Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Debunking audiophile voodoo
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debunking audiophile voodoo [message #73892 is a reply to message #73885] |
Thu, 12 October 2006 05:43   |
!["Kris" . is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png ""Kris" . is currently offline")
"Kris" .
Messages: 27
Registered: June 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I beleive that everything IS in fact measureable...but, that our ability to
know WHAT to measure is te limiting factor. Our specs like THD, TIM, etc
don't tell us what 'sounds best'. If differences will show up in our 24 bit/96kHz
orginal tracks, and in the 16 bit 44.1kHz CD mix, then they were in fact
measured. The problem is, we don't really know what distortion spectrum is
euphonic versus harsh.
I think Ethan is out to lunch with his comb filtering argument...yes, its
a real effect, but its also something that when kept under control our brains
can easily smooth over. Think about it, if his arguments were true, you'd
never be able to mix a song as our reference position is always changing.
Cheers,
Kris
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, comb filtering is real alright. It is a major factor in
>sound system design I deal with every day. It does not
>*begin* to explain how we can hear things that are supposed
>to be unmeasureable and/or masked. The idea that now,
>everything is measurable is rubbish.
>
>This does not excuse the voodoo peddlers out there, but there
>is still controversy about this precisely because our brain/ear
>apparatus still does things that surprise us.
>
>DC
>
>
>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>An interesting and enjoyable read.
>>
>>http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debunking audiophile voodoo [message #73899 is a reply to message #73892] |
Thu, 12 October 2006 08:15 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
it's interesting how many "distortion generators" like tubes,
exciters, tape simulators and the like we use to make recordings
sound more compelling isn't it?
Look, we don't want our profession to simply amount to a bunch of
voodoo. We want it to be quantifiable and scientific, and to a great
extent it is. But, I remember when the first high-end speaker cables
came out years ago, and most engineers guffawed loudly at them,
but quietly, as more of us listened, we found some of these cables
made a real difference (and some were complete crap) In the 70's
it was not uncommon to have well-known and respected engineers
saying that there was no difference between high-end cables and
THHN electical wire, Romex, or lamp cord. No one says that any
more. We have found that some cables indeed increase detail, and
it most certainly is *not* comb filtering, since the difference is
apparent and profound no matter where you place your head.
Now, the phenomenon of people expecting some high-priced
doodad to sound better, and so it does, is real indeed. But so is the
phenomenon of some tin-ear Mr. Science wannabe claiming
something isn't there because he cannot measure it or explain it.
It is just as silly and incompetent to convince yourself that
something you hear is not there as it is to convince yourself that something
you wish to hear IS there.
So, how do we know the difference? We develop a hypothesis,
attempting to isolate the phenomenon and its possible explanation,
and design an experiement to understand the phenomenon.
Sometimes we succeed.
Years ago, I bought a Nordost AES digital cable to use between
am A-D convertor and a DAT. I did not expect to hear anything,
but my friend who sold it to me was so excited about it, I got one
on-approval. Well, it made quite a difference in small-signal detail.
(when the orchestra plays soft passages) and on other areas as well.
How could this be? Hell, the conductor heard the difference, and
one of my mentors, a Ph.d in the physics of sound (who poo-poohed
the whole idea) changed his mind at the first 3 seconds of music.
I was so annoyed at this, that I called Nordost up and asked what
was going on. They actually told me. While they claim some small
improvement from the silver conductor and all that, they then asked
me how long the Canare digital AES cable I was comparing the
Nordost to was. 1 foot said I. Well, they said to make up a 10
foot Canare cable and compare the short one and the long one.
Turns out that most of the improvement from the fancy cable was
due to the extra length (it was about 4 feet as I remember) which
Nordost attributes to reflections in a too-short cable. I could hear
no significant difference between the 10 foot Canare and the
Nordost BTW, and I never bought another Nordost digital cable.
So, no all the high-end cable folks are scummy!
We simply can hear things, at times, that we cannot yet measure.
While this severely complicates the world for those who want it nice and
simple (you mean some of that actually WORKS??, oh-hell, now
I have to figger out which works and which doesn't?) and it opens
us up to charlatans, it is still superior to either the ignorance of
the high-end voodoo salesmen, or the self-imposed ignorance of
those who cannot find a phenomenon on their present equipment,
so dismiss it.
I was analyzing a mic the other day, and it wanted to feedback,
really bad, about 8K, but the analyzer showed nothing. So, I
switched the analyzer from 1/3 octave resolution to 1/12 octave
and bam, there it was. A narrow band spike in the freq. response.
Now, if this was 1982, and all we had was 1/3 octave analyzers
should I have claimed the spike wasn't there, even though the
feedback that resulted from it almost tore your head off?
DC
"Kris" . wrote:
>
>I beleive that everything IS in fact measureable...but, that our ability
to
>know WHAT to measure is te limiting factor. Our specs like THD, TIM, etc
>don't tell us what 'sounds best'. If differences will show up in our 24
bit/96kHz
>orginal tracks, and in the 16 bit 44.1kHz CD mix, then they were in fact
>measured. The problem is, we don't really know what distortion spectrum
is
>euphonic versus harsh.
>
>I think Ethan is out to lunch with his comb filtering argument...yes, its
>a real effect, but its also something that when kept under control our brains
>can easily smooth over. Think about it, if his arguments were true, you'd
>never be able to mix a song as our reference position is always changing.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kris
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>
>>Oh, comb filtering is real alright. It is a major factor in
>>sound system design I deal with every day. It does not
>>*begin* to explain how we can hear things that are supposed
>>to be unmeasureable and/or masked. The idea that now,
>>everything is measurable is rubbish.
>>
>>This does not excuse the voodoo peddlers out there, but there
>>is still controversy about this precisely because our brain/ear
>>apparatus still does things that surprise us.
>>
>>DC
>>
>>
>>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>An interesting and enjoyable read.
>>>
>>>http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debunking audiophile voodoo [message #73941 is a reply to message #73910] |
Thu, 12 October 2006 17:50 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Kris" . wrote:
>"We simply can hear things, at times, that we cannot yet measure."
>I'm sorry, but I disagree. In both your examples, had you recorded the signal(s)
>via pretty much any modern A/D converter and analyzed it off-line using
readily
>available software (like Matlab), you'd have seen the difference as well
>as have heard it. The technology was there to detect those differences,
but
>you didn't have it handy...that doesn't mean it wasn't measureable though.
You are, of course, assuming it is... I suspect that utter confidence
in our present tools to measure everything may be as misguided as
absolute trust in golden ears...
Just a thought.
>One thing I agree with Ethan about is that its the first 30dB or so that
>really matters. Stuff that makes differences down around -80 dBFS or so
is
>really low on my priority list. I'd rather put more money into having a
better
>room.
A better room is most important. An exception is classical music
where small signal stuff is vitally important, and the room you record
in is likely to be quite decent already.
best,
DC
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 28 20:33:03 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01124 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
