A difficulty arises in the correlation of a perception ie the reason I prefer one cable over another with an observed measurement ie capacitance , resistance
How many db of attenuation are you seeing in your measurements of capacitance and resistance on what I would assume is a reasonable length of cable for a home audio system? It would normally take a cable several hundred feet long for the impact to be near audibility.
I don’t think anyone here will question that our current crop of highly sensitive measuring devices can measure certain differences in materials. The question that is so often ignored by subjectivists and some of the ASR crowd is ; is the measured difference anywhere near audible.
How many db of attenuation are you seeing in your measurements of capacitance and resistance on what I would assume is a reasonable length of cable for a home audio system? It would normally take a cable several hundred feet long for the impact to be near audibility.
I don’t think anyone here will question that our current crop of highly sensitive measuring devices can measure certain differences in materials. The question that is so often ignored by subjectivists and some of the ASR crowd is ; is the measured difference anywhere near audible.
In context I was commenting on the relationship between "When people say ....." and "....can be measured...."
Not really interested in cables I build my own
I believe my points are pertinent to the topic. Yes, I have so much..........a big house and a fifty foot pool, places to go and things to do. But your being careful not to see things totally, you only view the world one way, thus I am here to bring color into the thread!
Obviously the green CD markers haven’t really been talked about since the late 1990s, when they came out. Only very few audiophiles from that time remember the advertising. PRaT on the other hand is a way to describe a form of musicality.
And I’m not sure a giant portion of the audiophile community purchased the green pens?
The facts are, if you are at all interested in facts, show that actually many headphone characteristics can’t be fully tested. You obviously know this but somehow fail to admit the fact?
Can’t be fully tested:
1) soundstage
2) timbre
3) imaging
4) PRaT
These can’t be tested so I guess none of them even exist?
As we've discussed before, headphones aren't capable of true soundstage. You need speakers for that. It's a combination of channel separation and the acoustics of the room. Channel separation is the primary issue, and it's generally down at an inaudible level with modern home audio components. It just isn't something to worry about. The acoustics of the room involve delay and response deviation created by the physical shape and construction materials of the room. Obviously, houses don't come with acoustic spec sheets, so you measure using a calibration system and microphone. It measures the sound of the room from the listening position and corrects the time and response to optimize the playback. Using the term the way headphone incorrectly people use it, soundstage is the degree of openness or closedness of the cans. In general, tightly sealed headphones sound more like they're inside your head, more open ones may sound more open. The materials of the surrounds and the distance from your ear can affect it too. But it also involves a lot of factors, some of which are specific to the individual listener's head and ear shape. Even if it was measured, my measurements wouldn't be the same as yours, so there's no baseline for the calibration. If we all were equipped with identical noggins, there might be more of a motivation to quantify that.
Timbre is directly related to frequency response. If you take a piano and severely band limit it to the mids and upper mids, it would sound a lot like a xylophone. A violin sounds like a violin because of harmonics. A balanced frequency response presents the fundamental tones in perfect relation to the upper harmonics, and as long as it is balanced throughout the entire range of human hearing, it will present as a very natural sounding violin.
Imaging has to do with distortion and frequency response. Obviously distortion blurs detail. But frequency response can too because of auditory masking. If there is a spike in one frequency, it can cancel out an octave above. This can create opaque sound because you are hearing accentuated sound in one range and a missing section in the next. (This also interferes with upper harmonics, and is part of what causes artificial timbres by the way.) If distortion is below the audible thresholds, and the response is balanced, the sound becomes crystal clear and you can hear every detail in the sound. Noise is also an issue here. A high noise floor obviously creates an opaque sound too.
So, aside from the physical aspects of the room and the construction of the headphones themselves, which are widely variable, every aspect of sound fidelity can be broken down to response, distortion, noise, dynamics (i.e. amplitude) and timing. Thankfully, when it comes to modern electronic components like DACs, DAPs, players and amps, all of the problems in these areas are usually below the threshold of audibility at normal listening volumes. The wild card is the transducers and the physical aspects of sound, not the signal processing.
All of these things are based on scientific principles. It isn't based on loosey goosey mysticism or guesses based on ignorance or sympathetic magic.
Let me ask you a few simple questions to help you see my point..........OK.
1) soundstage
2) timbre
3) imaging
4) PRaT
Number 4 you say doesn't exist so we will leave that out. But 1,2, and 3 must have actual measurement data out there if they can be actually measured? If you can provide me some graphs, then you have proved your point. Can you provide anything....................
So back to the original post about signal sources and component influence.
How does this affect syncopation?
A syncopation at its root is placing an emphasis on a weak beat or weak part of a subdivision. It is a human chosen rhythmic technique. How does a source alter rhythm? And how would a signal know where to place a rhythmic displacement?
And technically, in 4/4, beats 2 and 4 are weak beats despite generally having more volume - ie snare drum hit. So is the signal suddenly a theorist and knows to change this. Or what about a shorter term syncopation like ties and emphasis on the ‘e’ or ‘a’ of best?
Definition of musicality
1 : sensitivity to, knowledge of, or talent for music
2 : the quality or state of being musical : MELODIOUSNESS
Examples of musicality in a Sentence
The judges will employ the following criteria: musicality (40%), star quality (20%), charisma (20%), and technical skill (20%)..
— Billboard Staff, Billboard, 22 Sep. 2021
But Markie had a playfulness and an off-key, enthusiastic musicality that turned out to have pop potential.
— Los Angeles Times, 16 July 2021
Sort of. You went from ‘musicianship’ - which has specific attributes of a performer that CAN be quantified and qualified. Like on every judge’s sheet for music performance / performance exams, etc.
Yes. Musicianship is skill in music making. Musicality is creativity in music making. I was referring to a comment by redcarmoose.
Can I ask you a question? Are trying really hard to misunderstand what I say? Because I think I am communicating clearly, yet you keep coming back with questions that indicate that you are reading my words to mean the opposite of what they are intended to mean. Am I being that unclear?
Timbre is directly related to frequency response. If you take a piano and severely band limit it to the mids and upper mids, it would sound a lot like a xylophone. A violin sounds like a violin because of harmonics. A balanced frequency response presents the fundamental tones in perfect relation to the upper harmonics, and as long as it is balanced throughout the entire range of human hearing, it will present as a very natural sounding violin.
Imaging has to do with distortion and frequency response. Obviously distortion blurs detail. But frequency response can too because of auditory masking. If there is a spike in one frequency, it can cancel out an octave above. This can create opaque sound because you are hearing accentuated sound in one range and a missing section in the next. (This also interferes with upper harmonics, and is part of what causes artificial timbres by the way.) If distortion is below the audible thresholds, and the response is balanced, the sound becomes crystal clear and you can hear every detail in the sound. Noise is also an issue here. A high noise floor obviously creates an opaque sound too.
So, aside from the physical aspects of the room and the construction of the headphones themselves, which are widely variable, every aspect of sound fidelity can be broken down to response, distortion, noise, dynamics (i.e. amplitude) and timing. Thankfully, when it comes to modern electronic components like DACs, DAPs, players and amps, all of the problems in these areas are usually below the threshold of audibility at normal listening volumes. The wild card is the transducers and the physical aspects of sound, not the signal processing.
All of these things are based on scientific principles. It isn't based on loosey goosey mysticism or guesses based on ignorance or sympathetic magic.
as far as your explanation on timbre - again ‘sort of’. Your violin example is the closest.
Please explain “fundamental tone in perfect relation to the upper harmonics”
You are using terms that are close to their definitions but not always completely on.
We are in Sound Science, right? Accuracy counts.
What is your background in music?
No, there is more to it than that. You have some issue with me that you aren't admitting. You're trying to twist what I say into being wrong, even if you agree with it. You're nit picking and struggling to try to find a fault. Why is that? Is there some past history here I don't remember? Because I don't know you from Adam. If you're just going to continue with semantic quibbles, I'll give up on you. I'm not into arguments about who's is longer.
I have no idea who you are. I think it has zero to do with you and a whole to do with me being a music teacher and having people use music terms in a “close enough” kind of way. I’ve had many people (adult musicians - technically amateur / hobbyist but very good at what they do) use the word ‘syncopation’ as a catch all term for any rhythm. And timbre has to do with the e overtone series (yes overtones are harmonics) and the dominance (or not) of different overtones in the series.
I figure since I’m in a Sound Science forum I can be more of a detective and scientist to get information. Because if I’m wrong (harkens a lot), then that is a good thing because I’ll learn. As opposed to me being in another forum and just geeking out about my latest DCA Aeons and my planar kick.
Then just see if you can follow the context of the conversation more closely. I never said that home audio electronics affected any kind of rhythm. That is the domain of
Musicians. And I said a balanced response presents timbre better than an unbalanced one. You seem to be reading what I say backwards.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
