Where is Audio Truth

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

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.

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

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" 
 

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.