[jnorris]

what is this "MUSIC" you're mentioning? is it a new kind of sine sweep?
I use DMG Equilibrium as go to EQ for my headphones/IEMs. the Q value goes to 50 so I'm in. yeah!!!! did I win? is there an amateur category? because it's a little unfair to be lined up against the pros.

Winning assumes someone admits defeat. Not happening here...

 

[gregorio]

Huh? He is saying that the effect is caused by auditory masking. This is one of the most important principles in psychoacoustics. You want some random story which has nothing to do with that left alone as fact? You are not the least bothered by us bastardizing audio science to that degree?

Oh dear, seems like you're at it again!

Some of what @bigshot states I disagree with, however his anecdote is not an isolated case! I've experienced the same thing on several occasions and most mix engineers with a lot of experience probably have too! I don't agree with the idea of a perfectly flat studio/room and I didn't take bigshot's comments to mean such, just "flat" as often described by sound engineers in reference to room responses, which is used as a relative term rather than an absolute one. I don't agree that one needs a flat room to perceive the effect he's described but one does need a room which provides a degree of clarity in the higher frequencies. For example, a room without excessive high frequency reflections.

Getting back to bigshot's anecdote, here's mine, with a little more detail: Let's say we have an electric lead guitar, several cymbal hits on different cymbals in fairly close proximity to each other and a snare drum. A very common scenario in many rock band based popular music genres. Adding an EQ boost in the mid frequencies to a cymbal can indeed, in some cases create the perception of more clarity in the high frequency band. So what's going on? First off, I can eliminate the possibility of a dodgy EQ, as I've experienced this phenomena with various different well coded DSP (non-emulating) EQs. I don't know for sure what's going on, all I have is a possible hypothesis:

Cymbals are categorised within the group of the un-pitched (or un-tuned) percussion instruments. They are called untuned/unpitched because unlike tuned/pitched instruments, they do not produce the clearly defined set of fundamental frequency + a mathematically related series of harmonics which allow for accurate pitch perception, instead they usually produce a mass of harmonics (particularly in the higher frequencies) of somewhat random frequencies and amplitudes and therefore their pitch is only perceived vaguely. In other words, after the initial transient, the sound of a cymbal is effectively perceived as somewhere between random (white) noise and a traditional musical pitch/note. Now what happens if we add an electric lead guitar to this equation? Some of the common types of distortion required by an electric guitar produce a very significant amount of content in the (roughly) 2kHz-7kHz range. This could easily mask quite a number of the middle harmonics of our cymbal and it's low harmonics are likely to be masked by other instruments in the mix or even deliberately removed (filtered). What we're left with, as far as the perceivable cymbal is concerned, is mostly just a mass of High mid/HF, with no audible (unmasked) related lower harmonics and which is therefore somewhat indistinguishable from band limited white noise. A fact which was sometimes taken advantage (particularly in the analogue days) to enhance cymbal "sizzle" by adding in some band limited white noise. By applying an EQ boost to our cymbal in the mid freqs we could raise the level of those harmonics to say just above the masking threshold. Now we have some lower harmonics which the brain could use to correlate with some of those higher harmonics. In other words, it may no longer be just a mass of HF harmonics indistinguishable from white noise, the brain may be able to correlate some of those HF harmonics to the lower harmonics now audible and create a perception of slightly more tonal "clarity" in those high freqs. This situation is not particularly common, a whole bunch of variables would have to align and it's entirely dependant on what else is in the HF band; other cymbals, snare, guitar distortion, transients, synths, harmonics from other instruments, etc. To deliberately produce this effect could take days, weeks or longer, I've no idea, I've only noticed it probably half a dozen times or so in the course of 25 years.

I've no idea if my explanation is correct. It's just a guess which aligns with what I know of psycho-acoustics and AFAIK there is no specific scientific evidence which absolutely contradicts it. If you know of any then please post it but I strongly suspect there simply isn't any, it's too rare and psycho-acoustics is still trying to explain some of the everyday basics of hearing perception. And, this is where we seem to run into problems amirm. You can't simply extrapolate from evidence which is only somewhat related (but does not account for the all the variables specific to this scenario) and come up with a definitive, absolute answer. And obviously (I would hope!), the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", a well documented fallacy. So unless you've got some specific evidence here, then it's you who are "bastardising audio science"!

G

 

[amirm]

3. I disagree. Nothing destroys audio science more than myth. Myth is generated in several ways. I've found that, regardless of how much science I apply, my efforts to bust myth have been largely futile. But in this case we don't have myth, we have an observation without sufficient detail. Know the difference.

Nope, we have an observation followed with a bunch of made up reasons for why:

You would be surprised. I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible. In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".

That is a myth being made up as I have underlined. Yet you seem to not care because the dude is in our camp. Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things.

Really this is a fantastical story bigshot told. If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit.

As to detail, we are asking and the poster refuses with straight face to provide any. And you had no beef with that either. If a subjectivist said they heard a difference in two cables we would hammer them to prove it or else we would ridicule them as audiophools, delusional, etc. Where is that for Bigshot? Oh "he didn't provide the detail." That's it? Free pass just like that?

 

[bigshot]

To Gregorio

Who says I said the room was flat? I said the *system* was calibrated to flat. My engineer friend had me stand right in front of the speaker for the demonstration. The room has nothing to do with it. I wasn't listening to music in a living room from a normal seating position. I was listening to direct sound in a workshop used for designing, building and testing speakers standing right in front of a custom designed speaker that was 5 feet tall and five feet wide. Nothing to do with home systems. My friend designs pro systems for large venues. Amirim threw out an irrelevant straw man about rooms and everyone went down that rabbit hole with him.

I have no interest in responding to Amirim. His reputation preceded him and I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first few weeks, but I've come to find that he totally lives up to everything I've been told. I'm convinced no one can help him. I'm moving on. If the folks I do have respect for want to engage with him, feel free. But understand that I skip happily past anything involving him, even your replies. I have a small favor to ask... If one of my posts isn't clear enough and you'd like clarification, please address me directly and ask. I have respect for you guys. I'm happy to converse with you guys. I'm just not interested in three way conversations when he's involved. That's fair isn't it?

As for jnorris's comment on equalizers, it was blatantly obvious that he was talking about a full spectrum 1/12th octave graphic equalizer. How many bands would that require? Over 100? This was another of Amirim's lobbed straw man hand grenades. Nothing is good enough. Nothing is correct. (Except him and the stuff highlighted in yellow.) Been there, had enough of that. I'm not here to fight with people. I'm here to learn things from people. Thanks!

 

[Jazmanaut]

I did blind test for speaker and powercables with my friend about year ago. They varied from lampchord to several thousand euros high end products, and behold! We did heard suprisingly big differences! Then we looked our results and they were totally random. Mind is wonderfull thing!
I write that on my blog, but thats in finnish. But i did some measurements as well, and you can see them on that blogpost as well. Differences were sooo miniscule, that it goes on measurement error. My mastering studio aint laboratory after all.
http://jazmanaut.blogspot.fi/2017/01/piuhoja-poikineen.html

 

[amirm]

And, this is where we seem to run into problems amirm. You can't simply extrapolate from evidence which is only somewhat related (but does not account for the all the variables specific to this scenario) and come up with a definitive, absolute answer.

Sorry no. I asked clarifying questions including sample music for us to listen to. None was provided. Not only that, conditions were put us to have perfectly flat calibrated systems to hear it.

I'd be more motivated to go to the trouble of making examples to prove things to you if you had honestly answered our questions about whether you kept the volume at normal listening level at all times when you "heard" the noise floor of 16 bit... So I'll just suggest that you take a solo violin recording, figure out where the important upper sheen is, calculate one and two octaves below that, and try applying some notch filters.

At least I tell you how it's done.

* EDIT: I just thought of something that is important. You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. If you have imbalances in around the frequencies you're working with, or in even octaves above or below them, the effect can get muddled.

And this type of non-constructive response:

Google auditory masking, champ. Read the tests using tones. Think about how that might apply to music. What sort of frequencies might exhibit the biggest effect? Then try it for yourself.

My yellow highlighter has gone dry I’m afraid. You’re going to have to do your own test. I’m not your personal geek squad.

As I noted before, this test requires a calibrated system. I could give you an audio file to demonstrate it, but if your system is unbalanced, it would likely be muddled up. The demonstration I heard was shared with me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference system. If your system isn’t flat, I would recommend finding an AV monkey in the yellow pages to calibrate your system for you. He might even be able to explain auditory masking to your satisfaction.

Is this the style of communication in this forum that you are defending??? When asked for detail you say you are not my personal geek squad? That I need to go and do my own googling?

Where we are now is that you all are trying to protect each other's back without provide any more data or insight that the rest of us can verify. That is nonsense. It is not my job to go and extrapolate what is most likely had other causes (leaky bands in EQ) for you all.

Let's clean up our house when it comes to myths and misstating audio science before we go after the other camp. After all, we should know better.

 

[amirm]

Who says I said the room was flat? I said the *system* was calibrated to flat. My engineer friend had me stand right in front of the speaker for the demonstration. The room has nothing to do with it.

First of all, you told us:

As I noted before, this test requires a calibrated system. I could give you an audio file to demonstrate it, but if your system is unbalanced, it would likely be muddled up. The demonstration I heard was shared with me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference system. If your system isn’t flat, I would recommend finding an AV monkey in the yellow pages to calibrate your system for you. He might even be able to explain auditory masking to your satisfaction.

What do you think an "AV monkey" would do to my DAC and amplifier to make them flat???

It is the speaker and room that deviate from flat. Since they destroy any flatness in the system electronics, the notion that something has to be "flat" for the effect to work, is just nonsense. From my article on room acoustics:

This is actual measurement of my own speaker in my own room. We have a 20 db variation in bass frequencies. Likewise the highs are rolling off (as they should). How would calibrating the rest of the electronics -- whatever that means -- make a difference and give us a flat sounding system?

What this means is that if you heard any effect, it is audible without the sound that entered your ear to be flat.[/QUOTE]

 

[amirm]

I did blind test for speaker and powercables with my friend about year ago. They varied from lampchord to several thousand euros high end products, and behold! We did heard suprisingly big differences! Then we looked our results and they were totally random. Mind is wonderfull thing!

It is indeed. Only through verification as you did do we realize that. Audiophiles go on forever without at least once performing the test that you did. Kudos.

BTW, Google had a hell of a time translating your page but I got the message from reading it. Thanks for documenting your experiment.

 

[bigshot]

A fact which was sometimes taken advantage (particularly in the analogue days) to enhance cymbal "sizzle" by adding in some band limited white noise.

When I was doing mastering of 78s for CD release, and old time transfer guy told me a similar trick. I asked him how to reduce high frequency noise without making the recording sound dull. He said that high frequency noise is important with severely band limited recordings, because it tricks the brain into thinking it's hearing high frequency sounds when it really isn't. He suggested noise reduction right up to the top edge of the recording, then add a low level constant high frequency hiss to the entire track. He explained that the biggest problem with noise is that it's random. Every time it comes in and out with clicks and crackle, you notice it. But if it's constant, you get accustomed to it and it makes it easier for your brain to be tricked into hearing frequencies that don't actually exist in the recording. Dynamic noise reduction tends to punch holes in the quiet parts, providing a sharp contrast. A little hiss smooths it all out. I created my own set of various hiss loops that had just enough random grain to them to sound organic, but not enough variation to attract attention to themselves.

I couldn't avoid seeing his chart. Is he still talking about rooms?

 

[bigshot]

I did blind test for speaker and powercables with my friend about year ago. They varied from lampchord to several thousand euros high end products, and behold! We did heard suprisingly big differences! Then we looked our results and they were totally random. Mind is wonderfull thing!

The sound mixer friend I've been mentioning told me that he once did an installation in an outdoor amphitheater that was out in the desert about 100 miles away. When he got there, he found that his assistant had loaded one of the cable runs for the speakers, but not the other. It was too far to drive back and get it in time for the show, so he sent his assistant to the local Home Depot to buy a whole spindle of lamp cord. He quickly wired up the connections and taped the lamp cord run to the concrete with duct tape so no one would trip over it. The show went on and the sound was fine. Not what one would normally want to do, but it worked in a pinch.

 

[pinnahertz]

Nope, we have an observation followed with a bunch of made up reasons for why:

Exactly. That's not "myth".

That is a myth being made up as I have underlined. Yet you seem to not care because the dude is in our camp. Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things.

But what you don't seem to understand is, if we ignore "narrow", because it's undefined, the statement is not a myth. Every sound mixer worth his salt knows of this phenomenon. You've already hear from 3.

Really this is a fantastical story bigshot told. If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit.

Those of us here with actual mixing experience don't see all that much to correct, except the lack of specific detail.

As to detail, we are asking and the poster refuses with straight face to provide any. And you had no beef with that either. If a subjectivist said they heard a difference in two cables we would hammer them to prove it or else we would ridicule them as audiophools, delusional, etc. Where is that for Bigshot? Oh "he didn't provide the detail." That's it? Free pass just like that?

There's a big difference between someone posting that they hear a big difference between cables (which has been proven to satisfaction what limits there are to that!), and Bigshot posting an anecdote about a real phenomenon without technical detail. Do you need an analogy?

1. The tornado dropped out of the sky and my house was gone in seconds.
2. I put a tornado repeller in the ground to the southwest of my house and it's never been hit.

In 1. we are missing a lot of detail, but that kind of thing can happen. So what's wrong with that statement? If you want detail like at 3:42p an F3 tornado touched down south west of my house and travelled at 25mph. It too 10.6 seconds for it to obliterate my house. You like that? You won't get it and don't need it.

In 2. we have a mythical and unspecified "tornado repeller" that cannot possibly function.

1. is anecdote missing detal, and 2. is myth.

Know the difference.

 

[amirm]

There's a big difference between someone posting that they hear a big difference between cables (which has been proven to satisfaction what limits there are to that!), and Bigshot posting an anecdote about a real phenomenon without technical detail. Do you need an analogy?

Nope. Don't need an analogy. You are misstating the back and forth. He stated the experiment and then ran off with a bunch of other specifics including masking. It was that which prompted me to respond. And further he did not position it as a anecdote. Here it is again:

You would be surprised. I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible. In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".

You see the bolded section? That is no anecdote. It is a bunch of random conclusions that is being pushed down the poster's throat with that "you would be surprised."

This was followed with:

Google auditory masking, champ. Read the tests using tones. Think about how that might apply to music. What sort of frequencies might exhibit the biggest effect? Then try it for yourself.

What about this reads like a casual anecdote to you?

You can continue to be his PR person or you could stand up for science and objectivity without bias and prejudice. Choice is yours.

Bottom line is this: don't assume people don't know audio science in a public forum. Be careful about what you know and don't know. Don't take advantage of the other side with big buzzwords hoping he knows less than you.

 

[pinnahertz]

You see the bolded section? That is no anecdote. It is a bunch of random conclusions that is being pushed down the poster's throat with that "you would be surprised."

I asked you two specific questions regarding this passage a few posts back. You have not answered them. I see no point in any further response until you do.

This was followed with:



What about this reads like a casual anecdote to you?

I stated clearly a few posts ago that we agree the phenomenon is not masking. Miss that, did you?

You can continue to be his PR person or you could stand up for science and objectivity without bias and prejudice. Choice is yours.

You have the same choice, but you seen to have an awful lot of bias and prejudice for a self-professed scientist.

Bottom line is this: don't assume people don't know audio science in a public forum. Be careful about what you know and don't know. Don't take advantage of the other side with big buzzwords hoping he knows less than you.

I'm going to cut you a bit of slack here and assume the above is not directed to me.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Just wanted to place a momentary pause in the action to say that, to many, this rather heated exchange may seem like a fight, but it is more about the process to understand and explain. This is common for this forum and any others similar to it, and it is usually entertaining and educational. Egos do sometimes get in the way of a proper discussion, but I sincerely believe that most of us that haunt this place are generally amiable and respectful towards one another. I have truly learned a great deal from many of you, and I am grateful for the opportunity to learn.

 

[bigshot]

It just takes one bad apple to derail a thread!