|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16327 Registered: May-04 | . http://nutshellhifi.com/library/illusion-engines.html |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2435 Registered: Oct-07 | I've read the aritlcle but won't have any kind of comment until I've read it at least 2x more. In parallel, I'm looking at the transcript of the Nova show on hearing. The interaction between listener and system and music is amazingly complex. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16335 Registered: May-04 | . To the best of my knowledge, the presiding opinion amongst cognitive psychologists is that no two people will perceive the same event in exactly the same fashion. This, of course, presupposes "perception" occurs after the pressure wave that is sound excites the eardrum. What transpires from the eardrum to the brain is perception, not hearing", and it is perception which matters. That would certainly make a bit of a problem for those people who insists on ABX double blind testing of audio components. NAH! they just keep on insisting despite relevant facts presented to them. Considering the typical US concert hall may seat upwards of 2,000 listeners, that's a rather astounding concept. Extend that to the nearly seven billion people on Earth and you get the idea there must be someone out there who really does like a Klipsch Heresy. . |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1580 Registered: Oct-10 | I have to dissagree with the writer's wording in his statement, "Re-framed in this context, 'accuracy' simply doesn't apply." Not that I dissagree with his statement, it's the wording I take issue with. I think it would be better to re-name accuracy, "perceived accuracy". My point being, that many experiences including, listening to music, dreams, watching movies, etc, SEEM very real to the person having the experience. In other words, a person listening to to music at home may perceive it as very real or accurate. This would be especially true if the person went to concert that was recorded, then bought the cd. If sound of the recording and said person's audio system gives that listener the illusion of reliving the concert, then this individual would perceive it as accurate. This is just my take on it. |
|
Gold Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 1346 Registered: Jul-07 | I think that's why 'accuracy' is in quotes James. Interesting article, although a little dark. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16337 Registered: May-04 | . The article is not about "accuracy", in fact, just the opposite is true. "And it isn't just DIY where you can find good things to listen to. Yes, there are wonderful products made by manufacturers you never heard of before - and if you read the slick magazines with glossy four-color illustrations, you never will ... Accuracy? Forgetaboutit! How does "High Fidelity" sound instead? It was good enough for Major Armstrong (inventor of FM), Alan Blumlein (inventor of stereo), D.E.L. Shorter and Norman Crowhurst. Maybe it's time to reclaim it and call it our own." "Accuracy" in a consumer audio system is a BS myth perpetrated by those people who hate music but love equipment. It is what you'll hear from an ignorant salesperson - or even a dishonest salesperson should one find you - when you describe the type of music you prefer to hear; say, something similar to what you have heard in a live performance. The salesperson with the "accurate" system will imply that's not what you should desire, you stupid fool you. You should want their "accurate" system which happens to sound very much like three day old, pounded dog p00p. The last time I was fed that line was when I tried to find some actual music being allowed through a system comprised of Audio Research CD, pre and power amps, connected with fire hose sized cables and driving Wilson Watt/Puppies series whatever the he11 Dave Wilson is up to now. That I was only allowed to sit about six feet away from the front baffles of the speakers and two feet from the rear (untreated) wall did not improve the situation and the music was dishonestly, and fatally strangled and dismembered until all resemblance to life itself was no longer evident in any part of what was strewn in front of me. The shop, I was informed, didn't care for the "music" I had heard played last night at the blues bar. They wanted nothing of the artist's performance I had applauded and, at the end, called for more of the same. Instead, they preferred "accuracy" as portrayed through demo recordings which sounded very much like Ivory soap (99 and 99/100ths percent pure - but not interesting). To allow yourself to be beaten into submission by such claims of "accuracy" by salesperson, so called friend or reviewer is to stick your privates in a meat grinder and just stand there. Look up the word "fidelity" and find those things which mean truth and honesty, not accuracy. There is no such thing as an "accurate" consumer audio system unless you are listening inside an anechoic chamber. And, even at that point, what you might hear covers only a tiny percentage of what music is all about. I've heard "accurate" on numerous occasions and I'll take a system with "fidelity" to the intent of the artist and a "transparency" to the source material any day. "Accuracy" is often used by the pure objectivists in this hobby who preach that numbers will tell you everything and everything with numbers which are alike will sound alike. "Alike to what?", I ask. Certainly not to live music. These people are very good at hitting you over the head with the admonition their own system is "accurate" while your's - for some reason - is not though they've never actually heard music played through your system, they just know what they know and you are only allowed to know a small portion of what they are willing to beat you about the head with. Run away from those people - as fast and as far as you can - as they are full of BS and can only spread their own ignorance to you like an unfaithful lover spreads herpes. No, the article is not about "accuracy" at all. . |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1581 Registered: Oct-10 | No, the article is not ABOUT accuracy, but it was touched upon. My understanding and use of the word accuracy means "life like" or "realistic". I don't know what anyone else ever meant by it, but that was my understanding. I couldn't tell where or when I first heard accuracy applied to audio, but I can assure you it wasn't from a salesperson. So, I guess instead of calling the sound quality I like accurate, "life like" or "realistic" would be better candidates, or is there a better term? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2437 Registered: Oct-07 | look at the link'd article from Nova. They (researchers) are studying perception using advanced techniques...including MRI. Just like some (all males) are color blind, at least to some colors / tones, some are various degrees of hearing impaired, if that's the right wording. Tone? Rhythem? One of those online tests I linked some time ago, where they play you a 10 note or so melody, than repeat with or without a difference was brought into the mix. As for 'no two people perceiving the same performance in exactly the same fashion'. This has the ring of true. However, under MRI scan, both may or may NOT have the same portions of the brain engaged. Resonance studies of such sites as Stonehenge suggest the human being may be engaged by Shumann frequencies on a very subliminal level, again changing perception. 'Hearing' may not have been the best word choice. 'Perception' may not be enough, either, since it is an extremely interactive process. I still need to read the article again....at least 2X while trying to read the Nova transcript and see if/how they connect. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16338 Registered: May-04 | . "Just like some (all males) are color blind, at least to some colors / tones, some are various degrees of hearing impaired, if that's the right wording. Tone? Rhythem?" "About 8 percent of males, but only 0.5 percent of females, are color blind in some way or another, whether it is one color, a color combination, or another mutation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness While impairments are typically lumped together, there is no way to train your eye to not be color blind if you lack the genetic markers which would determine your color perception. While you can learn to perceive, say, "soundstage" or even perfect pitch, color blindness is a deficiency in cones inside the eye itself and cannot be taught or learned as a corrective measure. For the most part, anyone can learn to have some degree of "rhythm" though some people will never be able to perceive an artist playing on the upbeat vs the downbeat. This is not, however, a genetic defect as is color blindness and with some degree of training anyone should be able to hear and perceive what makes a significant difference between Perry Como and Mingus. "However, under MRI scan, both may or may NOT have the same portions of the brain engaged." That is somewhat like saying you may be standing waist deep in the water or you may be standing ankle deep in the water. Music is mathematics - 3rds, 7ths, modes and progressions, etc. - while performance is talent and listening is a function of which sections of your brain are responding to the math of the sound or to the talent on display or both. In the Western world of twelve note music we all respond to the math in essentially the same manner. When we hear a diminished 7th chord, we preceive a tension in the structure of the chord progression which seeks a resolution. When we hear a flatted third, we perceive a minor chord feeling of sadness or, at the least, a shift away from the "happy" sound of a Major chord. And so on with all of music's emotive qualities. We respond to what we care to respond to at that moment. If we prefer to listen to Edith Piaf for her sorrowful sadness, then we select Piaf to suit our mood - Guns and Roses wouldn't do. If we wish to hear Johnny Cash sing of "God, guns and murder", we go for Cash. Different sections of the brain will "light up" according to how receptive we are to what is being played. This isn't necessarily about "perception" as much as it is about a chemical reaction within the brain. "Resonance studies of such sites as Stonehenge suggest the human being may be engaged by Shumann frequencies on a very subliminal level, again changing perception." Schumann resonators are sold for many different reasons. The efficacy of the Schumann resonance was discovered as man went into space and returned - at first - rather disoriented. They had left the zone where the Schumann resonance was effective. From that point forward, resonators were included in all space flights. I use a Schumann resonator in my listening room. The effect is subtle - not "jaw dropping" - but obviously can be used to manipluate the experience of perceiving musical intent. The entrainment frequencies of the brain are shifted to a state where "relaxed awareness" is at its height. As May Belt states the issue, the sound we preceive with the Schumann Resonator in the room is sound that is already in the room. Until the resonator has shifted our openess to music, we are simply incapable of perceiving the music in a way similar to what is perceived with the resonator in place. "'Perception' may not be enough, either, since it is an extremely interactive process." "Perception" is where we are at for now. You can substitute terms and say things such as "awareness" but that lacks some of the meaning behind perception. Perception is far preferrable to "hearing". . |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1583 Registered: Oct-10 | I guess to clarify my question, what would be the best word(s) to describe high fidelity to someone who is new to audio or doesn't really understand what hi fi is? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2438 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, Please have a look at the NOVA program I linked. And yes, different people DO have different defects in hearing/perception. And not just frequency response. One lady was given dance lessons by her parents for like.....5 years....and never got out of the beginners class. When played tunes on the computer, like those I linked some time ago, she could NOT tell if the 2 tunes were same or different. That's exactlly where I was heading with the Schumann resonance. Research and computer modeling of Stonehenge, for example, shows several accoustic effects which may be related. But, anyway, I urge you to look at the Nova program. These guys are right at the front edge of research. It may 'close a loop' for you, like your article may do for me. |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1584 Registered: Oct-10 | Chris, I agree that the article is interesting if a little dark or a even somewhat cynical. However, I can see where a better term than "accuracy" should be used. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16339 Registered: May-04 | . I don't find a link to any Nova programming, leo. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2439 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/search/results/?q=musical+minds&x=0&y=0 Here is result for search of Nova site for 'Musical Minds'. I now have a couple more articles to read / view. I hope this is useful info and may help some other stuff begin to make better sense....... |
|
Gold Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 1347 Registered: Jul-07 | I don't think the musical experience is different in some regards to any other experience a human may have. We each delete, distort, and generalize what we see/hear/feel. What we perceive is different, because of our priorities, what we focus on, and how we choose to experience it. I would further say that if a person was to go to identical performances on different days, their experience would be different. Our hearing ability is not consistent day-to-day, hour-to-hour. Our moods/emotions and readiness to fully engage in music changes. How many times have you listened to the same recording on the same gear and one time you were completely consumed in the music, and another time you were noticing some imperfection in the presentation. I've completely stopped adjusting anything in my listening room based on a single listening session. I have to hear/experience the same thing for an extended period to decide whether it's real, or only perceived on that day. I do a lot less chasing my tail than I used to because of that. |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1586 Registered: Oct-10 | Your last post here makes a lot of sense Chris. I have noticed that when listening to a given recording, I am often aware of different things. I often pick a particular musician to pay attention to. Last time I listenned to "A Love Supreme", I paid more attention to what Elvin Jones was doing with the symbols than anything else. I was aware of things that I'd never noticed before. I guess it's fair to say that words can never fully express our perceptions of our experiences. Ever hear a recording you couldn't stand on first listen but for some reason you keep it? Then, some time later, you listen again and like it? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16346 Registered: May-04 | . OK, leo, there are three episodes dealing with the mind and music. One of which is not availble for streaming. Do you know which episode you are referring to? These are somewhat old Nova's, I remember watching them when they first came out. They were, to my recollection, very interesting but, like all Nova's, you could find yourself wondering how they got from where they started to where they were at the moment. "That's exactlly where I was heading with the Schumann resonance. Research and computer modeling of Stonehenge, for example, shows several accoustic effects which may be related." Where are you headed with this, leo. Does any of this have to do with the article I linked to or just something you found interesting and wanted to discuss? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16347 Registered: May-04 | . "I don't think the musical experience is different in some regards to any other experience a human may have. We each delete, distort, and generalize what we see/hear/feel. What we perceive is different, because of our priorities, what we focus on, and how we choose to experience it." For the most part, I would have to disagree with that sentiment, Chris. Play a major chord on your guitar and then play a minor chord and a dominant seventh chord. They should all have a distinct feeling to them which begins to suggest certain feelings or emotions would fit with those type of chords. If you know what a I-IV-V progression is, play it. Then alter it to a I7-IV7-V7 progression. Or a IV7-V7-VIm progression. The change in how you think about the music which would fit those first two progressions is very different. In the last example, the progression shouldn't even sound that great because there is no resolution to the tension established by the two preceding chords. Country and Pop-like for the first and bluesy or rock'n roll-ish for the second, just all wrong for the last. That these things work for most everyone who is familiar with Western music makes the experience of music not so different for each individual. We have a commonality that links us together when we listen to music on even a background wallpaper level. Maybe that's why you don't hear a lot of John Lee Hooker in elevators. That each of us has our own concept of what we have experienced is not in question. Any police officer or lawyer knows an eye witness account is the most unreliable version of what actually occurred. Even trained professionals - police officers or military - can have drastically different accounts of what happened and what the perpetrators looked like and acted like. "I would further say that if a person was to go to identical performances on different days, their experience would be different. Our hearing ability is not consistent day-to-day, hour-to-hour. Our moods/emotions and readiness to fully engage in music changes." No argument there, listening to reproduced music the system will respond to changes in temperature and humidity along with the cleanliness of the incoming AC line. If your mind is cluttered, then listening becomes far more of a task rather than an enjoyment. There is a good reason to include a bit of a ritual to your pre-listening experience which will begin to reset your mental faculties for the experience of listening to music. Some people use candles and by the time they've lit five or six or poured a drink and made themself comfortable they are more prepared to set their mind to listening rather than taking on the day's events. For some people it's doing a bit of arranging of furniture or cushions or whatever. When the dispute over CD's vs LP's first came up, many CD biased listeners claimed it was the ritual of preparing an LP for play that made the difference in someone's mind. They pointed to the more physical contact and the time required to prepare a LP vs just plopping a CD into the tray. Often I'll take a few minutes to stop and consider how I would approach a live performance as I'm selecting which disc to play with an idea I already want to listen to this or that but not something else. I take some time to reset my mind to the excitement of listening to a favoite artist live and recalling, say, the anticipation of buying tickets and finding a good seat then settling in for a night's entertainment. You need to try a few different rituals and "talismans" such as this to get yourself prepared for really listening to music and not to the system. After a while, when you've discovered what works for you, it will take shorter and shorter amounts of time to get yourself prepared for music and the music will be more of what matters than will the system. Take into account the idea I presented from May Belt; the music you have the ability to preceive when your mind has been reset to music already exists within the room. It only requires that change in mindset, say, switching on a different set of ears, to make what is already there preceptible to you. Listening to a live performance the variables are more likely to be a reflection of how the player(s) feel(s) and how they are focussed on the event. I'm no great shakes at playing guitar but somedays I sit down to play and after a few bars of muffed chords I say to myself, "Well, you just can't play jacksh*t today, can you?" And that's just me, myself and I thinking that. Project that to a group and you can experience very different events from one night to the next. Having been in performance situations, an incredible amount of "the performance" comes from the feedback the performers are getting from the audience. I'm sure you've attended concerts that just went way above your expectations and then others that just sort of sank like a stone. On top nights, there is an electric link that is almost palpable between what is occurring on stage and the intentiveness of the audience as a whole entity. A performer can carry an entire group to a specific level of tension and then resolve all the tension at once or that same performer can fall flat with the exact same effort. On the next night, the performers go out on stage psyched to have that same experience again and the same performance can fall as flat as possible and the entire show will take extra minutes to get through. If you've not got that from the performer's side of the stage, it really is a unique experience. But, as with the example of Edith Piaf, if you're not in a receptive mindset for what you are being asked to experience, it just isn't going to work for you. What is absolutely amazing to most performers is that the audience becomes one "thing" and they are easily taken in one direction or the other. Sometimes it's due to a very effusive audience member who gets everyone going with them and sometimes it just happens. Then on other nights, it's like trying to wake the dead. But the audience responds as one, not as a group of individuals, and that one audience "thing" has emotions they control. . |
|
Gold Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 1348 Registered: Jul-07 | "That each of us has our own concept of what we have experienced is not in question. Any police officer or lawyer knows an eye witness account is the most unreliable version of what actually occurred. Even trained professionals - police officers or military - can have drastically different accounts of what happened and what the perpetrators looked like and acted like. " That's what I was getting at with my first point. Even as a performer, you are likely aware of different things with your playing, the audience, the smells, the clothes you're wearing....on different nights. On some nights, you are totally zoned with your playing....others, you're playing more off of the audience, etc. As a member of the audience, you may be enthralled with the driving beat, that seems to get right inside you and tune your whole body to the tempo, and then take you along for a ride. The guy next to you might be completely engaged in the bass player. Ask both people what they thought of the band, and you get two quite different responses. |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1588 Registered: Oct-10 | Chris, I think what you're getting at is individual perception. Any 2 people who enjoyed the show will have a different take on it. At the same time, there is a group response. Either the audience as a whole is into it or they're not, but each individual has his/her own perception of why it was good or not. |