[haloxt]

What's with the numbering.

1. One can presume room correction is more enjoyable, but it's not perfect and enjoyment is subjective.

2. The food analogy is simple, some people don't understand why some people like to spend their time looking for tasty food. Does the fact that there's no bit-perfect copies of the same food mean there are not people who don't understand why people spend their time looking for tasty food?

3. What does this have to do with anything?

 

[b0dhi]

Theoretically I think it's possible to have perfect, objectively perfect, sound reproduction - that is, the exact reproduction of sound as though your own ears were present at the location the sound was created (or a modelled location in the case of electronic music). Realistically, today, now, that's an impossibility. Some DSP systems can approximate some of this, to some extent, but it's still a long way off from being able to replicate one's own presence at the auditorium/venue/wherever.

 

[haloxt]

I think DSP is teh future, but somebody has to write the algorithms

then we have to wait for recording and reproduction hardware to catch up. Meanwhile, I'll laugh at my ultrasones' lol attempts at surround sound.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's with the numbering. 1. One can presume room correction is more enjoyable, but it's not perfect and enjoyment is subjective. 2. The food analogy is simple, some people don't understand why some people like to spend their time looking for tasty food. Does the fact that there's no bit-perfect copies of the same food mean there are not people who don't understand why people spend their time looking for tasty food? 3. What does this have to do with anything?

I'm a numbers person.

1. Don't understand,if you could exactly reproduce the live listening experience why would you not enjoy it as much? Are you having a bad day? Not enough Lemon Merange perhaps.

The only thing (although not insignificant) a 2 speaker sound system cannot ever reproduce is the directionality of sound created by each individual instrument or noise source. e.g With a live orchestra instruments are located at various positions in 3D space relative to a listener. The only way to EXACTLY reproduce this with would be with a speaker at each instrument location relative to the listener when playing back the sound.

Perhaps with several speakers in a system it is possible to simulate this with DSP, but it would still be an approximation. I don't know to what degree the human ear can resolve directionality so I don't know if there would be a perceived difference with the live concert with this approach. Has anyone researched this?

As I stated a feedback system would be required. This would be of the form of some sort of microphone at the playback listening position. Like a real time version of the room calibration device currently provided in AV systems. I don't know if this sort of 'real time' room adjustment is featured in any current systems.

2. I think you are saying some people don't understand why other people like certain things? While this is certainly applicable to Hi Fi it is also applicable to just about everything else in life. I am not sure if it is applicable to this thread in the sense that it a vast subject in itself, and there is no 'correct' answer. Belief, Philosophy, Religion etc. IMO ultimately the 'correct' opinion in these sorts of debates is normally the side with the most powerful armed forces.

3. A lot more than food . Science vs subjectivity. Isn't this more or less what this thread about? I highly recommend the quoted source if you are interested in this subject.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps with several speakers in a system it is possible to simulate this with DSP, but it would still be an approximation. I don't know to what degree the human ear can resolve directionality so I don't know if there would be a perceived difference with the live concert with this approach. Has anyone researched this?

I do remember researching this some years ago, and the best performance I read about was people who could detect less than one degree difference, I believe it was 2 microseconds inter-aural time delay. It was frequency dependent though. The sound sample used in that case was a high-frequency (500Khz if I remember correctly) square wave impulse.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do remember researching this some years ago, and the best performance I read about was people who could detect less than one degree difference, I believe it was 2 microseconds inter-aural time delay. It was frequency dependent though. The sound sample used in that case was a high-frequency (500Khz if I remember correctly) square wave impulse.

Interesting. Thats a high degree of accuracy. I guess it would certainly make sense from an evolutionary point of view. e.g. Which direction to run away from the Tiger!

I don't think they had Lemon Merangue then either, it must have been terrible.

 

[haloxt]

Shark Jump,

1. Because the human mind is crazy, and it's well known that it's crazy which is why much of audio has been about tweaking things to sound "good" not necessarily "real". For example sometimes reality (20+ feet from the musicians) isn't real enough or enjoyable enough, and you'd rather hear (feel) the sound waves from something as close to the musicians as the microphone. Headphones and a good enough system allows for such intimacy which would be lost with changes in DSP with the goal of reality (placing the listener in the audience). It's like lemon meringue with a lot of sugar.

2. No, we're discussing how some people don't understand why people spend so much time looking for something. If you want to know if I subscribe to that analogy, no I don't really. My analogy would be Nazis telling people how they are supposed to do things.

3. I'm not interested in that subject.

 

[MrOutside]

never. audio should always be subjective and the moment it has we are no longer people listening to music, but robots listening to sound. I will never care what people say is good/bad quality, I will go by what sounds good to me and consider what they say sounds good but only judge it after hearing it.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Of course listening is a totally subjective experience.

However the goal of sound reproduction and HiFi is the most accurate representation of the original recording. What else can it be? This is NOT subjective but quantative ;Frequency response, THD, etc.

I guess as most Hi Fi systems fall short of this then some subjectivity is involved to tune the system to produce the most pleasant compromise.

BTW haloxt, if you are not interested in the subject of subjectivism and science what are doing on this thread? Or are you being funny?

 

[haloxt]

I'm not interested in the argument of objectivism vs. subjectivism. Yes I am here to be funny because I don't really care for you guys' opinions

especially when I'm misconstrued on virtually everything. The goal of sound recording and reproduction is for people's enjoyment, not accurate representation of the original recording or of the actual event. Portraying what is on the cd or portraying what actually happened in real life from the point of view of someone sitting in the audience are two possible ways to achieve enjoyment. Who knows, some day they might put microphones on Brittney Spears' ears and people can listen to music going crazy as she's twirling around to her pop music. It might make people enjoy the music even more or help people understand what she sees in her music. There's so many ways to enjoy music, fidelity to recording or fidelity to reality are but two possible goals of high fidelity musical enjoyment. High fidelity reproduction equipment often has horrible measurements, some might argue it's because of limitations in recording, or that humans just prefer the sound of things with horrible measurements, or that humans don't know what they like. I think anyone can like whatever they want. Patrick82 likes his emu 0404 (which has nicer specs than most high end gear) so much he says it is better than his prior setup which cost many many times more. On the other hand many people like high end gear with terrible specs. Why? Who knows, psychology is a complex issue. For example my current dac does not produce particularly emotional sound, but because of that it gives the feeling that all music played has extra virtuosity and professionalism. Gives an illusion that is very helpful to enjoying certain aspects of music.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif However the goal of sound reproduction and HiFi is the most accurate representation of the original recording. What else can it be? This is NOT subjective but quantative ;Frequency response, THD, etc.

I'm not sure that is always, or often, the goal. Don't some headpone manufacturers avoid a flat FR response and alter phones frequency response to make the phones more pleasant sounding? Don't people use tubes to arguably alter the sound in a more pleasing way?

I think the goal for some folks may be absolutely perfect fidelity, but the goal of many folks to achieve high fidelity may be accompnaied by a goal of having the music they listen to sound good and having the whole listening experience be enjoyable. And that is subjective.

It sounds like your preferences may be in line with the OP to some extent, which is fine. To each his own. Personally, if I have two choices, one being listening to a perfect reproduction of the original recording (again, making a big leap we an even know that we're achieving that), and that perfect reproduction sounds to my ears like a B+, while listening to a almost perfect reproduction of the original recording sounds to my ears like an A+, I'll take the latter.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who knows, some day they might put microphones on Brittney Spears' ears and people can listen to music going crazy as she's twirling around to her pop music. It might make people enjoy the music even more or help people understand what she sees in her music.

Classic! Genius stuff.

You are assuming Brittney Spears sees anything in her music.

Perhaps you can start a thread on this, or even the best place for her microphone!

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the goal for some folks may be absolutely perfect fidelity, but the goal of many folks to achieve high fidelity may be accompnaied by a goal of having the music they listen to sound good and having the whole listening experience be enjoyable. And that is subjective.

I think you are agreeing with my second paragraph here.
'I guess as most Hi Fi systems fall short of this then some subjectivity is involved to tune the system to produce the most pleasant compromise.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif It sounds like your preferences may be in line with the OP to some extent, which is fine. To each his own.

How can an audio engineer design a Hi Fi system with any other goal in mind than the best possible sound reproduction?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif How can an audio engineer design a Hi Fi system with any other goal in mind than the best possible sound reproduction?

I don't know, I guess I assume that audio engineers are different from one another and have different preferences and idiosyncasies, just like everyone else.

 

[sahwnfras]

Since when did everyones ears become the same shape? We are not robots.. yet.

Some people have bad ears cant hear that well, and some have good ears. And when it comes down to it, you go with what you enjoy.

A microphone may analyze it and give me a number, but i hear a note not a number.

...i really dont see this thread going anywhere lol