Is the difference in sound quality all in our head? [message #89509] |
Mon, 07 January 2019 11:58 |
|
TheWanderer
Messages: 58 Registered: December 2018
|
Baron |
|
|
I just read an interesting article about the psychological impact of audio quality. Here's an excerpt from the article that sums up what his argument is:
"No one has ever produced a scientif-
ically controlled listening test showing
that well-designed amplifiers (flat re-
sponse, no clipping), preamplifiers, in-
tegrated circuits, and speaker wires
(16-gauge and bigger) have the slight-
est effect on the sound being pro-
duced. Special capacitors, absolute po-
larity, dots, clamps, green pens, bricks,
and assorted other things also won't
change the sound from a stereo or
home-theater system, although people
can be made to think so. Why? Listen-
er bias can make people hear unverifi-
able "differences" in sound. "
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is the difference in sound quality all in our head? [message #89820 is a reply to message #89818] |
Wed, 13 February 2019 10:29 |
Rusty
Messages: 1185 Registered: May 2018 Location: Kansas City Missouri
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
I found this article from the Kabusa website about the myth of, "measurement does not reveal fidelity". A great explanation for the validity of the right measurement for what is perceived. Many audio mavens scoff at measurement and proper blind subjective listening studies. Especially all those high end cable magicians.
Quote:Myth Statement
Measurements do not reveal fidelity
Many audiophiles like to embrace the myth that measurements cannot tell you what something will sound like. They like to reflect on the Total Harmonic Distortion competition that amplifiers follied with in the 1970's. True, in the early 70's THD was the only "quality" specification used, but it soon proved to be insufficient. If you look at the complete history, you would find that in the mid 70's a new quality measurement was introduced. This was Intermodulation Distortion. Striding for low THD's engineers chained together many gain stages in series and closed a global feedback loop around them. Intermodulation occurs when the distortion cancelling feedback signal arrives too late to make a complete cancellation. With the introduction of IM testing, the THD wars ended abruptly. And those horrible sounding amplifiers, started to sound nice again. We can all thank Crown corporation for that. You can google it: Crown IMA Intermodulation distortion meter.
History teaches us a couple of things. First it shows that no 2 people hear the same thing the same way. There were many who thought those 0.00001% THD amps sounded fine. But there were others that were certain something was wrong with them. For those that had doubts, some stayed with older designs while others pushed on and found a technical reason and a solution to their dissatisfaction. That is how progress works.
The moral of the story is, when you make the right measurements, you get the right answer. And when your ears tell you that something is wrong, hard work will generally find a measurement to match it. There is never any justification to not measure. None. If Crown never did the hard work, we would still believe that the only way to get good sound was with zero global feedback. And while there are those that still believe that, Crown proved that there was another way.
|
|
|
Re: Is the difference in sound quality all in our head? [message #89821 is a reply to message #89820] |
Wed, 13 February 2019 11:10 |
|
Wayne Parham
Messages: 18783 Registered: January 2001
|
Illuminati (33rd Degree) |
|
|
That's all very true, Rusty. Glad you posted it.
The audibility of distortions and anomalies could be and should be viewed as a weighted set, with the most audible things factoring in more than the least audible things.
It's relatively easy to measure THD+noise, which is why it has been used as a quality test for so long. But if a system generated 10% second-harmonics and no noise or any other anomalies, the system would sound much better than a system that had 2% noise or high/odd harmonics. And like you said, intermodulation distortion is more audible than low harmonics too, especially even ones.
This is a set of anomalies in order of audibility:
1. High-level noise (completely unrelated to content)
2. Flutter, dropouts, etc. (usually caused by malfunction)
3. Dissonant signals (similar to noise, but may be related to content, just not by harmonics)
4. Large peaks in amplitude response
5. Intermodulation distortion (intermodulation creates dissonant signals)
6. High-harmonics distortion
7. Odd-harmonics (the higher, the worse it is)
8. Large holes in amplitude response (like missing treble)
9. Even-harmonics (again, higher is worse)
10. Low-level hum (usually related to power, ground or shielding)
11. Low-level white or pink noise (hiss)
Of course, if you have an extreme problem in one of the low-weighted areas, it may be more audible than a small problem in one of the higher-weighted anomalies. This list describes an approximate order of precedence if the content of each of the problem areas are approximately equal.
|
|
|
|
Re: Is the difference in sound quality all in our head? [message #91704 is a reply to message #89509] |
Wed, 15 April 2020 13:01 |
Kingfish
Messages: 555 Registered: November 2012
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
There are two types of musical productions: One produced by Daniel Lanois, and the others that are not.
To hear the difference will answer the question. No. It's not all in your head. You may or may not like the sound of the music the way he produces it, but there is no denying there is a presentable and clear difference.
If you have any questions, listen to "Most Of The Time", and then anything else Dylan did without Lanois.
|
|
|