FolsomBlues:There is no scientific equipment, nor can there be, that allows someone to say a recording of a live performance plays better on their system than another. If this scientific equipment existed it would be full of test tubes with blue liquid in them and dry ice pouring out of the top and Peter Cushing running around like a lunatic screaming that he's "found it!" There are simply too many variables involved in what the listening experience entails in a live event for someone to say there are objective measurements that means one person could say their system reproduces it better than someone elses.
I agree. The way I see it studio recordings do not attempt to capture the ambience of a live event. Ambience is created by the listening environment, primarily sound reflections - diffusion. Surround sound recordings do record - add ambience. DSP effects modes attempt to artificially enhance stereo studio recordings with ambience, personnally I do not think they work very well, and I do not use them.
Recordings made at a live event can be played back accurately. But since I doubt they had the microphone in the position of the listeners/audience and it was probably recorded in stereo and not surround sound I agree it will not sound the same as being at a live performance. Again ambience being a product of listening environment.
Do you believe you can recreate the ambience of a live performance by picking cd player - amplifer - speakers and accesories by ear to personal taste.
The point of using specifications and measurements as a starting point is to not sacrifice music fidelity - clarity for a sound that has more distortion and uneven frequency response. It is setting a minmum bar for accuracy then decideding what you like the sound of. Since most or all setups are not going to be 100% accurate to source and you want to add ambience - sound diffusion anyway, ultimately it comes down to making the final choice by ear. Specifications and measurements are just setting a minimum bar for accuracy - clarity. Do you find products with higher total harmonic distortion or noise or uneven frequency response sound better to you, more like a live event.
If the room is not acoustically pretty neutral, then having a setup that gives music fidelty is a forlorn hope. Since the room will be distorting the sound anyway. In this is the case I can see the argument for home trial by ear as you are trying to get components that compensate - compliment your listening environment. In theory I think if you were taking measurements on site you could still aim for music fidelty.
"I think one of the problems in products that measure well but perform poorly and vice versa may be that some important aspects in reproduction are not being measured or that different factors interact with one another in complex ways."
"It also begs the question whether the right parameters that indicate "good" sound quality are being tested - I'm sure that we don't really know what they are"
The people into Psycoacoustics would disagree with you. The science of how we perceive sound and the technology used to replicate sound is not something new and measuring equipment is far more accuarately than human hearing. There is nothing that you can hear that can not be measured. So in effect you are saying there is something audible conciously or subconciously that you can hear that they are unaware off, that makes a difference to perceived sound quality. In effect those psycoacoustics people and audio engineers do not know what they are looking for so do not know what they should be measuring. This is the point that some people argue over, audiophiles claim to hear a difference but those who favour measurements say it does not exist or that it is measurable by equipment but not audible to humans. You never know, I do not think any scientist would claim a subject as broad as human perception and state of mind is completely understood, no need for more research here, we know it all. After all they would have talked themselves out of a job. But I think you would be talking about some kind of effect or distortion being created by the setup that makes you enjoy or not enjoy the music more, rather than what has been recorded on the disc. They know what is recorded on the disc, they must do to encode it - put it there and decode it - take it off. I do not see how having better audio fidelity would necessarily remove this effect, but I would have to know what the effect was to be sure.
Another argument is if accurate sound reproduction means you are producing "good sound quality" that depends on if the sound recorded was good to begin with. Since what makes good music is down to personal taste this I think will always be the case.
"its about understanding how our ears and brains interpret the subtleties of sound to recognise and place things in space. Maybe a hi fi system is always just going to sound just that - a hi fi system in which case we'd better get over it quick!"
A cohesive large soundstage is created by good hifi, things that muddy the position of things in the sound stage or clarity of detail in the music are understood. Once you have music fidelity it comes down to speaker placement, listener position and room acoustics. For ambience in the listening environment as I say above this is not currently recorded in stereo. If it was recorded and we all used surround sound setups to recreate it, you would want an acoustically dead - over absorbent room, as you would not be relying on your rooms sound reflections - diffusion to make the music sound natural, so all current recordings would need to be played using dsp effects or would sound awful in the room.
I agree. The way I see it studio recordings do not attempt to capture the ambience of a live event. Ambience is created by the listening environment, primarily sound reflections - diffusion. Surround sound recordings do record - add ambience. DSP effects modes attempt to artificially enhance stereo studio recordings with ambience, personnally I do not think they work very well, and I do not use them.
Recordings made at a live event can be played back accurately. But since I doubt they had the microphone in the position of the listeners/audience and it was probably recorded in stereo and not surround sound I agree it will not sound the same as being at a live performance. Again ambience being a product of listening environment.
Do you believe you can recreate the ambience of a live performance by picking cd player - amplifer - speakers and accesories by ear to personal taste.
The point of using specifications and measurements as a starting point is to not sacrifice music fidelity - clarity for a sound that has more distortion and uneven frequency response. It is setting a minmum bar for accuracy then decideding what you like the sound of. Since most or all setups are not going to be 100% accurate to source and you want to add ambience - sound diffusion anyway, ultimately it comes down to making the final choice by ear. Specifications and measurements are just setting a minimum bar for accuracy - clarity. Do you find products with higher total harmonic distortion or noise or uneven frequency response sound better to you, more like a live event.
If the room is not acoustically pretty neutral, then having a setup that gives music fidelty is a forlorn hope. Since the room will be distorting the sound anyway. In this is the case I can see the argument for home trial by ear as you are trying to get components that compensate - compliment your listening environment. In theory I think if you were taking measurements on site you could still aim for music fidelty.
"I think one of the problems in products that measure well but perform poorly and vice versa may be that some important aspects in reproduction are not being measured or that different factors interact with one another in complex ways."
"It also begs the question whether the right parameters that indicate "good" sound quality are being tested - I'm sure that we don't really know what they are"
The people into Psycoacoustics would disagree with you. The science of how we perceive sound and the technology used to replicate sound is not something new and measuring equipment is far more accuarately than human hearing. There is nothing that you can hear that can not be measured. So in effect you are saying there is something audible conciously or subconciously that you can hear that they are unaware off, that makes a difference to perceived sound quality. In effect those psycoacoustics people and audio engineers do not know what they are looking for so do not know what they should be measuring. This is the point that some people argue over, audiophiles claim to hear a difference but those who favour measurements say it does not exist or that it is measurable by equipment but not audible to humans. You never know, I do not think any scientist would claim a subject as broad as human perception and state of mind is completely understood, no need for more research here, we know it all. After all they would have talked themselves out of a job. But I think you would be talking about some kind of effect or distortion being created by the setup that makes you enjoy or not enjoy the music more, rather than what has been recorded on the disc. They know what is recorded on the disc, they must do to encode it - put it there and decode it - take it off. I do not see how having better audio fidelity would necessarily remove this effect, but I would have to know what the effect was to be sure.
Another argument is if accurate sound reproduction means you are producing "good sound quality" that depends on if the sound recorded was good to begin with. Since what makes good music is down to personal taste this I think will always be the case.
"its about understanding how our ears and brains interpret the subtleties of sound to recognise and place things in space. Maybe a hi fi system is always just going to sound just that - a hi fi system in which case we'd better get over it quick!"
A cohesive large soundstage is created by good hifi, things that muddy the position of things in the sound stage or clarity of detail in the music are understood. Once you have music fidelity it comes down to speaker placement, listener position and room acoustics. For ambience in the listening environment as I say above this is not currently recorded in stereo. If it was recorded and we all used surround sound setups to recreate it, you would want an acoustically dead - over absorbent room, as you would not be relying on your rooms sound reflections - diffusion to make the music sound natural, so all current recordings would need to be played using dsp effects or would sound awful in the room.
. I think the industry gave up and are waiting for the next step, be it online sales or maybe blue ray with 'extra's'. Let's hope that simple stereo will survive, I must confess that so far I really dislike multichannel. Maybe also because a lot of multichannel material is produced more to create special effects (the bass apparently has to sound as an earthquake) rather than to recreate real life music.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram