Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

[N_Cook]

Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=776&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features


They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00

 

[David Looser]

Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

I've no idea. The website doesn't seem to want to say anything about that.
What an absolutely crap website it is! Mind you it is from Ch5.

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=776&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features


They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable
pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between
the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00

So, Could they?

David.

 

[N_Cook]

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=776&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

Doesn't seem to say anything about the actual test.

I've been involved in several of these sort of tests over the years, and
the the standard for the closest approach to the original happened with
equipment made in the '50s. The microphone was a BBC design - the PGS,
made by STC as the 4038, and the speaker a Quad ESL. We used a male voice
recorded digitally, and played back to the speaker which was behind a
gauze along with the chap whose voice we used. The lighting was arranged
so you couldn't see through the gauze. It fooled the majority of the
listening panel - made up of allsorts, not just sound pros or Hi-Fi types.
No moving coil speaker that we tried got close to fooling anyone.

It's much more difficult to do with two sources together like guitar and
vocal as the ear will tend to position them - so stereo would be needed
and impossible to do with more than one listener at a time. We also used
solo sax with much the same results - but solo piano was guessed right by
the majority.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I've no idea if its still there but that was the set-up at BBC / Kingswood
Warren research labs, Surrey for blind testing/comparison of audio. In the
situation I was aware of determining what the minimum sampling rate for
audio ADC / DAC was that a human could tell as degraded.

The ch5 test was quite well done I thought. I did notice the Suzi one had
the headband of the blindfold over her ears though. A large theatre stage
set-up so no close-field effects, and pairs of speakers for stereo imaging.
It would have been nice , having gone to all that bother, to get a few more
people off the street to give their opinions also.

 

[Iain Churches]

Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=776&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to
play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his
mouth and the clarinet solo continued.

In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to
recorded performance, even though we could see after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous
applause.

Iain

They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable
pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between
the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00

So what was the result?

Iain

 

[Andy Evans]

John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to play.
After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his mouth and
the clarinet solo continued. In this case, no one perceived audibly
the seque from live to recorded performance, even though we could see
after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous applause. >>

The clarinet is one of the worst examples of a sound that is unique
when acoustic. It's bland, very middle register and contains few
distinguishing features. A drum kit or as said by one poster a piano
are much more distinctive when acoustic and un-recorded - you need
complex overtones and subtle harmonics as well as some percussive
element to show attack.

 

[N_Cook]

Presumably by a naive audience. The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test. A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

And a claque or two in the audience , no doubt.

 

[Pete Wilcox]

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking an IQ test, let alone
advertising that you screwed up in such an obvious way on TV.

The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire human race is below
average intelligence...

<ducks and runs...>

Cheers,
Pete.

 

[tony sayer]

The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire human race is below
average intelligence...

<ducks and runs...>

As little as that eh?...

 

[Jamie]

The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire human race is
below average intelligence...

<ducks and runs...>

Cheers,
Pete.

Yes, and most of those are from the US with the "Leave no child behind
act" that we must suffer with now.

I was just talking to a electrical instructor in a trade school where
they were called to a meeting to talk about the 40+ sensors that had
failing grades preventing them from graduating.
After the school's superintendent got done, they all gave the failing
students 60's to allow graduation.

what kind of stupidity is that?

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Pete Wilcox]

As little as that eh?...

At least!!!

Cheers,
Pete.

 

[Jamie]

I remember a Properties of Structural Materials class I took, where I was
the top student of about 25. But I only received a semester grade of 3.6 on
a 4.3 scale. I talked to my advisor about this, and he said to remember that
sometimes the instructor is grading himself.

Hmm, I thought I canceled that message due a miss placed word "Sensor",
should be "Senior".
Oh well.
Well, I feel sorry for the students that really do work at it and
deserved what the work force should be accepting out there over what is
being pushed out on the public..

It may not be evident at the moment, but I see a major down fall in
our near future..

It may work out in the end sense they're those that still believe in
education (very few) how ever, they could be the models of our future
where we now have to many (Dumb)chiefs and not enough indians. More
indians are also favorable in a society of Mouse and Men.!

It seems that in some societies (no ranks stated here) feel that we
own them something with out offering any thing in return.

-----------------------------
These are the opinions of an old fart (or near it any ways) not to be
taken seriously for any reason other than improving humanity.


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Phil Allison]

"N_Cook"

Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

** What the listeners heard was a combination of what sound was on the
recording, plus what the room added, plus any alterations made by the
speakers. Any resemblance to the live version would be purely accidental.

Rule #1 of a " live v. recorded " comparison is to remove all trace of room
acoustics from the recording so when it is played back ONLY the listening
room acoustics are involved - just as it is with all live sound.

This can ONLY be achieved by making the recording in an anechoic room or
similar non-reverberant environment. Also, the microphone used must have
ruler flat response and NO proximity effect - which counts out the vast
majority of professional studio microphones, straight off.

Rule #2 is keep it simple, ie record a single, small sized instrument or a
voice - not a whole band.

Upon playback, via a sufficiently good speaker, such a recording will sound
like the speaker has become the original instrument or voice. Quite
startling if you have not head it done before.

However, if you compare this with a NEW live version, it will not sound the
SAME - as no singer or musician can produce the IDENTICAL result twice.

So, the whole darn idea is fundamentally flawed !!!!

But wait - there is another, cleverer way to play the game:

Play a recorded voice or instrument through a good quality speaker while IT
is sitting in an anechoic room and record THAT - then this becomes your
reference speaker with reference sound accurately recorded.

The exact same speaker can be moved to another place ( your listening room )
and the sound it produces from the same recordings will of course be
EXACTLY the same - plus you have a precise, anechoic recording of how it
sounds.

If the anechoic recording is played back via a " perfect speaker " the
resulting sound should be indistinguishable from the reference speaker
playing the original recordings in the same room.

I only know of one occasion when such a test was done ( in the USA) - the
result reported was that the majority of hi-fi speakers tested sounded
nothing like the reference while a few rather expensive models sounded quite
close.

Why not have every hi-fi shop set up such a simple comparison test for
buyers to experience ?



....... Phil

 

[Pete Wilcox]

Learn to post a correctly structured response to a post, including the
Subject.

Seemed reasonably well structured to me. Bottom-posted, end everythink.
Anyway, lighten up guys, it was just a joke! This is a good-humoured
group for the most part, and you've got to expect the odd tongue-in-cheek
post, especially from me!

Cheers,
Pete.

 

[Geoff Mackenzie]

John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to play.
After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his mouth and
the clarinet solo continued. In this case, no one perceived audibly
the seque from live to recorded performance, even though we could see
after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous applause. >>

The clarinet is one of the worst examples of a sound that is unique
when acoustic. It's bland, very middle register and contains few
distinguishing features. A drum kit or as said by one poster a piano
are much more distinctive when acoustic and un-recorded - you need
complex overtones and subtle harmonics as well as some percussive
element to show attack.

Quite a few years ago I went to an "Evening with Quad" in a church hall
somewhere. The fairly elderly presenter gave an interesting and instructive
talk, and at one point went into the wings and returned with a tenor sax on
which he played some very good jazz. After a minute or so a couple of stage
hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an ESL63, which they
slowly raised in front of him until he and the sax were isolated from the
audience. They then slowly took it away; the presenter stopped playing
after another minute or so, acknowledged the applause and explained that the
object of the exercise was to demonstrate that the film was absolutely
acoustically transparent, which was why there was no difference whatsoever
in the sound. Cue oohs and aahs from the audience, and more applause.
Well, most of them, anyway. I and a few others sat looking puzzled. To me,
it was as if he had been playing in a room, and someone had shut the door
then opened it again. OK, that's an exaggeration, but to me there was a
very noticeable difference. When I got home I took the film covers off my
own ESL63s (the metal protection covers had already been removed once my
daughter was old enough to be trusted not to poke sharp metal objects
through the cloth, and that made a huge difference) and on a variety of
sources confirmed to my own satisfaction that I preferred the sound
"without".

I did try going the whole hog by removing the "socks" - very little audible
difference, but (a) they looked hideous in a listening room which doubled as
a living room and (b) every fly in Surrey immediately developed Kamikaze
tendencies. Anyone remember those strange frightening blue devices that
butchers used to hang on their walls to attract then zap bluebottles...?

The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from DC
to light, and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub, but
the examples he gave were frankly ridiculous and bore no relation to my own
experience - but that's a whole 'nuther story. I concluded that he was a
"Quaddie", the anditote to the "Linnies" who were just becoming famous.

Geoff MacK

 

[Geoff Mackenzie]

The type of people you encounter in the US military depends on the
work you are assigned, and whether there is a war going on. The dumbest
soldiers I encountered were in supply, the motor pool and a few infantry
types who thought anyone who wasn't on the battlefield 90% of their TIS
wasn't military.

As I recall, Richard Feynman was rejected by the US Army after failing an IQ
test. He did not reach the minimum entry levels on anything. Don't know the
US nomenclature at the time, but it boiled down to "too dumb" even for a
grunt In due course he won the Nobel Prize for Physics, among other things
in a spectacular and often extremely funny career.

Geoff MacK

 

[Phil Allison]

"Geoff Mackenzie"

As I recall, Richard Feynman was rejected by the US Army after failing an
IQ test. He did not reach the minimum entry levels on anything. Don't
know the US nomenclature at the time, but it boiled down to "too dumb"
even for a grunt.

** Completely at odds with the facts of his life story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education

He was a full time student, attended the MIT and finally received a PhD from
Princeton in 1942 at age 24.

Then he was invited to join the Manhattan Project.

He scored 123, on a standard IQ test, in his early teens.


....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Geoff Mackenzie"

Quite a few years ago I went to an "Evening with Quad" in a church hall
somewhere. The fairly elderly presenter gave an interesting and
instructive talk, and at one point went into the wings and returned with a
tenor sax on which he played some very good jazz. After a minute or so a
couple of stage hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an
ESL63,

** The ESL63 dust cover is not " cling film " - it is actually the same
extremely thin, Mylar film the diaphrgnms are made from.

which they slowly raised in front of him until he and the sax were
isolated from the audience. They then slowly took it away; the presenter
stopped playing after another minute or so, acknowledged the applause and
explained that the object of the exercise was to demonstrate that the film
was absolutely acoustically transparent, which was why there was no
difference whatsoever in the sound. Cue oohs and aahs from the audience,
and more applause. Well, most of them, anyway. I and a few others sat
looking puzzled. To me, it was as if he had been playing in a room, and
someone had shut the door then opened it again. OK, that's an
exaggeration, but to me there was a very noticeable difference.

** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of over
those with weak minds.

When I got home I took the film covers off my own ESL63s (the metal
protection covers had already been removed once my daughter was old enough
to be trusted not to poke sharp metal objects through the cloth, and that
made a huge difference) and on a variety of sources confirmed to my own
satisfaction that I preferred the sound "without".

** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the illusion
of " more detial ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".

The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from
DC to light,

** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bullshit are your stock in trade -
Mr. Mackenzie.

and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub,

** Yawn...

Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

Wot a wanker......


...... Phil

 

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Geoff Mackenzie"

** Completely at odds with the facts of his life story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education

He was a full time student, attended the MIT and finally received a PhD
from Princeton in 1942 at age 24.

Then he was invited to join the Manhattan Project.

He scored 123, on a standard IQ test, in his early teens.


...... Phil

Well, I was quoting from the blurb on the dust jacket of one of his
books.....

Geoff MacK

 

[Phil Allison]

"Geoff Mackenzie"

"Phil Allison"
Well, I was quoting from the blurb on the dust jacket of one of his
books.....

** That is not what you posted nor is it true.

**** off, idiot.


...... Phil

 

[Geoff Mackenzie]

hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an

** The ESL63 dust cover is not " cling film " - it is actually the same
extremely thin, Mylar film the diaphrgnms are made from.

***Accepted. Couldn't at the time remember the correct name, but "cling
film" was a fair approximation of the product which most people understood.

** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of
over those with weak minds.

***The power of suggestion is of course extremely well known and documented.
It certainly does not apply only to those of "weak minds" - how do you
define that, by the way?

** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the illusion
of " more detial ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".

***Personally I like to hear all the information available, so if the
protective covers mask anything over 10kHz then off they come.

** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bullshit are your stock in
trade - Mr. Mackenzie.

***Quite possibly. Earnt me quite a decent living over the years, though.
Less offensive than personal abuse too.

** Yawn...
***Meaning?

Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

***Totally different thread; anyway, I was stating facts, not pouring
scorn.

Wot a wanker......

***Thought you'd revert to type eventually!

Geoff MacK