|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 15, 2019 18:06:16 GMT 10
Where is Audio Truth ?
Some years ago I posed this question and it led to some interesting responses. Since then much has changed but I wonder if we are any closer to the truth.
Audio fora still seem to get bogged down arguing over how to discern audible differences, blind testing vs sighted listening and so forth.
People have dug trenches, grenades have been lobbed, feelings and maybe some egos bruised. The revolving door temporarily stops spinning only long enough for people to pick up their marbles and retire to their respective corners.
If it’s not measurable can it still count? Does the thing being measured count? We still need measurements and still need to strive to improve both their accuracy as well as their relevance to the outcomes we are studying.
What is disturbing for some is the whole unsavoury notion of psychological influences. A rejection that they have any valid role to play in interpreting or changing the 'real' world. Are things psychological an affront to the physical evidence, 'not real', 'imaginary' and even pejorative?
Psychological things can colour the way we perceive things and at times without an accompanying change in the real world sensory input. Many 'illusory phenomena' rely on known psycho-acoustic neurological processing to recreate something that isn't there, such as an acoustic image of instruments and people on a soundstage. Psychological influences can not only 'colour' the way we see things but it seems also to be able to change the very hard-wiring in the central nervous system that processes the sensory information. A kind of self-reinforcing and self-propagating loop that physically changes our perception of the world. At the center of this is the neuroplasticity of the nervous system that adapts to changes in a very physical way. This can have positive benefits in many domains including shaping our abilities to learn new things, discern or refine our perceptual skills. It can also be destructive, sensitizing our responses to say pain, in a negative way. It is a very powerful construct, analogous to fire, it can warm you when you're cold or burn you if applied incorrectly.
Is Audio truth, then, a matter of greater ‘accuracy’? If we get cleverer in our measurements and our gear improves to faithfully reproduce what we measure, then will it sound better? So just perhaps, when it comes to listening to music, it appears there is something more to "trust your ears" than 'meets the eye'. Enjoy the music.
|
|
|
Post by ROWUK on Aug 15, 2019 22:05:03 GMT 10
In my world, audio truth is between the ears. I can be moved by a wonderful rendition regardless if it is through an extremely high quality system or a Bose Wave Radio. Granted, things like space, tone and extension can augment a listening session - but they also can distract from the musical essence. The greatest dangers IMHO are for those in search of "more resolution" instead of "more music"!
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Aug 16, 2019 6:26:43 GMT 10
For my opinion of "If it’s not measurable can it still count? Does the thing being measured count?" I have always used religious beliefs as a comparison in my own mind.
Many of the audio objective-non-believers I have found to be deeply religious but don't require measured results for that belief. I'm not in any way deriding what people choose to believe or hold sacred. Just saying...
However, it would be nice if methods of measuring were developed that allowed these objective findings to be proven or even disproven!
(Note to admin; if you feel the post is outside of this forum's etiquette, please delete at will)
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 16, 2019 13:26:26 GMT 10
In my world, audio truth is between the ears. I can be moved by a wonderful rendition regardless if it is through an extremely high quality system or a Bose Wave Radio. Granted, things like space, tone and extension can augment a listening session - but they also can distract from the musical essence. The greatest dangers IMHO are for those in search of "more resolution" instead of "more music"! Hi cj66 I think that hopefully most of us would agree that without a brain there is not much hearing or perception going on lol I also agree that music can be enjoyed over a Lo-Fi radio. In fact , for me, if the music is poorly recorded I actually enjoy it more on the car radio vs a high end system. The truncated and squashed version just seems less offensive and the brain appears to add back the missing parts, to some extent. You still get the emotional responses and so forth. I also get your comments about resolution vs musicality. Art Noxon (Acoustic engineer) when setting up someon'e listening environment would ask do you want detail or musicality? For me however there is a balance where high end systems can shine, almost suspending disbelief that you are not listening to the real thing. The system gets out of the way of the music and it does not draw attention to itself as "impressive". To achieve that is high end indeed IMO Cheers David
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 16, 2019 13:36:46 GMT 10
For my opinion of "If it’s not measurable can it still count? Does the thing being measured count?" I have always used religious beliefs as a comparison in my own mind. Many of the audio objective-non-believers I have found to be deeply religious but don't require measured results for that belief. I'm not in any way deriding what people choose to believe or hold sacred. Just saying... However, it would be nice if methods of measuring were developed that allowed these objective findings to be proven or even disproven! (Note to admin; if you feel the post is outside of this forum's etiquette, please delete at will) Similarly, I have found that sometimes science can be invoked up to a point, that point being when it clashes with a belief system .Not implying that has to do with Religion and guess wise not to go there Totally agree about the worthy goal of objective measures to correlate with what we hear. I think the ultimate would be a direct test of perception itself in the brain (not gonna happen any time soon notwithstanding functional MRI and the like) Disprove is far easier than prove (disprove requires just one counter example) For me,IMO "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted." -William Bruce Cameron
|
|
|
Post by ROWUK on Aug 17, 2019 5:04:37 GMT 10
Maybe this will be the forum where we can establish non audiophile vocabulary for what our systems do. The audio industry has been great at NOT having reference points or definitions for anything sound wise. The automobile industry has real performance specifications that translate to the tactile driving of a car. Great wines have established words to define taste in all of its stages. Photography has had stable descriptions of all of the factors - including "resolution".
I would love to have "tone" defined. We all know that there are some drivers with more and some with less, even some with none. How do we talk about this so that someone else understands? What about a word for the geometry of playback? Surely this means something varied for an acoustic event vs a canned studio exercize with everything individually recorded. Instead of the meaningless "soundstage" maybe we can come up with things that create pictures so that our experiences become shareable - in a blog.
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 17, 2019 11:51:05 GMT 10
Maybe this will be the forum where we can establish non audiophile vocabulary for what our systems do. The audio industry has been great at NOT having reference points or definitions for anything sound wise. The automobile industry has real performance specifications that translate to the tactile driving of a car. Great wines have established words to define taste in all of its stages. Photography has had stable descriptions of all of the factors - including "resolution". I would love to have "tone" defined. We all know that there are some drivers with more and some with less, even some with none. How do we talk about this so that someone else understands? What about a word for the geometry of playback? Surely this means something varied for an acoustic event vs a canned studio exercize with everything individually recorded. Instead of the meaningless "soundstage" maybe we can come up with things that create pictures so that our experiences become shareable - in a blog. I guess I'm kinda used to the audiophile vocab but am intrigued if someone can make it more meaningful. You mentioned wine. When in my early twenties my wine vocab consisted of two words, white and red ! I recall going to the vineyards and the guy saying what did you think? I say I dunno, what am I supposed to think? he says do you get the herbaceous grassy notes of this sav blanc? I say huh? I think are you nuts? Today I can instantly recognize what he was talking about even if in reality it makes no great sense. I supposed then and now that the words are just labels but if we can associate the experience with that label it actually guides our perception. We start to actually notice the characteristic whereas previously we did not. Totally distinct from expectation bias, a different story IMO.
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 17, 2019 18:52:35 GMT 10
Great question "Where is audio truth" but so difficult to answer & perhaps "WHAT is audio truth" needs to be addressed first? I'm mostly in the school of "our senses give us a relevant analog or interface of our consciousness to the physical world" see Donald Hoffman for a quick overview
So, even before talking about the vocabulary of audio terms, we need to consider that WHAT we are experiencing is actually circumscribed by the limitations of the mechanism of our senses. Our sense mechanisms have strengths & weaknesses being flawed in many ways.
But without getting into the deeper discussion about consciousness & reality, we can agree that the mechanisms of our perceptions are generally the same so we can discuss our common experiences because they are relatively similar. So an understanding of this mechanism in the auditory arena is useful for understanding what we consider "what is audio truth" & "where is audio truth".
The electronic engineers involved in audio tend towards attempting to create this "audio truth" by focusing on what they define through their measurements as "accuracy". A noble & logical approach but often they are myopic about the possible flaw in their approach - do their set of measurements fully define "accuracy". When we examine what these measurements show we see that there is an "accepted level" of inaccuracy allowed. This inaccuracy is allowed because it is argued that is below the threshold of audibility. So they are really defining "accuracy", not as an absolute definition but relative to what is considered below the threshold of audibility. This is the first area that needs to be considered about measurements - do these thresholds of audibility hold true for listening to music or are they derived using simple tone test signals?
The second point to consider about measurement "accuracy" also relates to audibility - are the measurements covering all the aspects that auditory perception itself uses? It's easy to answer this as we know that measurements cannot tell us how something will sound so therefore it is not fully characterising the sound field itself.
I would like to continue this but have to do some other tasks first & then come back to my thoughts on it if anyone is interested?
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Aug 17, 2019 19:05:55 GMT 10
Great question "Where is audio truth" but so difficult to answer & perhaps "WHAT is audio truth" needs to be addressed first? I would like to continue this but have to do some other tasks first & then come back to my thoughts on it if anyone is interested? Please do John
Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 17, 2019 19:38:17 GMT 10
Great question "Where is audio truth" but so difficult to answer & perhaps "WHAT is audio truth" needs to be addressed first? I'm mostly in the school of "our senses give us a relevant analog or interface of our consciousness to the physical world" see Donald Hoffman for a quick overview So, even before talking about the vocabulary of audio terms, we need to consider that WHAT we are experiencing is actually circumscribed by the limitations of the mechanism of our senses. Our sense mechanisms have strengths & weaknesses being flawed in many ways. But without getting into the deeper discussion about consciousness & reality, we can agree that the mechanisms of our perceptions are generally the same so we can discuss our common experiences because they are relatively similar. So an understanding of this mechanism in the auditory arena is useful for understanding what we consider "what is audio truth" & "where is audio truth". The electronic engineers involved in audio tend towards attempting to create this "audio truth" by focusing on what they define through their measurements as "accuracy". A noble & logical approach but often they are myopic about the possible flaw in their approach - do their set of measurements fully define "accuracy". When we examine what these measurements show we see that there is an "accepted level" of inaccuracy allowed. This inaccuracy is allowed because it is argued that is below the threshold of audibility. So they are really defining "accuracy", not as an absolute definition but relative to what is considered below the threshold of audibility. This is the first area that needs to be considered about measurements - do these thresholds of audibility hold true for listening to music or are they derived using simple tone test signals? The second point to consider about measurement "accuracy" also relates to audibility - are the measurements covering all the aspects that auditory perception itself uses? It's easy to answer this as we know that measurements cannot tell us how something will sound so therefore it is not fully characterising the sound field itself. I would like to continue this but have to do some other tasks first & then come back to my thoughts on it if anyone is interested? Hi John Good to see you here. Yes a quick agreed for now (not watched the video yet). Until more time to discuss this seriously, all I can say in response is that there is a funny Maxwell Smart video clip out there that eludes me but it goes something like this....If you tell me "Where" (is audio truth) then I will tell you "What" and "How" but "What" will will tell me "Why" and "When" but not "Who". It was gloriously non nonsensical ! Cheers David
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 17, 2019 19:58:34 GMT 10
Hi John Good to see you here. Yes a quick agreed for now (not watched the video yet). Until more time to discuss this seriously, all I can say in response is that there is a funny Maxwell Smart video clip out there that eludes me but it goes something like this....If you tell me "Where" (is audio truth) then I will tell you "What" and "How" but "What" will will tell me "Why" and "When" but not "Who". It was gloriously non nonsensical ! Cheers David Thanks Alex & David That reminds me of an Abbott & Costello sketch "Who's on First?" (I know that dates me a bit but it was before my time, honest )
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 17, 2019 21:54:41 GMT 10
So the concept of "accuracy" is a very seductive term until we understand the provisos that go along with it - "accuracy" is defined relative to audibility - measurements which are considered below auditory thresholds are considered inaudible & therefore differences in measurements at this low level are not considered of audible importance. So "accuracy" should really be termed "below audible threshold" but, AFAIK, these thresholds were established using mono signals with simple tones, not binaural signals with complex dynamic signals (such as music)
This brings us to another related term that is often used "transparency" & it is argued that it is a binary choice, there are no degrees of "transparency" - an audio device, it is argued, is either transparent or it's not. Again this is related to auditory perception - can we tell the difference between two audio devices? if we can't then it is considered "transparent" if its measurements are considered to identify an "accurate" device.
I'm not dismissing measurements, in fact I'm hoping that new measurements, new ways of measuring or new ways of analysing measurements, can bridge the divide between measurements & auditory perception. In fact I'm always interested in new devices such as 1ET400A amplifier from Purifi Audio (a Bruno Putzeys design) where measurements are found to be far lower than the thresholds of audibility (so changes at this level shouldn't make an audible difference) & that are generally reported as sounding more realistic, more interesting than similar devices that measure "below audible threshold" but not as low.
I don't know why this might be the case & I would need to verify these audible characteristics for myself but if true, either the very low measurements are an indication that the accepted audibility thresholds are wrong when listening to music or something else which is not being shown in the measurements but is an audible aspect of the soundfield, is also changed.
My criteria for what/where is auditory truth is tied up in music reproduction that makes the most believable illusion & engages my interest the most. When I find that I'm not engaged with music that I know well, it's usually the fault of the reproduction system. One thing I find is that there's no "ultimate truth" (or at least I haven't experienced it yet) - that we often believe the sound can't get any better & then we hear something which is better, more realistic, more engaging.
I find it difficult to put one's finger on exactly what is different in the reproduced soundfield which makes for a more realistic, more believable illusion. My premise is that once the individual sounds are more realistic, the whole presentation becomes more interesting & engages attention.
I recently purchased a DAC which measures pretty exemplary according to all the standard measurements to see what/where the latest DAC chips are at, sonically. So the sound is pretty much what you get from all DACs that are designed for best measurements - nothing obviously wrong with the sound but it's not engaging - it reproduces all the notes in the right place but something is missing that engages the auditory sense & lessens the desire to listen to more music.
When compared to a DAC that does present a higher level of realism I find it misses some stability or purity to the sound - for instance the subtle amplitude modulation in a singer's voice who is holding a note just isn't presented realistically - it seems curtailed - doesn't fade to silence in the way we experience in the real world. It might seem like a trivial thing when trying to itemise it to a specific in this way but when this occurs with all the reproduced sounds, it effects the whole presentation in a fundamental way
This is what/where I find a move towards more "truth" in audio - the truth being "realism"
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Aug 17, 2019 22:01:50 GMT 10
John
That has been my experience also. I suspect as you do, that the audibility thresholds are way lower than previously reported.
Alex
|
|
|
Post by ROWUK on Aug 17, 2019 22:59:38 GMT 10
Great stuff.
If we want to talk about accuracy, there is tonal accuracy (sounds like the original instrument), there is geometrical accuracy (instruments are placed plausibly related to the original recording - let us not forget reflections from the ceiling and floor of a concert venue), there is transient accuracy (attacks and decay are faithfully reproduced and not exaggerated or unfocussed)) and there is spatial accuracy (instruments have a size and weight proportional to their live size and weight). The musical message conveyed could also be measured for accuracy - but against what parameters?
I know of no metrics for any of these "important" things. Assuming that each part of the reproduction chain would have strengths and weaknesses, we need a method/process for synergy.
I think that often emotion is left behind in putting a system together. Mostly, this is due to us WANTING or needing to believe that we have selected the parts with the least compromise. The result "works" and due to lack of process, we have little reason to look in the mirror.
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 18, 2019 2:30:56 GMT 10
Yea, I'm still torn between these two options: - are the audibility thresholds incorrect when talking about music signals? - are we not measuring for some factors that we can easily perceive?
And these two options are not mutually exclusive so it could be both factors or something else?
What I perceive as audio realism results also in all these - tonality, transient accuracy, spatial accuracy.
There are many difficulties in all of this: - the first one being the limitations of stereo playback & it's ability to create a realistic illusion from two speakers - the second being how do we know what the recording should sound like if we weren't there - the so-called "cone of confusion" first coined by Toole, I believe? - the pressure waves that hit the eardrum & the nerve impulses generated are often lacking enough data to be able to create unequivocally the internal audio scene we all generate in the real world. We are often using best guess fits of the nerve impulses (data) to construct our internal auditory objects which match to the real world of objects. The resolution to this dilemma is to use other data for evaluation - so sight & experience of how sound behaves in the real world (our stored auditory models) are brought to bear on the problem & generally the dilemma is resolved. This dilemma is not trivial - just try walking down the road with your eyes closed & feel the unease & lack of surety you have about what you are hearing. But when we are faced with two speakers from which audio is emanating - sound which originally came from real world sound-producing objects - we don't have this data coming from our visual perception of the sound objects, just of the speakers. But this is the illusion we want from our stereo reproduction - an illusion of "being there". Many psychoaocoustic tricks are used at the recording stage to produce/enhance this illusion or to create an agreed sound - this is the art of the recording as opposed to the art of the performers.
|
|