the dark, or believe in the sweet spot, or worry about where I am when listening. When a system works correctly these are all aspects of the situation. I can listen to the system from the other end of the house, and it sounds "right". Conversely, if there is a problem I can also pick it immediately from the other end of the house ...

There's another very simple test: if you're not sure whether the sound is as good as it can be, then it most definitely isn't. If every fibre of your body tells you that there is no way anyone can convince you that there is any problem with the sound, then you're in pretty good shape ... 

Frank

[christoffe]

I can listen to the system from the other end of the house, and it sounds "right". Conversely, if there is a problem I can also pick it immediately from the other end of the house ...

Frank

Impossible due to different echoes/reflections/reverberation times!

You both are discussing and we are waiting for XXH running with W8.  (This is a joke)

[PeterSt]

Impossible due to different echoes/reflections/reverberation times!

Joachim, I am sorry, but I don't agree.

IMHO, the very best way to test whether your audio reproduction is correct is NOT listening in the room itself. Go elsewhere in the house up to outside and make sure you made a couple of turns when going through doors. Or : wherever your bathroom is, go there, close the door behind you (hehe), close the door of the listening room in advance of that, and listen while reading a newspaper or whatever you do in there.

Sounds like a live band playing ?
Then all is right.
Don't mind too much bass or whatever which is not in line with your perception of good audio. That live band could be playing in your listening room, and no way reflections because of all the turns you made on route to the bathroom are influencing yoyr perception of a live band playing, because there *is* a live band playing.
No difference with audio reproduction IF ALL IS RIGHT.

This too is an explicit measure of me. I'm serious;
When you listen in the listening room you are subjectively listening. You may like your profound bass or highs. Outside of the room this shows an all over out of balance; music plays, but it's no live band.

And in the mean time Frank an I get along quite well.

[fas42]

IMHO, the very best way to test whether your audio reproduction is correct is NOT listening in the room itself. Go elsewhere in the house up to outside and make sure you made a couple of turns when going through doors.

Also known as the LIAR test: Listening In Another Room ...

Or : wherever your bathroom is, go there, close the door behind you (hehe), close the door of the listening room in advance of that, and listen while reading a newspaper or whatever you do in there.

Sounds like a live band playing ?
Then all is right.
Don't mind too much bass or whatever which is not in line with your perception of good audio. That live band could be playing in your listening room, and no way reflections because of all the turns you made on route to the bathroom are influencing yoyr perception of a live band playing, because there *is* a live band playing.

This is getting scary!! At the moment I peruse the electronics bible, "The Art Of Electronics" when I am, ahem, otherwise engaged ... . My poor weary brain needs constant refreshing, what goes in one brain cell very quickly pops out on the other side ... 

This too is an explicit measure of me. I'm serious;
When you listen in the listening room you are subjectively listening. You may like your profound bass or highs. Outside of the room this shows an all over out of balance; music plays, but it's no live band.

And in the mean time Frank an I get along quite well.

There are simple ways to switch off the analytical side when right on the front line  , basically you do what we in Oz would call Clayton's listening: listening while not listening, doing it in a distracted way. An excellent test is to put on a "nasty" recording, wind up the volume and deliberately engage in conversation with the person next to you. If you start getting edgy, uncomfortable, start feeling that you must turn down the volume as soon as possible then the sound is not right ...

And, apologies to anyone who's getting bugged by this conversation, wants Peter to do important stuff, like fixing W8 ... 

Frank