There's Too Much Subjectivity in Audio

dkg999

Real sound can't be a baseline, because we all hear it differently. What you hear as the real sound is not what I hear as the real sound. Even if our ears are exactly the same neurologically, our brains would process the input from the ears differently. Our own individual preferences are what makes this hobby so dynamic and entertaining. If there was a single "reference" sound that defined what we should hear, or strive to hear, the BBC would of told us what it was years ago!

Yashu

It would be hard to place the piano... considering that middle C would be from a single point source... actually it would come from a set of vibrating wires tuned to harmony, and then with the body of the piano serving as resonant chamber to amplify the sound.

I don't think it would be a fair test. Recording the piano for the stereo test... lets see, where to place the microphones? You would need at least two, but where to place them? Placing them at the average spacing between ears with a canal on each to separate the R and L... that does not work in the real world. It takes an entirely different mic setup to record a piano and have it sound proper on a recording than it does to listen to one with ears.

The larger the hall the better the test, because then the relative point source compared to the room would be greater... thus averaging, but then a stereo placed where you put the piano would need to be also a 360 degree source. Very few speakers come close to having 360 degree dispersion.

Now that I think about it, you would be better off recording the piano in a sound deadened studio to capture "just the piano", but then you would still need speakers that would have dispersion similar to the actual piano that you place in your room. Complicated, eh?

The only way to objectively measure would be to compare the room response... you could mic the room with an L and R placed in a similar fashion as your ears, canals and everything, play sounds that can be controlled, like I said, digitally generated, mixed, mastered (or just pink noise, but that wouldn't be as fun), and then compare what the mics (assuming that they have flat enough response themselves) pick up with the original waveform. This objective test would show, less about your stereo, and more about how much of a role our rooms play into the reproduction of sound. I suppose, doing a subtract would leave the sound that the room itself played a part in changing. This can be done quite easily on the computer, actually, it is how noise reduction headphones work, by playing ambient noise out of phase to cancel it out.

I think we are fighting a losing battle... and as a minimalist, but also an objectivist, I would rather just focus on what sounds good to me. Does that make me selfish?

We are trying to manipulate the laws of physics into our favor, but at the end of the day, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, it is simply not possible for a speaker to reproduce certain artificial sounds, however, a speaker should, in theory, be able to produce the sounds of any natural instrument. I think as DSP gets more powerful, and as digital bitrates climb, we will be able to counter room modes more effectively, and at least get close to that original sound, if that is really what you are trying to do.

Half the music I listen to is not based in reality. There is no reference. A speaker cannot produce a square wave, but I can easily create one digitally, and amps are usually fast enough to get close, but if a driver could actually move correctly to a square wave, I don't even think that air, the medium through which the sound must propagate, would respond in kind.

shack

Early B. wrote:

but WTF do you or I know about how our systems ought to sound? We're really just pissin' in the wind, aren't we? That's why we trade out components all the time, because we don't have an 'effin' clue!

AHA! Now it all come to light. Early is looking for someone to give him a reason to stop doing what he can't bring himself to do on his own. He wants a reason to quit tweeking, buying/swaping gear.

I pretty much have a clue as to what I like and don't swap gear much. Most of what I have in my rig is 2+ years old. My HT has been pat for over 3 years.

Yashu

This hobby is like a love affair... sometimes it turns into a steady relationship, but we are often unfaithful.

hearingimpared

I know what I am looking for coming from both my analog rig and my digital rig. I want certain "reference" recordings LPs to produce the tone of instruments the way I like. I also want the bass to be pronounced/present. I am not far from that goal. I want my digital to sound resonably like my analog rig although I know this is impossible. I am very far from that goal.

I'm not doing too bad considering I never got my analog rig up and running until this past February using mostly gear I've had since the 80s.

reeltrouble1

and post long boring thoughts while looking for a penny in the corner of a round room with a square wave up crammed up the ****.

Analog rocks.

RT1

Dennis Gardner

Even if we all could hear the piano the same way, we could never agree on whether the dancer on top was spinning clockwise or counterclockwise......:rolleyes:

SolidSqual

Oh man Early B trust me! I know my opinion doesn't matter! That's why I'm on this forum. You and all the other Polk Masters have helped me reach where I am today. Thank you for showing me the way and ruining all future relationships I may have.

F1nut

So a middle C on a piano will only sound one way in my room. There's no subjectivity about it.

You're forgetting one thing, tone! A different piano will produce a different tone. It's all about subjectivity.

SolidSqual

We can standardize tone controls too!

mrbigbluelight

Early B wrote:

C'mon guys -- there are a plethora of music conservatories in the world, and the students and faculty will tell you that music isn't entirely subjective. In fact, music is both art and science.

Exactly, Early B; that's why player pianos can't match the actual performance of a live, accomplished pianist.

So what do we shoot for then ?

If I'm able to hear an acoustic guitar player's fingers slide over the strings, or hear a singer breathe between words (and distinguish if it was a breath taken by mouth or through the nose), than I feel that the gear/speakers are doing a pretty fine job.

I guess the word I'm looking for is "sibilance" (and I double-checked that on Wikipedia to see if it was ).
I, myself, am more biased towards sibilance in a speaker. That may be because my hearing has rolled off a little over the years (machinery noise, etc).

Wiki illustrated sibilance by using an example from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven" :

"And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain"

For me, a "good" speaker playing that phrase will distinguish every syllable, every consonant.
A "poor" speaker will have you asking "What'd he say ? A silver sack uncertain wrestles of easy purvile curses ?".

It's the same for music.

And "coloration" by a speaker isn't necessarily a bad thing (within reason).
If a person reading the previous phrase sounded shrill and thin, like Casper Milquetoast with his cajones in a vice, than that person's reading would not reflect the poet's intent.
If adding a little "coloration" via artificial resonance puts some depth into the reading, than the poet's intent is more easily conveyed and a useful purpose is accomplished.

And the same holds true for music.
If the musical artist's intent is to lift, or to crush, or to thrill, or to discourage than a good speaker will transfer that.

And that's where the "art" comes in.
I don't know how one can scientifically measure "transfer of intent" (in dbs, or what ?), but one can measure artistically "transfer of intent" by the number of goose-bumps on your arm (gbs ?).

mrbigbluelight

SolidSqual wrote: »

We can standardize tone controls too!

True.

With a hammer.

hearingimpared

and tears rolling!

Early B.

F1nut wrote: »

You're forgetting one thing, tone! A different piano will produce a different tone. It's all about subjectivity.

Put ten pianos in a room and play middle C on each of them. It's still the same note, isn't it? There's nothing subjective about it.

shack

Early B wrote:

Put ten pianos in a room and play middle C on each of them. It's still the same note, isn't it?

No. Some may be exacty on pitch...some may be slightly off pitch sharp...some slightlly off pitch flat.

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

Put ten pianos in a room and play middle C on each of them. It's still the same note, isn't it? There's nothing subjective about it.

You are dead wrong here Bro. Ten pianos playing middle C will have ten different pitches and tones. Unless the same piano tunner did the work and even then they will have a different sound.

EDIT: and they were made at the same time in the same lot with the same wood etc etc etc.

SolidSqual

Not to mention each pianist hits the keys differently given their training, technique and level of skill.

Early B.

shack wrote: »

No. Some may be exacty on pitch...some may be slightly off pitch sharp...some slightlly off pitch flat.

Alright, assume they're all tuned properly by the same short, bald Italian guy from Jersey. Geez.

Fact is -- sound is measureable. Period. So the question is -- how can we take advantage of the objectivity inherent in music to make more informed decisions about gear purchases?

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

Alright, assume they're all tuned properly by the same short, bald Italian guy from Jersey. Geez.

I got a kick outta that one!!! LOL!:D:D:D

SolidSqual

How can you presrve the objectivity in music as you say when much of the greatest gear is tuned by the subjective ear of the designer?

Early B.

By the way, the type of wood of the piano, tuning, keystroke, skill level, etc., is irrelevant in establishing a baseline for comparing one piece of audio gear to another.

All I'm saying is -- we should use a standard of source material for evaluating gear.

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

By the way, the type of wood of the piano, tuning, keystroke, skill level, etc., is irrelevant in establishing a baseline for comparing one piece of audio gear to another.

All I'm saying is -- we should use a standard of source material for evaluating gear.

Now there you have something. I use a number of LPs as reference.

SolidSqual

Ok you win. Please name a CD and I will use it for every audition I ever have when demoing gear. But, let's make sure every one in the forum also approves of the source material. That way we can achieve uniformity.

SolidSqual

No Diana Krall. I love her, but she sounds good on everything.

F1nut

This is a pointless thread.

hearingimpared

No it isn't Diana Krall is friggin hot!!!

Early B.

F1nut wrote: »

This is a pointless thread.

Of course it is. Most are. So what is the point of pointing out the pointlessness of pointless threads?:p

mrbigbluelight

What's your point ?

SolidSqual

Finally something we can all agree on.

PolkThug

Make a recording of the C note. Compare the source data to the output of your speakers and you will see in black and white 'truth vs. beauty' (or ugliness).