What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Snowmonkey said:

 

Aren't you begging the question here? 

On what basis are you making the assumption that the differences between an emotionally charged and a bland rendition are objectively measurable?

 

I'm assuming recordings of the two are not bit-identical.  If they are not, then you can measure a difference.  Interpreting those differences as anything meaningful, let alone attributing emotive qualities to them, would be impossible (or extremely difficult).  So all that I am asking is that we stick to some fairly simple phenomena, which, by necessity, leaves out psycho-acoustics, the influence of the Trilateral Commission in 1977, and other complications.

 

Let me try to state the question as simply as possible:

 

Is there something akin to frequency differences, for example, that cannot be measured, but can be detected reproducibly via a double-blind test?

[Blake]

Good topic.  Here is a cut and paste from 2014 here on CA that is relevant:

 

"Blake: On a related note, some people might wonder if we can objectively measure soundstage height, depth and width.

Here is a response I received from CA member tonmeister86. Tonmeister86 is Sean Olive | Director Acoustic Research | Harman International | Audio Musings by Sean Olive.....

 

 

Sean:

 

Apologies for the off-topic detour, but in your opinion or experience:

 

With currently available measurement equipment, is it possible to measure all aspects of sound? For example, is it possible to measure soundstage width, height and depth? How about imaging or instrumental layering/separation?

 

I would be very interested to know your views on this topic.

 

Cheers,

 

Blake

 

Response from Sean Olive: "Current measurements are able to capture the linear and nonlinear distortions in audio equipment which can be used to predict perceptual dimensions related to timbre (e.g. bright/dull, clarity, coloration,etc). Current measurements of nonlinear distortion such as THD are not reliable indicators of audibility as the added harmonics are often masked by the signal.

 

Spatial dimensions are generally harder to characterize with measurements as the recordings themselves, speaker directivity and listening room all interact in ways that affect the dimensions you suggest. That said, binaural measurements at the listening seat using some signal processing can reveal the general location of the image (azimuth) and the width and envelopment of the imagery which is related to the IACC. Look at some of PhD work of Wolfgang Hess for example."

 

Time-variant Binaural Activity Characteristics as Indicator of Auditory ... - Wolfgang Hess - Google Books."

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

11 hours ago, watercourse said:

 

So it sounds like there is some agreement that "image density" and "image specificity" are non-controversial.

 

@fas42I also agree that image density and image specificity are qualities of competent playback, and also increase listening enjoyment and suspension of disbelief depending on the recording. Some of this of course is fundamental speaker set up, controlling ground loops, and the influence (or control of influence) of the room (yes, I'm a big fan of Jim Smith's Get Better Sound).

 

I've heard some small monitors exhibit image specificity, so I agree that it is not necessary to have full range frequency reproduction to image well. Perhaps it is only due to lack of experience that I have not heard bass-shy or tipped-up speakers exhibit image density, but I haven't heard it (or at least I can't recall that I have). If it is the case that limited range speakers can and do exhibit image density, what would you say about this quality then that you can measure?

 

I will disagree with the second paragraph, for instance, some of my favorite punk, early jazz, and ethnic recordings will never have "rich" or "3-D sound", yet I love them just the same, and don't need to hear them on the best systems to enjoy them fully.

No so fast.  I have no idea what "image density" and "image specificity" actually mean.  I dare say you will not find those terms in any formal text on audio, nor even in the informal glossaries put together from time to time by audio pundits.  I think there is no wide agreement on what they mean, therefore they are controversial.  

[Snowmonkey]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I'm assuming recordings of the two are not bit-identical.  If they are not, then you can measure a difference.

 If you can always measure a difference between two non-bit-identical recordings, your question could be paraphrased as "Are there ever audible differences between two bit-identical recordings?

That question has a familiar ring to it.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

 If you can always measure a difference between two non-bit-identical recordings, your question could be paraphrased as "Are there ever audible differences between two bit-identical recordings?

That question has a familiar ring to it.

 

We haven't had one of these "discussions" in a while.

[Snowmonkey]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

We haven't had one of these "discussions" in a while.

 

Not since Sandyk flew off the radar (I hope he's OK).

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Snowmonkey said:

 

Not since Sandyk flew off the radar (I hope he's OK).

 

So do I.

 

I've heard that he's either in poor health and/or moved to a small town without Internet access.

[Snowmonkey]

Actually, I'm not sure I agree you can always measure a difference between the output of two non-bit-identical recordings. There's plenty of redundant data in all uncompressed music files.

[The Computer Audiophile]

31 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Is there something akin to frequency differences, for example, that cannot be measured, but can be detected reproducibly via a double-blind test?

 

This is what I assumed the discussion was about to start with. It's a great topic.

[Snowmonkey]

Much as I hate to labour the point, if you assume that any two recordings that sound different (eg emotionally charged vs bland) must have a measurable difference, it is meaningless to seek an example of two recordings that sound different but which have no measurable difference.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

Actually, I'm not sure I agree you can always measure a difference between the output of two non-bit-identical recordings. There's plenty of redundant data in all uncompressed music files.

Differences below the noise floor of the reproduction equipment can't be measured since they are not reproduced. For the same reason, they can't be heard either.

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Snowmonkey said:

 

Aren't you begging the question here? 

On what basis are you making the assumption that the differences between an emotionally charged and a bland rendition are objectively measurable?

 

Been there, done that. There are measurements of pain: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x/pdf there are similar measurements of anxiety. There are studies of how music effects these and other indices. Many.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

Much as I hate to labour the point, if you assume that any two recordings that sound different (eg emotionally charged vs bland) must have a measurable difference, it is meaningless to seek an example of two recordings that sound different but which have no measurable difference.

Not sure I follow your logic or if it clarifies anything.  

 

I do not think emotional responses which may be induced by the music are at all useful in this discussion about sound. Sound is a building block of music, yes.  Music may evoke emotional responses, but sound is not directly linked to emotion.  And, emotional responses to music differ from person to person, or even from one hearing to the next in the same person.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

  Interpreting those differences as anything meaningful, let alone attributing emotive qualities to them, would be impossible (or extremely difficult).  

 

I appreciate your goal of simplifying the discussion, for the purposes of this discussion. I would say, however, that the above is not impossible, nor necessarily extremely difficult in certain cases, but the discussion of how to do this would involve music theory. At a very simple level, and one which has been done, is to compare the effects of live vs recorded music on anxiety (for example). One can then compare different types of music, e.g. tonal vs atonal. One can correlate degrees of syncopation etc. etc. etc. Indeed given unlimited time and resources, the ways to study the relationship between music and emotion is also unlimited and resourceful

 

[wgscott]

Let me try an analogy:

 

In my field, macromolecular X-ray crystallography, diffracted X-rays are used to visualize where each atom is located.  The X-rays themselves bounce off electrons, but that is ok, because most electrons in a molecule are tightly associated with individual atomic nuclei.  The one exception to this is hydrogen, because it has no core electrons, but only the two bonding electrons.  So you never actually see the hydrogen atomic positions.  We know the hydrogens are there (other techniques can show them, so the analogy isn't perfect), but using X-ray scattering, you cannot measure them directly.

[watercourse]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

No so fast.  I have no idea what "image density" and "image specificity" actually mean.  I dare say you will not find those terms in any formal text on audio, nor even in the informal glossaries put together from time to time by audio pundits.  I think there is no wide agreement on what they mean, therefore they are controversial.  

 

OK, maybe this is an issue of language or terminology. I've defined those terms as best I can in an earlier post, but it is likely imperfect and others have chimed in with additional thoughts.

 

In the Volk, et al. study, "spatial precision" and "spatial quality" are descriptors that are used, which may correlate with "image specificity" and "image density", respectively. Would you say these are not the same concepts, and if so, why not?

 

Also, at what threshold would you consider there to be "wide agreement"? Or maybe this is best left to the OP to decide?

[watercourse]

duplicate post

[monteverdi]

Lets assume you compare 3 recordings of the same piece of music, 2 of them elicit the same positive emotional response but one is perceived negatively. All three obviously differ in their digital content which can be easily measured (and the emotional response could be also measured) but I see no way to correlate these measurements.

[Snowmonkey]

I didn't even realise hydrogen had two bonding electrons 

[The Computer Audiophile]

33 minutes ago, wgscott said:

macromolecular X-ray crystallography

 

Ah, my old job :~)

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

I didn't even realise hydrogen had two bonding electrons 

A hydrogen molecule has two, one from each atom.

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

I didn't even realise hydrogen had two bonding electrons 

 

Audiophile hydrogen has three.

[jabbr]

52 minutes ago, wgscott said:

In my field, macromolecular X-ray crystallography, diffracted X-rays are used to visualize where each atom is located.

So how do you measure your x-ray's jitter?

 

... and if you supply both your beam generator and lab boom box with the same Shunyata power supply does it improve both the soundstage and resolution or just the soundstage?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Snowmonkey said:

Much as I hate to labour the point, if you assume that any two recordings that sound different (eg emotionally charged vs bland) must have a measurable difference, it is meaningless to seek an example of two recordings that sound different but which have no measurable difference.

Yes, I think that is somewhat the point. 

 

For two things to pass reality checks of sounding different the signal has to actually be different.  So are there two versions that our current tech cannot measure as different, yet our ears in reality hear as different. 

 

 

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Audiophile hydrogen has three.

Which means they are more dense which means they jitter around less. Ergo: audiophile hydrogen is better hydrogen.