There's Too Much Subjectivity in Audio

lightman1

I like pie.... good night.

TroyD

Remove the subjectivity from audio? Good luck and lemme know how that works out for you.

Live sound? There are DAMN few people out there that listen to enough unamplified live music in a decent venue.

Digital as the standard? Are you serious? Studio monitors? PFFFFFFFT. whatever.

Look, if you dig the sound coming from your rig.....that should be good enough, right?

Look gang, enjoy it for what it IS.....rather than pine away for what it is NOT. Otherwise, you are probably in the wrong hobby and will spend your life in pursuit of an ideal that doesn't even exist. As an ancilliary benefit, you'll wind up crazy and/or broke.

BDT

Yashu

Indeed, my friend, indeed. Our ears are what we are feeding this aural narcotic to daily, and it doesn't matter what the DOC is, in the end it is all about the high.

reeltrouble1

or finding a square wave stuck in the ****, putz-o-meter needle is flush right.

RT1

Face

Want live sound? Use this.

SolidSqual

I thought Marshall was the standard?

reeltrouble1

The masters cannot even agree on what frequency the notes should be based line tuned at......there are several different tuning frequencies, I think its a good thing.

RT1

sucks2beme

You could create a standardized set of reference sounds, and then play
back at a calibrated level and distance from the speakers in a anechoic
chamber with test gear to map the sound.
And it wouldn't mean anything in the real world. Rooms affect sound.
And there are speakers that do a great job with single notes or
instruments, yet fall far short when asked to play back complex
passages of music.
This is why we all have our own "reference" music when we go out
to listen to gear. It's a noble goal that falls short due to the complexities
involved. As any engineer will tell you, design can only take you so far,
then you gotta go give it a wirl to see what happens.
The only real recording style that works to sound real is binaural recording,
and playback with good headphones. And this is so rare as to be useless.

markmarc

This has been a fascinating read with many many valid points.

The baseline, some would argue is already there, in scientific measurements. That is a standard, but as we all know, measurements don't tell the whole story, not even close. But it is a base point.

But there are three huge problems: One, everyone's hearing is different, period. Two, room acoustics, every listener's room is unique. Three, different audio equipment matched in a system. Those are the intial variables. Then, come the secondary issues such as speaker placement, altitude, humidty, and the endless cabling debate. I know some of you are thinking humidty? altitude? Absolutely, heavier air from elevation or increased moisture levels can cause a slight sonic change.

So, in the end, it comes back to the simple point that we all pursue what we perceive as the best sonic reproduction for the money spent.

SolidSqual

lightman1 wrote: »

I like pie.... good night.

I'm with this guy

sucks2beme

Did somebody say PIE?

SolidSqual

I would support standardizing all women to look, dress and cook like her. Do we have a consensus?

Face

SolidSqual wrote: »

I would support standardizing all women to look, dress and cook like her. Do we have a consensus?

Have you seen her lately?

SolidSqual

If you're trying to ruin my fantasy, please don't. Did she get fat off all the cream pies she's been eating?

Face

SolidSqual

Know any hot nurses? This fantasy is done.

treitz3

Hey, she still knows how to work it. Close your eyes and all will be well. If not, a bag works wonders.

sucks2beme

Ok. you ruined that effect. Back to audio now.

hypertone

Once you hear her talk you can no longer be aroused. At least I can't. She needs a mute button.

SolidSqual

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58590&highlight=solidsqual&page=2

Check out the video at the bottom of this thread

I respectfully disagree . . . volume up

bikezappa

I think any accurate recording of an accoustic event can be your standard weather it be a recording of a train, pink pong game, women singing, hand clamping or a piano playing "C".

The key is that it be an accoustic event, not an electric guitar.

The goal is to have a sound system that reproduces the train, pink pong game or piano the most accurately.

Who cares if everyone hears different or about messurements. If you modify your system and the train sounds more realistic to you then you are improving the system.

Using electronic music as a standard doesn't work very well because it can be modified too many ways for an accurate comparison.

shack

bikezappa wrote:

The goal is to have a sound system that reproduces the train, pink pong game or piano the most accurately.

Who cares if everyone hears different or about messurements. If you modify your system and the train sounds more realistic to you then you are improving the system.

But that was early's point. He wants a standard that everyone can agree on. Since it is obvious that the 27 people posting on this thread can't come to any sort of concensus...how can a global standard be set? I submit that it can't.

SolidSqual

My Desert Eagle may be able to change your mind. Consensus can be reached, but it usually begins and the end of a gun! Just say the word Early B. . .

Early B.

bikezappa wrote: »

I think any accurate recording of an accoustic event can be your standard weather it be a recording of a train, pink pong game, women singing, hand clamping or a piano playing "C".

The key is that it be an accoustic event, not an electric guitar.

The goal is to have a sound system that reproduces the train, pink pong game or piano the most accurately.

Who cares if everyone hears different or about messurements. If you modify your system and the train sounds more realistic to you then you are improving the system.

Using electronic music as a standard doesn't work very well because it can be modified too many ways for an accurate comparison.

BINGO!!

Finally, someone who gets it.

Next time, chime in on page one.:p

Early B.

shack wrote: »

Since it is obvious that the 27 people posting on this thread can't come to any sort of concensus...how can a global standard be set? I submit that it can't.

That's irrelevant. It's not necessary for folks to agree on the standard being used.

Here's what we do in our homes. We buy a new pair of speakers, play our "reference music," then compare the sound of the new speakers to the old ones. Nothing else has changed -- same room, same pre, same amp, same ears, etc. That's cool.

I'd like to take it a step further and have manufacturers voluntarily ship their products to a special testing facility to get analyzed by a standard process, not much different than the way you do at home. The major difference is -- the testing facility generates objective measures for each piece of gear. Let's take speakers, for instance. It would be nice to know how two different speakers compare objectively in the same room and under the same conditions. The objective measures are based on how well the speaker accurately reproduced notes relative to a standard baseline. So as long as every piece of equipment is compared to the same standard baseline, not everyone needs to agree on precisely what the standard is, as long as there's a standard.

rskarvan

Early B.

Your testing theory assumes that an accurate speaker sounds better than one with coloration. Example: some people prefer exaggerated amounts of bass in the frequency response.

MGPK

How can you take subjectivity out of audio? The goal of this hobby/obsession is to recreate the musical experience as close to the natural as possible. Because we are unique, these experiences will be the same to the individual. Once you take away subjection, you take away our uniqueness and make the experience homogenous.

If you took a look at what you are attempting, think about this...How can a set of speakers recreate a drum kit, bass guitar, lead guitar and vocals sound accurately? It's impossible because of physical size constraints, if your speakers could accurately match the dynamics of a live experience/instrument then I would have to say that you have come closer to audio nirvana than any other afficianondo.

cfrizz

:rolleyes: This is the only thing you've said that makes any damn sense! Now shut up & go listen to some music!:p;):D:D:D:D:D

You guys get more hysterically funny as the night wears on!:D WAAAAAAAA:D

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!

Early B.

rskarvan wrote: »

Early B.

Your testing theory assumes that an accurate speaker sounds better than one with coloration.

No. No.

The purpose is not to determine which speaker is better (that's subjective), only how do two speakers differ from one another in measurable ways.

Early B.

Hey cfrizz --

I'm just trying to get a clue so I can be more like you -- too disciplined to give a damn.;)