[Zapp_Fan]

@KeithEmo Right, that was what I was getting at with room for opinion, I may be a basshead, you might not be, and so there is room for more than one set of headphones in the market.

Still, if you hold to the "perfect information and rationality" assumption (which I hopefully don't need to point out is wildly unrealistic in real life), you could segment the market into "rational people who like brussels sprouts" and "rational people who don't like brussels sprouts" who are able to price in their preferences perfectly, and again eliminate profits from a competitive market. Anyway, this is a side-track into Econ 101 that nobody ITT wants or needs, but you get the idea.

@Phronesis When it comes to "room for opinion" I do mean in terms of things that are definitely audible. If you don't care about distortion and instead favor faster dynamic response, and I prefer the opposite, we will buy different gear. There could be a large audible difference in two or more factors, but the worthy trade-off is a matter of opinion.

 

[gregorio]

It doesn't make sense to say that someone else's subjective confidence/probability level is wrong without knowing (a) the truth of the particular situation in question and (b) their personal track record with respect to their confidence level. ... You don't know either (a) or (b).
[2] I also agree with the idea of comparison by objective analysis of signals, but there are pitfalls there too, and I have neither the resources nor motivation to undertake something like that.

a. The truth of the particular situation is usually that the difference they think they're hearing is significantly below audibility.
b. Is irrelevant if A is below audibility.
So yes, it does make sense.

2. A. What pitfalls? B. You don't have an ADC? C. Your level of motivation does not alter the actual facts, only potentially your personal belief in them.

[1] In general, I believe it's unwise to assume that people are essentially the same in their 'hearing ability', susceptibility to auditory illusions, etc. (other than effects of degradation in FR of hearing ability).
[2] I suspect that arguments that A and B sound the same often come from people who don't hear differences themselves, and incorrectly assume that others can't either.

1. The McGurk Effect is not intended for any test regarding hearing ability, it's a demonstration of perception not hearing ability. I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't assume other people have essentially the same hearing ability as me. In fact, I know that many people, particularly younger people have much better hearing ability than me. However, most people have poorer listening ability than me.

2. I don't suspect that and I don't assume that if I can't hear it, then no one else can. I don't even assume that if I can't hear it, then I can't hear it! Because like most here, I know that in one listening scenario I might not be able to hear something but in another I might and, it's got nothing to do with how good or bad that listening scenario is. I can sometimes hear things on my laptop speakers that I can't hear in my several hundred thousand dollar studio.

G

 

[sonitus mirus]

In general, I believe it's unwise to assume that people are essentially the same in their 'hearing ability', susceptibility to auditory illusions, effects of biases, etc. I suspect that arguments that A and B sound the same often come from people who don't hear differences themselves, and incorrectly assume that others can't either. I can't imagine what it might be like to have the hearing of a dog, but I don't assume that dogs can't hear things that I can't hear.

I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days. I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume. I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state. Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it. I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.

 

[Phronesis]

I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days. I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume. I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state. Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it. I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.

We already know, empirically, that humans vary in many traits, including aspects of hearing ability. It's not simply a matter of speculation.

 

[KeithEmo]

There are a lot of situations like this that complicate things....

For example.... training vs bias.
I play the same song through two different DACs for you, and you notice no difference.
Then I say: "Listen carefully to the cymbals; they sound a little clearer on Unit B".
Now you hear it too.
Is that difference now really audible because you know what detail to pay attention to?
Or is it just expectation bias because now you expect to hear it?
In that case, we should be able to reliably figure out which it is using some sort of blind test.

However, many folks on this forum seem to have a serious hang-up about statistics vs a simple yes/no proposition.
I've personally never met anyone who claimed to have "perfect pitch"; but it seems to be accepted that such people do exist.
Therefore, if I have some audio device, like a turntable, that has the ability to be "off speed", how do I assess the required speed accuracy for it to be "audibly perfect"?
Do I test my new model with 100 people and assume that, if it sounds "audibly perfect" to them then it's good enough?
Or do I advertise for "someone with perfect pitch" to come listen to it?
The "correct" answer there probably depends on who I hope to sell it to.
The trick there is that not all markets are equal.
When Apple was deciding whether AAC128 was "good enough" I suspect they were quite satisfied if 95% of the general public thought that their product "sounded audibly perfect".
However, if I'm hoping to sell "$50 audiophile recordings", I may be satisfied is only 1% of the general public notices a difference; because I can do a brisk business selling my files to 1% of all the people on the planet.
(And, to be quite honest, I can make a good living if 1% of the people on the planet even imagine they can hear a difference.)

This is one of the reasons you need to be so careful to set your test parameters to match your actual requirements.
(And, if you're going to sell a super-expensive super-precise piano tuner, you shouldn't assume that the one guy in the neighborhood with perfect pitch ISN'T going to be the one who's considering buying it.)
I suspect that magician was really just very good at fooling us; however, scientists have been working on suspended animation for a long time, so I wouldn't bet that someday they won't figure it out; and, at that point, the answer will change.

I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days. I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume. I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state. Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it. I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.

 

[gregorio]

[1] It must be nice to know everything....
[2] I think you will also find that most studies done by folks like the BBC, and Sony, are based on "market priority" ...
[3] Sony did all that great research showing that "CDs were audibly perfect". Then, oddly, a few years later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACDs - because CDs weren't good enough after all.
[4] the BBC isn't going to specify audiophile equipment ...
[5] The software currently available for comparing signals digitally is extremely convenient, but your comparison is then limited by the conversion quality of the ADC you use.
[6] Incidentally, jitter is not a single thing...

Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!

1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!

2. No, I wouldn't find that, I can understand (and have already explained) why you would want to make that insinuation though!

3. What's "oddly" about that? It's the exact opposite of "oddly"!! It is in fact PRECISELY in line with what I stated, baring in mind that Sony is also an audiophile manufacturer. Your statement should actually read: "Then, 100% predictably, nearly two decades later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACD...."

4. No serious commercial studio or organisation is "going to specify audiophile equipment", because it's overpriced nonsense that's typically inferior to even just decent quality pro-audio equipment! However, the BBC does specify some very high-end pro-audio equipment and it definitely does consider the MOST discerning of listeners and has done for decades.

5. No, the ADC's quality of conversion is largely irrelevant for most things. Whatever weaknesses/inaccuracies the ADC has will be the same on both recordings and therefore NOT a difference.

6. True but irrelevant, another classic old audiophile marketing tactic, thanks for playing the game!

G

 

[analogsurviver]

So your "elephant" is around 1% of an already minuscule segment if the music available? Sounds more like an ant.

Pure DSD is about as dead as binaural. There's really no point if what you want to listen to is not available on your favorite pet format, is there? It's the hires problem only about 100X worse.

"About" equals "almost" - and almost NEVER caught a hare.

That's why, being - not only ignored but suppressed by, whenever and wherever given a chance - mainstream recording engineers like @gregorio, we had no choice but to start creating our own binaural content. I started with a portable cassette recorder - and, after discovering what a wonderful machine Technics RS-AZ 7 is, although not portable, used that in stock form for a very short while. Within a year, I had it modified and running in its purest mode possible - with noise reduction being taken care of with Nakamichi High Com II. And I would not even consider using the Naka in its stock form - I had to purge the two units ( one required for recording, one for playback if monitoring while recording is necessary ) of all the Kinderkrankheiten Nakamichi has - clearly - re-wrote and re-used and therefore inherited directly from the Telefunken High Com unit , obviously without any critical assesment by either measurements or AB listening to the source and recording. Those differences being audibly so large that it NEVER occured to me to do a blind test - and if somebody is willing to try that one with High Com II, he or she will have to bring two stock Naka High Com II units ( preferably restored, BUT ONLY TO STOCK CONDITION ) - in a live, in front of audience, double/triple/x..le blind ABX. Making an ABX box that can accomodate switching of one analogue tape recorder and two pairs of two noise reduction machines would have also to be designed - no trivial task, but in principle doable.

Of course, Naka High Com II can also be paired with R2R , not only cassette recorder - if somebody *feels* cassete is not good enough. On a HIGH quality headphone setup, - let's say Stax Lambda Pro with mandatory ED-1 Monitor diffuse field equalizer + "some quality amp" - because it is relatively widespread and known to be specifically good with binaural recordings. And, if somebody would be foolish enough to claim that a 44.1/16 PCM is better than either the cassette or R2R, he/she *might* meet the ultimate analogue nemesis of the RBCD PCM - (S)VHS ( or beta) VIDEO recorder used exclusively in audio mode. The only trouble is that today really good (S)VHS tapes for audio are - unfortunately - history; so, in commercial sense, this point is moot. But such a comparison could still be arranged - I do have a few still sealed premium quality tapes.

And , guess what ? Many musicians themselves, after being treated with a lifelong diet of multimiking only, will light up as little suns - after finally being able to hear themselves WITHOUT the inevitable "editorial comment" of multimiking and subsequent subjective interventions during mixing/mastering by the likes of @gregorio. The same - or even more - that goes for the concert goers; after all, all that they can ever experience live is certainly closer to binaural than to any version of multimiking - as per default, the skill and experience of the recording engineer playing here - at best - next to no role. The less intervention on the part of the multimiking engineer, usually the better - in most, but not all cases.

But, not all musicians/listeners prefer 2 channel stereo/binaural to multimiking - that's why I always tell the prospective customer/musician what I do and what he/she can - or can not - expect and get from me. Thus I will always allow for an informed decision.

Since with 2 channels recorded, without the possibility to do after the fact ANYTHING but splicing the various takes of same song/composition recorded under exactly the same conditions/mic placement ( valid for both direct to tape and direct to DSD, if you will call it that way ), there lies the knowledge/skills/experience a multimiking recording engineer has never been required to do. Getting as good balance and separation as possible while scrupolously maintaining spatial coherence is no trivial matter - and does require more time in preparation than with multimiking, where "we can fix everything in the mix" notion usually prevails.

The 2 channel only recording "mix", either stereo or binaural, has to be get right - there and then, BEFORE the first note that will eventually land on a released recording can be played.

Fast forward to binaural recorded in native DSD. Yes, it is rare, it is a niche within an already small niche - but it DOES exist and DOES fullfill the needs and expectations of at least a small portion of listeners. And, it is being steadily increased in numbers of the binaural recordings available. More and more native DSD recordings available on https://www.nativedsd.com/ feature, besides stereo and multichannel ( usually 5.1 ) also binaural version. Recording machines ( usually Merging Horus/Hapi ) feature 8 channels of up to DSD256 - and, with six channels being required for the surround 5.1 ( from which then stereo is usually derived ), two channels remain free - so WHY waste them, and not put to a good effect - the BINAURAL ? The customer then decides which version of the recording of the same music he/she will buy - based on preferences, listening habits and, last but not least, equipment available. There are also convinient "bundles" and, in some cases, discounts available to those who have bought in the past say stereo version, but during time decided to add surround and/or binaural version of the same music - it will not be "full" price as to the first time customer for a particular album.

The cruelest price range for the playback equipment is with surround DSD 5.1 ; if one satisfies him/herself with DSD ( all the way to native DSD256 5.1 available ) converted to PCM ( normally 192/24, 5.1, but usually user selectable all the way down to 44.1/16 ), some 300 EUR ( price of a new "DAC/Soundcard" ) will get you a decent playback. If you want all the way to native reproduction of DSD256 5.1, the price can quickly go to approx 11K .

There ARE MANY choices in DAC that will play 2 channel native DSD , all the way up to DSD256 - starting at around 200 $/euro/pound. All that is required for stereo - or binaural.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

With regard to binaural recording, and totally eschewing multi-mic setups, it's almost impossible to do with rock music. Ever listened to a sound check with the guitars or vocals un-amped? You can't hear them over the drums. At these concerts the "live" audio is already, in a very real sense, recorded, mixed, and played back over speakers. Add to that the fact that many venues have somewhat undesirable acoustics to begin with, and I can easily see why binaural recording is not as popular as one might expect.

The multi-mic setup is, generally speaking, actually a fairly good approximation of what bands would *hope* the audience would hear in a live venue.

With classical / acoustic and probably even Jazz music (any music where amplification is not integral to the sound) there's a clear logic to binaural recording, but the majority of music listening doesn't fall into these categories.

 

[bigshot]

That's why, being - not only ignored but suppressed by, whenever and wherever given a chance - mainstream recording engineers like @gregorio, we had no choice but to start creating our own binaural content.

So there's no professional binaural content? The way you were talking about it, I thought there was. I'm primarily interested in the music. The method of delivery is secondary to that. So if everything in binaural is amateur content, it doesn't really interest me. Maybe I'll listen to the Pearl Jam, but it really isn't my thing. I was hoping there was some really good string quartet or orchestral recordings in binaural. The ones that were posted as examples were abysmal- beyond bad, and if that's all there is, there's nothing here for me I'm afraid.

As for DSD... I've already done plenty of research into that. It's completely superfluous... like teats on a bull hog. I've always thought that SACDs without 5.1 are completely pointless.

Thanks anyway!

 

[bigshot]

I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days. I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume. I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state. Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it. I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.

Best post ever!

We already know, empirically, that humans vary in many traits, including aspects of hearing ability. It's not simply a matter of speculation.

How much time have you spend researching the thresholds of human auditory perception? Based on your comments, I suspect that you haven't spent much time at all. To me, only focusing on the equipment measurements and specs and not focusing on the context- specifically whether or not humans can hear it- is a great way to avoid the obvious truths. Humans are fallible. We have basic perception and the optimal range is pretty much a brick wall. You can't hear the unbearable unless you are waiting for some random genetic mutation to crop up like monkeys with typewriters coming up with a Shakespere play.

If you know a little bit about what humans can and can't hear, you can put measurements and specs into context. If you don't you can bend the "range of possibilities" to justify and validate whatever personal bias you want. That isn't scientific. That's why when I hear someone saying something that seems to be outside my understanding of the thresholds, I ask for an example. Show me an amp or DAC that sounds different. What SACD sounds better than redbook? Will someone please show me an Amazon link to a well recorded binaural music CD,..

The silence is deafening. This is how I can tell if people really know what they're talking about or whether they are citing monkeys with typewriter possibilities. I don't have time to wait for human evolution to advance to the next level. I want to listen to music now.

 

[gregorio]

And, if somebody would be foolish enough to claim that a 44.1/16 PCM is better than either the cassette or R2R, he/she *might* meet the ultimate analogue nemesis of the RBCD PCM - (S)VHS ( or beta) VIDEO recorder used exclusively in audio mode.

Accused of ridiculous assertions, your response is to make up assertions which are even more ridiculous. I tell you what, 44/16 PCM is inferior to the old wax cylinder and horn arrangement. OK, that's as utterly ridiculous as we can get, so what have you got left to say now we've reached the end of your; "let's make the most ridiculous assertion I can think up" tactic? What do you hope to gain from all this, do you honestly think there's anyone reading your post who doesn't recognise it as ridiculous?

And, how can you be surprised that people like me refute your assertions or just ignore you as too ridiculous to even bother? And for the latter reason, I can't be bothered to respond to all the rest of the nonsense in your post. It's inconceivable you actually believe all that nonsense yourself, which leaves as the only option that you're trolling, which is against this forum's rules!!

G

 

[bigshot]

Reductum ad absurdum

 

[analogsurviver]

So there's no professional binaural content? The way you were talking about it, I thought there was. I'm primarily interested in the music. The method of delivery is secondary to that. So if everything in binaural is amateur content, it doesn't really interest me. Maybe I'll listen to the Pearl Jam, but it really isn't my thing. I was hoping there was some really good string quartet or orchestral recordings in binaural. The ones that were posted as examples were abysmal- beyond bad, and if that's all there is, there's nothing here for me I'm afraid.

As for DSD... I've already done plenty of research into that. It's completely superfluous... like teats on a bull hog. I've always thought that SACDs without 5.1 are completely pointless.

Thanks anyway!

Of course, there IS professional binaural content. On www.nativedsd.com, in the post you've just quoted. On the silver platter solution :
http://help.nativedsd.com/high-reso...erences-between-stereo-and-binaural-listening
https://www.nativedsd.com/homepage/binaural_dsd_music

If you are so pro surround 5.1 - then WHY you did not find

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2913JxRtQl3ZTvw0wz5C4D1/bbc-proms-in-binaural-sound ?

- ages ago ? Now, I do not consider BBC's approach to be anything approaching pinnacle, but it is a start - if "professional" is what you require.

Hint - THE page with *anything* remotely connected with recording and reproduction of the sound of the music in anything beyond conventional stereo - from 5.1 through ambiosonics to binaural and everything-too-new-to-be-yet-named - where I first learned about BBC's binaural while searching for other "spatial stuff" is - ....... ?

Although automotive comparisons are not exactly your cup of tea - here another one:

Multimiking/PCM/stereo or 5.1 is a Cadillac, where you and your family can dress up for some festive ocassion, cruising on the motorway at some leisurly speed.

Binaural - specially if it is recorded in native DSD - is a single seat F1 car, racing suit and integral helmet mandatory; one with the potential to beat anything else, given half a chance - if the ultimate goal is being fastest on the race track. Or in musical recording terms, being the most realistic approach to the sound of the ACOUSTICAL musical event heard live.

 

[analogsurviver]

Accused of ridiculous assertions, your response is to make up assertions which are even more ridiculous. I tell you what, 44/16 PCM is inferior to the old wax cylinder and horn arrangement. OK, that's as utterly ridiculous as we can get, so what have you got left to say now we've reached the end of your; "let's make the most ridiculous assertion I can think up" tactic? What do you hope to gain from all this, do you honestly think there's anyone reading your post who doesn't recognise it as ridiculous?

And, how can you be surprised that people like me refute your assertions or just ignore you as too ridiculous to even bother? And for the latter reason, I can't be bothered to respond to all the rest of the nonsense in your post. It's inconceivable you actually believe all that nonsense yourself, which leaves as the only option that you're trolling, which is against this forum's rules!!

G

Sorry, if you did have enough experience with binaural, you would have known what exactly 44.1/16 lacks compared even to a cassette - in order for it to really work as it should and could.
Let alone R2R or video recorder used for audio only. And not to even mention DSD.

The differences in preferences to listening as described are real - if you like it or not. The same goes for me.
But, I do recognize the merits of your work which can be perceived and preffered by few/some/majority of listeners ( depending on one's perspective ) , whereas you have been trying to torpedo any other approach than the one you use - as less worthy and even no-ball.

And if you even once again even mention trolling, you *might* get much more than you ever even dreamed of as being possible of bargaining for in return. So, chill down !!!

 

[bigshot]

Can you recommend a well recorded professional binaural recording with acoustic instruments? It can be an SACD. Fine. One that you own and have heard. Last call for an answer. I’ve wasted too much time on this already.