Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Arnaldo]

Following on your theory, low levels of distortion should also help the perception of soundstage, which is created in part by very low levels of residual reverberation. This is pure speculation as well...

Regardless, now you seem to be comparing your actual listening experience with available measurements, in order to formulate a valid opinion of a given component. It looks like a very rational approach.
 
Quote:

As far as I can tell instrument separation appears to be a function of distortion.  Low distortion (or possibly just very even levels of distortion without large peaks) allows you to hear those subtle differences in levels and timing.  I don't have any real data to back that up other than comparing what I hear from a headphone with measurements of that same model of headphone...
 
Feel free to shoot all this down if you want since its really just idle speculation.

 

 

[EthanWiner]

This is to b0ck3n:
 
I got your PM but for some reason I can't reply (the web page goes crazy and keeps reloading over and over). Do me a favor and start a new thread with your questions, and I'll be glad to answer.
 
--Ethan

 

[CEE TEE]

Hi Ethan,
 
So far, I have been trying to understand the full Frequency Range by listening to my reference tracks on my friend's studio/mastering set-up to try and hear what is in the recordings or what I am missing (like feeling the "flutter" of 20hz sub-bass).  He has Dunlavy Dunntech d'appolito arrays but it isn't an anechoic chamber...  I know he likes his bass/sub-bass a lot though, and so wonder if I am hearing more than is neutral in his set-up.  He has treated his room for sound but I wouldn't be surprised if he has left some extra bass unmitigated. 
 
However, I also get to check his music on his system and then listen to it on my system to see whether or not I can reproduce it the way he intended as the artist and mastering engineer (within the limits of headphone/earphone technology).  My comparisons are hardly scientific at this point but I am trying to poke at my questions from different angles until I can get a sense of the answers. 
 
I can try to find another system to listen to also.  Unfortunately I'm in CA, not CT !
 
Quote:

 
For that you'd have to visit me, or find someone local with a good system that's set up properly in an excellent room. Are there any hi-fi clubs in your area?
 
--Ethan

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Following on your theory, low levels of distortion should also help the perception of soundstage, which is created in part by very low levels of residual reverberation. This is pure speculation as well...

Regardless, now you seem to be comparing your actual listening experience with available measurements, in order to formulate a valid opinion of a given component. It looks like a very rational approach.

There's quite a bit more to soundstaging in headphones than just plain distortion.  If you just compare the overall distortion numbers between two' phones and expect to get some sort of idea about subjective perception on soundstage then you might assume that a good pair of universal IEMs is on par with the HD800s in that area.  I'm listening to my SE530s right now and I can tell you that ain't the case at all.  Since most music listened to via headphones was mixed to give a stereo image on speakers I'm of the opinion that a headphone that makes a coherent soundstage out of that signal is inherently colored because the signal the headphone is recieving is obviously not the same signal its outputting to your ears.  It introduces some distortion (preferably carefully controlled distortion) to the signal to make the soundstage seem more spacious and realistic.  This of course implies that I, along with everyone else who enjoys something resembling a speaker-like or life-like soundstage, actually enjoys colored 'phones.  Its just like the crossfeed filters I almost always use when listening to headphones.  If you left the filter on and ran the tests like that on the amp they'd look awful with all sorts of crosstalk and weird time delays.  Without the knowledge of what the crossfeed filter does and more importantly why it does it, you'd assume that anything played through the system would sound terrible until you actually listened to it.
 
Does this shed any light on our ED10 dust-up?  I just pointed out that this distortion does indeed exist but since I've never heard it I didn't make any value judgments about it.  It could be a fiendishly clever way of tuning an expansive and realistic soundstage through S Logic.  It could just be crap.  I can't really say without hearing.  I can say it isn't a faithful reproduction of the input and that wouldn't change whether I liked it or not.  Its just like the crossfeed example I outlined above.  From looking at the ED10's numbers I can tell that something is quite different about them.  Since they market their soudstage enhancing S Logic rather heavily, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that S Logic is that "something" which is different about the ED10s.  Without either a through explanation or some head time I can't say if that "something" is good or not, but I can still tell that "something" is there from the graphs without ever hearing it in my life.  Does that make more sense?
 
Its not like I'm anti-Ultrasone or something either.  I'm actually hoping it falls in the clever tuning category because I'm looking for a really good pair of closed headphones and the ED8s are on the short list and I'd like them to sound better than they seem to measure.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

There's quite a bit more to soundstaging in headphones than just plain distortion.  If you just compare the overall distortion numbers between two' phones and expect to get some sort of idea about subjective perception on soundstage then you might assume that a good pair of universal IEMs is on par with the HD800s in that area.  I'm listening to my SE530s right now and I can tell you that ain't the case at all.  Since most music listened to via headphones was mixed to give a stereo image on speakers I'm of the opinion that a headphone that makes a coherent soundstage out of that signal is inherently colored because the signal the headphone is recieving is obviously not the same signal its outputting to your ears.  It introduces some distortion (preferably carefully controlled distortion) to the signal to make the soundstage seem more spacious and realistic.  This of course implies that I, along with everyone else who enjoys something resembling a speaker-like or life-like soundstage, actually enjoys colored 'phones.  Its just like the crossfeed filters I almost always use when listening to headphones.  If you left the filter on and ran the tests like that on the amp they'd look awful with all sorts of crosstalk and weird time delays.  Without the knowledge of what the crossfeed filter does and more importantly why it does it, you'd assume that anything played through the system would sound terrible until you actually listened to it.
 
Does this shed any light on our ED10 dust-up?  I just pointed out that this distortion does indeed exist but since I've never heard it I didn't make any value judgments about it.  It could be a fiendishly clever way of tuning an expansive and realistic soundstage through S Logic.  It could just be crap.  I can't really say without hearing.  I can say it isn't a faithful reproduction of the input and that wouldn't change whether I liked it or not.  Its just like the crossfeed example I outlined above.  From looking at the ED10's numbers I can tell that something is quite different about them.  Since they market their soudstage enhancing S Logic rather heavily, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that S Logic is that "something" which is different about the ED10s.  Without either a through explanation or some head time I can't say if that "something" is good or not, but I can still tell that "something" is there from the graphs without ever hearing it in my life.  Does that make more sense?
 
Its not like I'm anti-Ultrasone or something either.  I'm actually hoping it falls in the clever tuning category because I'm looking for a really good pair of closed headphones and the ED8s are on the short list and I'd like them to sound better than they seem to measure.

Well, a major part of soundstaging as it relates to headphones and speakers is the transfer function of our ears' pinnae on the signal.  Obviously an IEM is going to bypass most of that and only be influenced by the middle ear - but as far as other headphones, the differences in driver size and shape, distance from and angle to the ears, ear pads, etc. are all going to affect the ears' transfer function of the signal output by the headphones.  As for speakers, that expands to the room and direct/passive radiation of sound, etc.
 
Obviously, this is only part of the equation - the recording itself (which has been discussed before) is obviously a factor here, and even has an influence on what sort of transfer function from the headphones to the ears is desirable.  Obviously if you make a binaural recording with a dummy head that is molded to fit yours, it would make more sense to use IEMs than circumaural headphones - and that's perhaps the simplest example, although it doesn't mean it's not possible to model more complicated ones (or that it hasn't been done).
 
And then there's everything in between the recording and the headphone.  Looking at the evidence so far, it should be pretty clear that distortion is the only thing impacting the signal between those two points.  Obviously, induced reverb (and possibly other distortions) is/are going to cause some perceptual changes, perhaps even desirable (if not accurate to the recording).  But things like channel imbalance, phase distortion, and clipping are obviously going to have very negative impacts on the soundstaging.  I wouldn't necessarily expect harmonic distortion to do the same.
 
At this point, I think it's a matter of linking all the known distortions to signals (scientifically all distortions can be categorized and measured to at least some degree) to human perception.  Obviously, with the amount of signal processing out there to mimic/change soundstaging (and I mean beyond crosstalk cancellation, crossfeed, etc.), it's not a black-box of a field.  It's not that difficult to, for example, compare the signal from a typical stereo mic setup for recording and a binaural mic setup - doing something like that you can make the sort of measurements needed to quantify the differences.

 

[maverickronin]

@BlackbeardBen
 
Most of that reply was in regards to this exchange, which I was going to let drop until he brought it up here.

 

[Arnaldo]

My observation over the in influence of low distortion on soundstaging was basically just an extrapolation on your own theory.
 
As to the Ed 10 issue which you brought up, I feel that there's more to it than just numbers, an opinion that your post doesn't seem to entirely disavow. Basically, their S-Logic open-back concept may have been conceived to work with the extended frequency range of high-rez acoustic recordings, and less so with more compressed material found in electronic music or older analog masters. Regardless, let's leave this discussion for the appropriate thread, shall we?
 
OTOH, there's a lot less controversy over the Ed 8 in terms of closed cans. I have the Ed 8 LE and they literally killed my old Denon AH-D7000. But they have rather small earcups, so be warned about the comfort issue if you have large ears.
 
PS 1: I have a SPL Phonitor on order and I'm looking forward to play with its cross-feed settings.
PS 2: While my previous post was written in the context of your own preceding post, I do understand your interpretation.
 
Quote:

There's quite a bit more to soundstaging in headphones than just plain distortion [...] Its just like the crossfeed filters I almost always use when listening to headphones.  If you left the filter on and ran the tests like that on the amp they'd look awful with all sorts of crosstalk and weird time delays.  Without the knowledge of what the crossfeed filter does and more importantly why it does it, you'd assume that anything played through the system would sound terrible until you actually listened to it.
 
Does this shed any light on our ED10 dust-up? [...] Since they market their soudstage enhancing S Logic rather heavily, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that S Logic is that "something" which is different about the ED10s. Without either a through explanation or some head time I can't say if that "something" is good or not, but I can still tell that "something" is there from the graphs without ever hearing it in my life.  Does that make more sense?
 
Its not like I'm anti-Ultrasone or something either.  I'm actually hoping it falls in the clever tuning category because I'm looking for a really good pair of closed headphones and the ED8s are on the short list and I'd like them to sound better than they seem to measure.

 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

My observation over the in influence of low distortion on soundstaging was basically just an extrapolation on your own theory.
 
As to the Ed 10 issue which you brought up, I feel that there's more to it than just numbers, an opinion that your post doesn't seem to entirely disavow. Basically, their S-Logic open-back concept may have been conceived to work with the extended frequency range of high-rez acoustic recordings, and less so with more compressed material found in electronic music or older analog masters. Regardless, let's leave this discussion for the appropriate thread, shall we?

I wouldn't have brought it up if it was completely off topic.  This thread is discussing how subjective impressions relate to objective measurements.  My main points are 1) Just because the system of measurements we have today isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we can or should ignore them in areas which have been shown to work.  2)  Measurements may not exactly be able to tell you what you'll like but the they can as surely as death and taxes tell you what's more accurate.
 
The second part was all I was getting at in the other thread.  Related to this is the fact that headphones need some manner of coloration to sound natural and because everyone has different tastes an physiology no one can mostly agree to try and build them ruler flat like speakers or something.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Again, you are confusing psychoacoustics and perception with the specs and tests used to assess the fidelity of audio gear. Further, it is mostly untrue that "instrument separation" (whatever that really means) is a function of the gear. A piece of audio gear will affect clarity only if its noise and distortion are high enough to mask the music, or if its frequency response is skewed enough to reduce important frequencies enough to notice. So an amplifier that's 10 dB down at 5 KHz and above will surely sound muffled. To say "measurements be damned" only shows ignorance and maybe even arrogance. I'm sorry, but I don't know a nicer way to put it. Thankfully, the people who design the gear you enjoy don't have that attitude!

 
--Ethan

I never did say measurements be damned (I am an engineer...I love my measurements...trust me). Please re-read my posts...all I said is not to forget to actually listen to what you're measuring too. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Using measurements for how music sounds exclusively is like taking FTIR & GC & UV/VIS Spectroscopy to determine what ingredients are in a particular dish to ascertain how it will taste. Can you do this, absolutely, but in the end, you really should also take a bite.

 

[ffdpmaggot]

Ethanwiner, this was a 250 dollar amp from the early 2000's. I fired it up expecting something great and magical, there were glowing reviews online, the sound truly was terrible, a/b testing between the amp and my laptop's sound card showed that it was bloody veiled and the bass was in fact a bit muddy, and the vocals were in fact, a bit boxy as far as i remember. My sound card is pretty crappy, you get the idea.
Missed the last part of your post "some gear really is crap though"

 

[CEE TEE]

Okay...tonight I got to hear the unprocessed recording of a friend's live show I saw on Sunday night.  My other friend recorded it.
 

• I was able to listen to the recording at the show (in between sets) on the Sony MDR-V6 workhorses.
• I listened to the rough (unprocessed) recording on the Dunlavy Dunntechs in a studio tonight that my friend confirmed was treated and measured to have an even response across the range as much as possible (I thought it might be north of neutral in the bass dept. because it has been hard for me to reproduce some of that sound/feeling on my headphone rigs and my friend's music does actually have a lot of low end).
• I just spent the last couple of hours listening to the .wav files through the UE RM, but on a portable rig and not yet through the Benchmark.
• Now I will have to take my UE RM into the studio soon and compare directly to the Dunntechs (though it will be unscientific because I don't think I can volume match)...should be interesting. 

 
Because it is fun and I love the music and sound I've been hearing...it keeps getting better and better too!
 
Quote:

Hi Ethan,
 
So far, I have been trying to understand the full Frequency Range by listening to my reference tracks on my friend's studio/mastering set-up to try and hear what is in the recordings or what I am missing (like feeling the "flutter" of 20hz sub-bass).  He has Dunlavy Dunntech d'appolito arrays but it isn't an anechoic chamber...  I know he likes his bass/sub-bass a lot though, and so wonder if I am hearing more than is neutral in his set-up.  He has treated his room for sound but I wouldn't be surprised if he has left some extra bass unmitigated. 
 
However, I also get to check his music on his system and then listen to it on my system to see whether or not I can reproduce it the way he intended as the artist and mastering engineer (within the limits of headphone/earphone technology).  My comparisons are hardly scientific at this point but I am trying to poke at my questions from different angles until I can get a sense of the answers. 

 

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 
 
1. I agree that some SACDs are recorded with more care than other formats. But that's no reason to waste 4x the bandwidth. The obvious solution is to not over-compress at all, then use regular CDs.
 
2. You also asked:
> "You just need all the data." How do you know you have all the data?
 
I already answered that 5 times now. Null tests. Enough already. Now back to the present:
 
3. > Here's a story you may find interesting and which you can hear for yourself
 
That's old news, and has been debunked many times. That Michael Fremer and the others do not understand just shows that they in fact know less than me about audio. Here's the scoop on that Neve / Emerick story:
 
I'm sure that console channel sounded different, but not because Rupert Neve or Geoff Emerick were hearing 50 KHz! When a circuit oscillates it creates hiss and "spitty" sounds, and distortion in the audible band. So obviously that's what they heard, not the actual 50 KHz frequency. And what studio loudspeakers reproduce 50 KHz anyway? None. I don't care how many famous acts someone recorded. It doesn't mean they understand the science. In this case clearly they do not.
 
--Ethan
Yes

1. Go back to CD? Never. SACD is so much better on so many different levels. Setting aside the controversy over whether you can really hear the higher resolution, SACD makes so much more possible than CDs do. SACD can give you both stereo and multichannel versions of the music (for those who like surround sound). Although it's not often the case because of the inclusion of the multichannel track, theoretically I can at last get a whole act of an opera without having to change disc midstream. Heck, I can get an entire opera on a single disc. SACDs can fit up to four albums on one layer, and hybrid SACDs have two layers! My SACDs have information about the recording that I can access when I connect my player to a monitor. Wasted bandwidth? Who cares if all the space on any given SACD is used or not? The point is that it's there for when manufacturers want to use it. What's better about CD again? You don't believe in higher resolution? Fine, hybrid SACDs give you a standard CD layer that you can play on any CD player.
 
2.  This "null test" you are referring to sounds like the kind of nulling astronomers employ when they look for supernovae. They take two images of the sky and "null out" what is identical between them so that only the differences between the two images remain. When you take a deep-field imagine of the sky, there is simply too much information for the eye to catch. Nulling allows them to see only the differences -- for instance, if a supernovae has exploded since the earlier image was taken. Is audio nulling similar to this? If so, I would just point out that there are many things that don't show up on these tests. In fact, they have discovered that anti-gravity, i.e. "dark energy"  (which is not the same as dark matter) is an inherent property of space but will never show up on any test or analysis. In fact, scientists don't really even know what it is. Of course, when anti-gravity was discovered (Einstein first proposed it; he called it the Cosmological Constant, but later disowned it when he got ridiculed by other scientists), scientists said oh no that's physically impossible. Anyhow, audio nulling is when you null two signals and see what (if anything) gets left over as a difference between them?
 
3. In the anecdote as recounted by Craig Street, it was specifically emphasized that Emerick did not hear it, but rather felt it.  As for the hiss and spitty sounds, according to Street's version of the story, others were brought in to see if they could detect what Emerick was hearing. They couldn't. They ran some initial tests, but still didn't detect it until some other piece of equipment was brought in. Where does your version of the story come from?
 
As for your "famous acts" comment, the point is that they are audio professionals with extensive experience. But of course I see what's happening. When I reference audio professionals who disagree with you, you will accuse them of not understanding the science, no matter how extensive their experience. When I reference somebody like Norbert Lehmann who clearly understands the science, then you will say he's not telling the truth. At least you should admit that there are knowledgeable people, professionals in the audio industry, who disagree with you. The matter isn't as settled as you make it seem. And this is not like the Repubilcans with their silly claims about scientists being "divided" as regards global warming. It's not just one or two audio professionals who disagree with you, but many of them.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

2.  This "null test" you are referring to sounds like the kind of nulling astronomers employ when they look for supernovae. They take two images of the sky and "null out" what is identical between them so that only the differences between the two images remain. When you take a deep-field imagine of the sky, there is simply too much information for the eye to catch. Nulling allows them to see only the differences -- for instance, if a supernovae has exploded since the earlier image was taken. Is audio nulling similar to this? If so, I would just point out that there are many things that don't show up on these tests. In fact, they have discovered that anti-gravity, i.e. "dark energy"  (which is not the same as dark matter) is an inherent property of space but will never show up on any test or analysis. In fact, scientists don't really even know what it is. Of course, when anti-gravity was discovered (Einstein first proposed it; he called it the Cosmological Constant, but later disowned it when he got ridiculed by other scientists), scientists said oh no that's physically impossible. Anyhow, audio nulling is when you null two signals and see what (if anything) gets left over as a difference between them?

I spent a good 5 minutes trying to come up wit a witty retort but this single paragraph is full of more idiocy than the rest of your posts in this thread of combined, cubed, and then possibly factorial-ed.  You really should try to understand this stuff before you trot it out as evidence to prove your point and fail spectacularly.  A few choice points...
 
Why is a test designed to look for stuff that gives off light a failure when it doesn't detect something that does not give off light?
 
Along those lines, what kind of magical energy do you propose is being transmitted with, yet is separate from, the electrical signals of an audio system which can be played via the transducers and perceived by humans but is unaffected by and undetectable to all the sophisticated measurement devices in the signal chain?  That's the fantasy you're proposing.  In reality, an audio null test will detect all differences between two signals.  It does not fail as a test because it does not take into account your state of mind.  That isn't part of the signal.
 
And here's the big one...
 
If dark energy "will never show up on any test or analysis" then how do we already know its there?  Quite the paradox...
 
At this point I'm really beginning to question things.  That paragraph is either the one of the most brilliant Poes I've ever seen or...well...something that's not very nice...  On the one hand I could be incredibly angry and on the other I could be incredibly depressed.  I don't need any more depression.  I think I need to adopt the Hitchens approach and browse Sound Science with a bottle of whiskey or something.  I need more practice on the one liners too.  I don't yet have the skills to win a debate while half drunk...

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

At this point I'm really beginning to question things.  That paragraph is either the one of the most brilliant Poes I've ever seen or...well...something that's not very nice...  On the one hand I could be incredibly angry and on the other I could be incredibly depressed.  I don't need any more depression.  I think I need to adopt the Hitchens approach and browse Sound Science with a bottle of whiskey or something.  I need more practice on the one liners too.  I don't yet have the skills to win a debate while half drunk...

Dark energy enhances the audiophile experience

 
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

That's what Lawrence Krauss said....