Audio nonsense
In this wonderful world of audio that we journey through folks selling stuff have sometimes been inventive in what they claim. In your trip down this road what sticks out as the most ludicrous thing you’ve seen someone try to sell?
I can point to 2 things. When I first saw a Tice clock in a store I thought it was a gag. Next- Peter Belt.
however using it as a means to prevent or thwart experimentation is suggesting that it is capable of describing the sum total of all physical and biological phenomena in the universe is |
The principle is very good on so many levels, but evidence is that the suggested means of implementing it is flawed. On the other hand, would you support the establishment of an independent regulatory outfit to govern the sale of all products associated with audio industry? Some already exist, of course, for certification, standards, safety and other reasons.
|
@dill , a bit hot under the collar? Look, everyone is entitled to set up their system any way they want. However, there is right and there is wrong. IMHO systems that are set up correctly always sound better to everyone that listens to them. Instruments sound more realistic and images more specific. The other problem is most audiophiles do not really know what to expect out of a system because they never heard a correctly set up great system. They are out to sea without a compass. They love music and they are true audiophiles, they are just short on experience. I was like that for over a decade until I met Peter McGrath at Sound Components in Miami when I was a medical student. I think he is still working for Wilson and he is a renown recording engineer. He taught me what to listen for and had systems that were totally SOTA at the time. Setting up a system is like setting up a projector. You can never get a projector right by eye. It takes expensive equipment and somebody who knows what they are doing to calibrate a projector. I would never try to do it on my own. Setting up an audio system is even more complicated requiring more trial and error but with the right equipment it goes much faster if not less expensive. Depending on the room you have to be ready to spend money and change the aesthetic of the room. For many this is impossible do to the WAF. You have to have a room where everybody is willing to let the audio system dominate. You can do a lot with DSP but you are never going to make a bad room perfect with significant physical changes. Another thing. Many would be surprised at how well less expensive systems can sound when calibrated correctly, much better than expensive systems that are not. There is hidden performance is a lot of systems. Everybody already has more than 1/2 the equipment to do the job, the laptop computer. All you need is a USB microphone and a computer program. You run a sin sweep on your system, a continuously accelerating sin wave from 10 Hz to 20 kHz. You do one channel at a time. You will see the frequency response of each channel and they will be anything but flat and the channels will be very different. I have seen differences of 10 dB between channels. That means at a given frequency one channel will be twice as loud as the other. Shift your balance control 10dB and see what happens to your image. When this happens only at certain frequencies it is hard to pick out but it does smear the image. Instruments will still have a location but they will be blurred. People will tell you their system images fine and they honestly think they do. They just have not heard a system that really images. They have nothing to compare it to. Many will argue, sometimes violently with this assessment and I am truly sorry. This is a fact of life. If your system is set up correctly you are extremely lucky. If you want to improve your system an order of magnitude get the darn microphone and get started. I promise you will be amazed at what you can do. |
On the other hand, would you support the establishment of an independent regulatory outfit to govern the sale of all products associated with audio industry? I don't see this (or, any) forum as the gate-keepers of truth. Nor do I see the need for a formal regulatory body to "protect" us. I merely object to a "pile on" format where there is a implication of fraud to a product or products in the heading prior to an open discussion. It brings out the worst in us. A simple: "Hey, this <thing> is interesting. What do you think?" may provide a venue for higher level discussions that could actually yield something of value. I enjoy this forum as an opportunity to share ideas across many venues with individuals with similar interests who quite often give me more than I give them. So, yes, in my world, it is highly relevant. |
@perkri , you think I can do that here? This involves having an education in biochemistry and neuroanatomy before you even get close to understanding neurophysiology which is different for each sensory system and motor activity. Get yourself a comprehensive medical education. Like the one I have. In the meanwhile you will have to settle for being ignorant. I promise you that your audio memory is extremely short. Although there is some variation, particularly in people that have been blind since childhood, this is a proven fact. Blind people can reassign the visual cortex to audio function. The visual cortex is about twenty times the size of the area assigned to hearing. What you get is people like Stevie Wonder. |
Trial and error baby. Trial and error. Last I checked, that is the very foundation of learning. Open minded and creative approach to problem solving. Very important personality trait which the bulk of those who have made relevant scientific discoveries possess. Surgeon friend of mine pointed something out to me. The person who graduates at the bottom of their class in med school is also called doctor. Here’s a really difficult challenge, run a mono signal into your system. Put the speakers side by each. L/R the signal. Listen for the differences. I know, likely not within the realm of your creative abilities or willingness to try. So much work to do. |
@ perkri Not trying to dismiss your challenge but what are we to learn from this? Keep in mind, I’ve only gone by using my ears when setting up my system and never really measured anything using a mic and laptop. But, I’m up for trying anything that doesn’t involve sticking gemstones to my already expensive cables.😆
|
| Post removed |
Flat frequency response. The flatter the response, the more pure the audio. Sound pressure level is represented on the left of graph, aka decibels, and bottom is our human hearing frequency range, aka bandwidth. The two lines represent left and right channel. djones51 is using a Digital Signal Processor in order to achieve much of this response and I must say ... that's pretty impressive. Have I done screwed this one up or am I right ? ;-) |
It just shows a slope of the FR from my listening position. Yes, it was done with DSP which shows bass traps are not always needed to smooth the nulls or absorption for reflections. DSP isn’t really doing a whole lot above 500hz. IF I could post the whole MDAT file it would show a lot more, distortion, waterfall, IR etc... I could never achieve anything this smooth by ear or in a living room without measurements. One thing It isn’t going to tell you is, if you like the sound of these speakers but access to calibrated mics and software at very little expense to do measurements is essential in my opinion to get results like this. |
| Post removed |
My approach is remarkably straight forward. I listen. If something bothers me with how it presents sonically, I work to lessen it. If I find something is missing, I work to bring it forward. Measurements can be of great help to find the source of the problem. Much like food, we season sound to taste. There is no universal perfect seasoning of food as we all have different likes and dislikes. Same holds true for sound. Experimentation, trial and error and of course, keeping an open mind when making changes. We listen and hear differently. Few and far between are those who have ruler flat hearing, and I certainly do not. Why then do I care if my speakers present as ruler flat to a machine? I do not listen with a microphone and a computer. My ears are not slide rules. The speakers I am currently in the middle adjusting using a baffle step compensation are getting closer to presenting well. Make a small shift in the values of the components, A/B the two speakers and listen for the differences. Choose the one that sounds better to me, then live with it for a while. Then do it again after some time has passed. Reevaluate. Then I compare with my reference speakers to see how successful, or not, the experiment has been. This is a process that exists separate and apart from sitting and enjoying the music. It is very possible for both these pleasures to exist and have the system serve as a meditative reprieve from the world and a technical wonder that can be tinkered with. |
| Post removed |
I’m most amused at those who call on science as the final authority, even as they make a final judgement without any scientific inquiry of their own. So how do they make such final judgement?. Pure speculation based on the little bit of science they claim to know.. So, they hold their speculation without scientific inquiry as "science". No folks. This is not science. It is the religion of Scientism based upon the faith they have in THEIR own understanding. Maybe they believe have become science itself like Phony Fauci claims to be |
There are a lot of phonies here, that is for sure. Fauci, ain’t one of them Would appear that the naysayers are engaged in hypocrisy. A lot of that floating about in the world lately… They only think their systems sound good because they have a chart in front of them telling them so. That chart predisposes them to accept what they are hearing as being the ultimate sonic presentation. As such, they refuse to accept anything else as good. |
Oh God! Had to drag the good Doctor Troll into this eh. Shame on both of you he is the Troll in The Three Billy Goat Gruff. @artemus_5 do not get bent I agree with you.
|
You have a strange way of agreeing with someone. Do you often agree with shameful people? I’m reminded of a politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Quit trying to play both sides. It is the very reason I take anything you say with a grain of salt. Now to the charge of my shameful act. I say NO. The shame is properly placed on the ones who act like the so called troll. I’m not acting like the troll. I’m exposing the underlying thought processes of these trolls, with Him being a prime example. FWIW I have no problem "burying the hatchet". But this is not something which helps. |
@artemus_5 fine what ever. You drug the Troll into it and you should have kept it on track. The shame on you both was for going that direction. Guess you are just an old crab. Really could care less about burying any hatchet. You are what you are Mr Crabs. Have a good day sir. |
Like I said, BOTH sides of your mouth. Oh yeah, You really wish me a good day? That is laughable. I suppose you are also what you are....a poser. Maybe you'll go cry on mommy's shoulder again for hurting your little soy boy feelings. I've tried to offer peace & dialog 2 times. I will not do so again. |
| Post removed |
This thread is an excellent example of ALL 10 cognitive errors nicely listed here: https://aha.zone/10-cognitive-thinking-errors/ There is no logical reason to argue somebody's private decision of purchasing audio solution, observing positive/negative results in THEIR system, and deciding to keep/sell them in spite of very expensive ticket prices, even if that improvement does not work in another system. To illustrate my point I would propose an equivalent question: Can you deny the existence of the placebo/nocebo effects because it never happened to you? Not to mention that even if you believe in them, you can never really claim it without a double-blind case study. |
My "mechanical equalizer" is tuned to work and modify the room zone pressures level for some frequencies in relation with one another yes , but ALSO in relation to my own IMPERFECT hearing apparatus...Then my "curve" on the same graph as used by some here will not be so neutral... Then my room is not neutral but the sound pressure levels related to some frequency bandwidth is ADAPTED also to my SPECIFIC tuning hearing/brain apparatus... Then i need no microphone nor any electronic equalization... I dont speak about that to boast about my devices, nor to boast about the alleged superiority of my method and device... THEY ARE NOT superior, they call for a dedicated room and much time to do the tuning...And they are not perfect but unlike an electronic equalizer which is a very limited tool for the global tuning of the room , my mechanical equalizer tune ALL the room at all the frequencies that matter for human hearing.... But that cost nothing , it is not only possible to do it, it is fun, and it is efficient: the sound quality is more than good for almost all people who listen music in my room and for me it is so good any upgrade appear preposterous... Than measures are important yes, specially measure in acoustic for my ears in my case, and subjective correlated experience also is important... The big egg objectivist, and the small egg subjectivist are two blind warring side whose existence make no sense for acoustic .... But remember at last there is an order: any measure must be correlated to a subjectivity, not the opposite.... And in my process of tuning i at least learned the hard way that acoustic of small room is NOT the results ONLY of some waves coming from the walls ... It is a bit more complex thav this simplification for the benefit of acoustic panels sellers industry....This is the inconvenient truth.... 😁😊
|
I have never understood why having a flat frequency response for speakers is a desirable attribute when the human ear hears almost every frequency differently, as described in the Fletcher Munson curves. My ideal frequency response is equivalent of when the old but now shunned 'loudness' feature is turned on.... |
Exactly.... But most people dont understand that they NEVER hear speakers alone but they listen with EARS/speakers/room specific TRIPLE interaction with each one his own specific unique characteristic... Tuning a speakers/room relation ask for a specific brain/ears history to do the work and trained listening experiments in specific condition... It is why their ears are for acoustician their main tool... Exhibiting a graph is not a proof of understanding .... Concept matter more than measuring tools...Because nobody can understand a tool result without the right concepts... Ideological objectivist or entrenched subjectivist position make people DEAF... By definition acoustic and psycho acoustic sciences are the art of correlating objective measure and a subjective interpretation...These two different correlated perspectives are separated ONLY by consumers marketing idolatry of the gear or marketing engineering idolatry of the tool, not by acousticians....
«Music is like God, nobody understand it but everybody can listen to it»-Anonymus Maestro
|
Flat frequency response is desirable if one cares at all about how their system measures. It establishes a correct objective baseline to work from. One can tweak subjectively from there as desired. Fletcher Munson is an important thing to take into consideration there after you got things set right to start with. Some speakers will attempt to cover that for you. If it sounds good that way to you, great. Does not mean it is done correctly though. Cows don’t moo louder just because we don’t hear them as well as some other critters. Unfortunately, if you want to hear ultrasonic frequencies like a dog, you are totally out of luck. No amount of frequency boost is going to do the trick. |
Yes it is desirable to have an engineering STANDARD... but you cannot tune a room without hearing listening experiments... And you cannot say all is perfect because my measuring tool said so instead of my ears/brain ....We must CORRELATE ears and tool and the master at the end is our ears not a tool graph... I speak here about complex very small room acoustic not big theater...
And hearing a natural TIMBRE experience is not hearing DIRECTLY ultasonic frequencies impact on audible one for sure... Second the time envelope and the spectral envelope of a timbre phenomenon is very complex and not reducible to a linear audible frequency scale... Metaphor about "golden ear bat power" in audiophiles are only that : a bad joke...
«We are all bats but our eyes make us deaf »-Groucho Marx playing a blind 🤓 |
Thank God for our ears. Not to mention that any comment about audio without comparative listening is nonsense. As for determining what room correction might be required (for tonal accuracy, content resolution, transient response, etc.), we can easily aid it by using good headphones with a good amp and doing comparative listening with the speakers in front of you. Not surprisingly, achieving a good tonal accuracy will also result in improving all other parameters. Remarkably, you will find that sometimes what you hear from speakers you may personally prefer on some tracks, while, clearly, headphones are a superior sound device (apart from the sound stage alone). Arguing those results among listeners might be a sufficient thread for this forum, but it would make no practical sense because it is related to individual psycho-acoustics (including emotion) and may even include some missing variables that can not be discussed because they are not even determined. In short, listening, adjusting/experimenting to A/B comparing, and ending up with YOUR acceptable compromises, is the only process worth trying; disputing or arguing it here is a complete waste of time. Reporting it, however, should be encouraged and appreciated, not ridiculed.
|
Great post thanks! I will only add about headphones, that i OBSERVED that my room acoustic was done when i did not want to hear my SEVEN different types of headphone anymore...They are no more needed for sound quality superiority at all... Room Acoustic is the ONLY audiophile key element.... Anybody can buy a good amplifier or speakers pair.... Anybody can argue about the "taste" and difference between them like about Wine... But gear is not wine, it is ONLY a MEANS for an ACOUSTIC experience: music listening... Tasting gear is ignorance or a hobby called : misplaced sound obsession... I prefer listening to music and i dont give a dam about my relatively basic good gear nor to any COSTLY possible meaningless now upgrade... I dont taste sound difference...I listen piano timbre in my TUNED room instead...
Anybody can buy a good amplifier or speakers pair.... Anybody can argue about the "taste" and difference between them like about Wine... But gear is not wine, it is ONLY a MEANS for an ACOUSTIC experience: music listening... Tasting gear is ignorance or a hobby called : misplaced sound obsession... I prefer listening to music and i dont give a dam about my relatively basic good gear nor to any COSTLY possible meaningless now upgrade... I dont taste sound difference...I listen piano timbre in my TUNED room instead... I say all this because there is the same amount of audio nonsense in gear idolatry than in "tweaks"... There is no nonsense in acoustic experiments... Learning how to hear in a specific room with specific gear was my hobby for some years... Now i am done, the process is completed, and my new hobby is more listening music.... 😁😊 |
Based on my experience, I would agree that headphones have different characters, so using them as absolute reference is not an absolute standard or might be confusing, but as for a tonal comparison to speakers alone (or better to live music, which reminds me my ancient observations - like when after sitting 12 feet away from Dizzy Gillespie’s trumpet - I realize that my speakers sound different. LOL) I do find headphones (especially studio/monitor grade ones) very useful which may have, most likely, to do with a better phase reproduction (especially for live music), lack of crossover, smaller transducer size and therefore smaller physical deformations, and, above all, the lack of the room reflections). Also, our individual "favorite headphones" have a valid individual psycho-acoustic reasons behind it. |
Let's never underestimate those two above observations for two below reasons: That's why audio forums are important and useful exchanges of subjective facts and must resist the dangers of creating and maintaining "audio absolutism" cults. |
