Sonic realism
trotsky
live jazz shows, minimally miked affairs where the natural sound of the
instruments provides most of the sound output. As a result, I tend to
do a lot of mental comparisons between what I hear at a live show and
what I hear when I'm at home (or elsewhere) listening to an audio system.
Audio is a complicated subject. People can try and make it sound
simple, but the fact remains that recording and reproducing the sound of
music has hundreds of variable. The type of microphones used, the
acoustics of the recording venue, the amount of overdubbing, if any, the
recording medium, the mastering quality, and the playback format all
influence the sound we get when playing back recorded music. Add to
that the playback equipment, the room acoustics, even the volume or
loudness setting the music is played back at and we have even more
variables. So the question is, with all these variables, what is it
about recorded music being played back that makes it so far from the
live standard?
The first thing that has to be agreed upon is that it is very different.
I just plain do not hear the impact of live sound when it is being
played back on an audio system almost 100% of the time. And therein
lies the rub.
Audio systems are capable of doing some things remarkably well. Very
good audio systems will have a startling sense of clarity and imaging,
probably more so than what one hears at a live music event. Try as I
might, I can't recall EVER hearing the pinpoint localization at a live
music venue that one is "supposed" to be listening for in a home audio
system. This is where the home audio system takes a fork in the road,
because of focus that consumers, designers, and reviewers have placed on
certain elements of reproduced music, elements that, unfortunately,
aren't really indicative of the live music event. Yes, Audio Physic and
Avalon speakers, to name two, can image out the ass, but all they are
really creating is a sense of hyper-realism, overaccentuating a few
aspects of reproduced sound. And God knows there are plenty of
recordings that go along for *that* ride.
So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact. What's that you say,
the magazine reviewers are always talking about micro and macro
dynamics, surely this issue has been addressed a thousand times over?
What's their point of reference, though? In the twenty plus years I
have been reading magazines, I can't recall a single time where magazine
reviewers have said that a certain aspect of the sound of particular
component was reminiscent of live music. Probably because it wouldn't
be true. Most products do a fine job of sounding "pretty", but almost
none really seem to want to go for the jugular: that is, semi-accurately
reproduce the dynamic wallop of a kick drum, trumpet, or the percussive
attack of a piano, for instance. Speakers, for instance, generally go
in the opposite direction: Brand X (Thiel, actually) is ever so proud of
their concrete baffle, and the way that it sucks the life out of the
music. A guy from Monitor Audio once told me that they use the same
Noise Killer compound that they use in car stereo applications to damp
cabinet vibrations--I didn't have the heart to tell him that his
speakers sounding less dynamic than any other speakers I had ever heard
in my life. And it's not just the speakers that are to blame:
electronics are just as bad. Again, a lot of amps, preamps, cd players,
etc. do a fine job of sounding "pretty"--clear and distinct, with
excellent width and depth of image--but, in point of fact, the sound
just lays there like a dead fish. This in part explains the popularity
of some tube electronics--good sounding tube gear can have a magical way
of reproducing dynamic contrasts in the music, unfortunately this can't
seem to be done to a great degree in the bass region. There are all
kinds of stupid things done in the name of "good sound": I have to laugh
every time I hear somebody proclaiming that there "passive preamp" (and
could there possibly be a more appropriate name) is just what the doctor
ordered: yeah, the path to gutlessness in reproduced sound. Or even
worse, clueless audiophiles that hook up cd players or phono preamps
directly to their amps, in an effort to have more of a "straight line"
single path: more clarity, with even less dynamic impact. Less realism.
I'm not going to belabor this point. Again, audio is a complicated
subject, and, when we dissect it there are quite a few elements that can
be discussed in acheiving the goal sonic realism. Some guys on the 'net
seem to be very distressed by the concept of "fast bass": "How do you
measure that?" Sorry, boys, this is highly subjective stuff,
measurements would probably just get in the way. Use your brain to
measure the qualities of the sound at a live music event, and then use
your brain to realize that the sound of your stereo sucks in comparison.
Go all the way up the signal path, to the recording itself, and realize
that not that many recordings, or recording techniques do a good job of
getting the scale of live sound correct in the first place. Then
realize that there are value judgements that can be made and some audio
designers tend to be more in tune to this than others. In fact, most
don't seem to be in tune at all.
dave weil
trotsky wrote:
> I tend to see a lot of live musical events. Lately, most often I see
> live jazz shows, minimally miked affairs where the natural sound of the
> instruments provides most of the sound output. As a result, I tend to
> do a lot of mental comparisons between what I hear at a live show and
> what I hear when I'm at home (or elsewhere) listening to an audio system.
>
> Audio is a complicated subject. People can try and make it sound
> simple, but the fact remains that recording and reproducing the sound of
> music has hundreds of variable. The type of microphones used, the
> acoustics of the recording venue, the amount of overdubbing, if any, the
> recording medium, the mastering quality, and the playback format all
> influence the sound we get when playing back recorded music. Add to
> that the playback equipment, the room acoustics, even the volume or
> loudness setting the music is played back at and we have even more
> variables. So the question is, with all these variables, what is it
> about recorded music being played back that makes it so far from the
> live standard?
>
> The first thing that has to be agreed upon is that it is very different.
> I just plain do not hear the impact of live sound when it is being
> played back on an audio system almost 100% of the time. And therein
> lies the rub.
I note that that's exactly what Zip was trying to say when he made the
comment about his system vs. live music.
>
>
> Audio systems are capable of doing some things remarkably well. Very
> good audio systems will have a startling sense of clarity and imaging,
> probably more so than what one hears at a live music event. Try as I
> might, I can't recall EVER hearing the pinpoint localization at a live
> music venue that one is "supposed" to be listening for in a home audio
> system. This is where the home audio system takes a fork in the road,
> because of focus that consumers, designers, and reviewers have placed on
> certain elements of reproduced music, elements that, unfortunately,
> aren't really indicative of the live music event. Yes, Audio Physic and
> Avalon speakers, to name two, can image out the ass, but all they are
> really creating is a sense of hyper-realism, overaccentuating a few
> aspects of reproduced sound. And God knows there are plenty of
> recordings that go along for *that* ride.
That's right. Close your eyes and try to "see" the drums like you would on a
stereo system. You usually can't. It's diffused. The room that I hear live
jazz in 5 nights a week is very small. It seats about 8 people at the bar
and about 60 people around 10 very small cafe tables. It's just wide enough
at the band area to fit two rows of three of those small rounds side by side
and the sax player about a foot away from the back of the person sitting on
the "front row." Since the Yamaha grand is about a 5 footer, I'd estimate
the width of the room at that point to be about 12 feet max (and that
includes the banquette that holds the first row of rounds. The room opens up
at the bar, which is adjacent to the band area (and area of about 5-7 feet by
11 feet (yep, just enough room to squeeze everyone in because that includes
the grand piano.) The room on that side has 4 of the 10 tables and the bar
itself. The bar is about 11 feet long and the width of the room perhaps 4
feet wider than the other part. So the entire bar/longue is no more than
about 23 feet long and 16 feet wide at the widest and 12 feet at the
narrowest. And the ceiling is about 10 foot max, with acoustic tile dropped
celing and spots for lights. The carpet is close napped hotel lobby type
stuff.
You would think that in a room of those intimate proportions, you'd be able
to pick out sounds in space - when you stand at the entrance of the bar,
you're no more than about 10 feet from the drum kit (and when I'm getting a
drink from the bar, my butt is literally 1 foot from the splash cymbal.)
I've stood at the door and closed my eyes, and what I get is a diffused sense
of a unified sound. Open them and the image snaps into place. I think vison
is a key element in this whole "imaging" thing.
BTW, last night it was David Hungate from Toto and his wife April Barrows
playing. Line up was a guy playing Clarinet/Sax, David's Howard Robert's
Archtop Epiphone acoustic/electric and occasional trombone and trumpet..
Stand up bass mildly amplified, drums and grand piano. And April of course.
All shoulder to shoulder <g>.
> So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact. What's that you say,
> the magazine reviewers are always talking about micro and macro
> dynamics, surely this issue has been addressed a thousand times over?
> What's their point of reference, though? In the twenty plus years I
> have been reading magazines, I can't recall a single time where magazine
> reviewers have said that a certain aspect of the sound of particular
> component was reminiscent of live music. Probably because it wouldn't
> be true. Most products do a fine job of sounding "pretty", but almost
> none really seem to want to go for the jugular: that is, semi-accurately
> reproduce the dynamic wallop of a kick drum, trumpet, or the percussive
> attack of a piano, for instance. Speakers, for instance, generally go
> in the opposite direction: Brand X (Thiel, actually) is ever so proud of
> their concrete baffle, and the way that it sucks the life out of the
> music. A guy from Monitor Audio once told me that they use the same
> Noise Killer compound that they use in car stereo applications to damp
> cabinet vibrations--I didn't have the heart to tell him that his
> speakers sounding less dynamic than any other speakers I had ever heard
> in my life. And it's not just the speakers that are to blame:
> electronics are just as bad. Again, a lot of amps, preamps, cd players,
> etc. do a fine job of sounding "pretty"--clear and distinct, with
> excellent width and depth of image
Perhaps that's part of the problem - they try too hard to get pinpoint this
and that, where live music just isn't that way. I think HP has addressed
this on occasion. I see it in action almost every night. Some intruments
like a guitar *will* throw a defined image on occasion.
> --but, in point of fact, the sound
> just lays there like a dead fish. This in part explains the popularity
> of some tube electronics--good sounding tube gear can have a magical way
> of reproducing dynamic contrasts in the music, unfortunately this can't
> seem to be done to a great degree in the bass region. There are all
> kinds of stupid things done in the name of "good sound": I have to laugh
> every time I hear somebody proclaiming that there "passive preamp" (and
> could there possibly be a more appropriate name) is just what the doctor
> ordered: yeah, the path to gutlessness in reproduced sound. Or even
> worse, clueless audiophiles that hook up cd players or phono preamps
> directly to their amps, in an effort to have more of a "straight line"
> single path: more clarity, with even less dynamic impact. Less realism.
>
> I'm not going to belabor this point. Again, audio is a complicated
> subject, and, when we dissect it there are quite a few elements that can
> be discussed in acheiving the goal sonic realism. Some guys on the 'net
> seem to be very distressed by the concept of "fast bass": "How do you
> measure that?" Sorry, boys, this is highly subjective stuff,
> measurements would probably just get in the way. Use your brain to
> measure the qualities of the sound at a live music event, and then use
> your brain to realize that the sound of your stereo sucks in comparison.
Once again, exactly what Zip was saying, and I wondered at the time why you
sort of mocked him about that.
>
> Go all the way up the signal path, to the recording itself, and realize
> that not that many recordings, or recording techniques do a good job of
> getting the scale of live sound correct in the first place. Then
> realize that there are value judgements that can be made and some audio
> designers tend to be more in tune to this than others. In fact, most
> don't seem to be in tune at all.
That's why I have begun to wonder whether we should give "accuracy" in repro
equipment the weight that we have in the past.
Mike Bates
> Audio systems are capable of doing some things remarkably well. Very
> good audio systems will have a startling sense of clarity and imaging,
> probably more so than what one hears at a live music event. Try as I
> might, I can't recall EVER hearing the pinpoint localization at a live
> music venue that one is "supposed" to be listening for in a home audio
> system. This is where the home audio system takes a fork in the road,
> because of focus that consumers, designers, and reviewers have placed on
> certain elements of reproduced music, elements that, unfortunately,
> aren't really indicative of the live music event. Yes, Audio Physic and
> Avalon speakers, to name two, can image out the ass, but all they are
> really creating is a sense of hyper-realism, overaccentuating a few
> aspects of reproduced sound. And God knows there are plenty of
> recordings that go along for *that* ride.
I agree. I have been trying to find a medium between a hyper-detailed speaker
(Dunlavy, InnerSound) and one that has less pinpoint detail yet still
resolves the
music. I think I'm pretty close now with the Coincident Super Eclipse. The
Magnepans in their latest versions also come to mind. It seems some of the
more
accurate speakers as far as traditional measurements are concerned miss out
when
it comes to believable soundstaging IMO. Maybe they're too good?
> So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
Man that hits home! I try and get out at least once a week and listen to live
music. Most "high end" systems only hint at the real impact and drive of
amplified or unamplified live music. When the dynamics are missing so is the
emotion.
I believe biamping or triamping really helps bringing back the dynamics, it
certainly
is the "purest" route but makes a profound difference in believable dynamics.
Also
running the biggest, baddest subs you can afford. There is a tremendous
amount of
impact information in the bottom octave. When you get the low frequencies
right, and take the strain off your main speakers through an electronic
crossover the impact suddenly get much closer to the real thing.
> I'm not going to belabor this point. Again, audio is a complicated
> subject, and, when we dissect it there are quite a few elements that can
> be discussed in acheiving the goal sonic realism. Some guys on the 'net
> seem to be very distressed by the concept of "fast bass": "How do you
> measure that?" Sorry, boys, this is highly subjective stuff,
> measurements would probably just get in the way. Use your brain to
> measure the qualities of the sound at a live music event, and then use
> your brain to realize that the sound of your stereo sucks in comparison.
> Go all the way up the signal path, to the recording itself, and realize
> that not that many recordings, or recording techniques do a good job of
> getting the scale of live sound correct in the first place. Then
> realize that there are value judgements that can be made and some audio
> designers tend to be more in tune to this than others. In fact, most
> don't seem to be in tune at all.
Great post Trotsky!
Mike Bates
GO TRIBE !!!!
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
> . Try as I
> might, I can't recall EVER hearing the pinpoint localization at a live
> music venue that one is "supposed" to be listening for in a home audio
> system.
>
Greg:
I consider this a terrific post, but I will take issue here on this one
point. The other night, Gigi and I attended a performance of Rodrigo's
Concierto Aranjuesm performed by the New World Symphony, conducted by
Michael Tilson Thomas, with Sir Angel Romero as the soloist. We were
easily able to discern the position of the guitar, the low strings
(Cellos and Double Bass's) and the higher strings (1st and 2nd seat
violins - as well as the position of any percussive instruments. I do
feel that imaging is strongly affected by the venue - in some halls, the
sound is a mess and localization is impossible.
In a small jazz club - such as the Bluenote or Village Vanguard in NYC, I
have always found it easy to discern the position of the instruments.
You might also consider that when we attend a live performance we simply
do not listen for imaging at all - since it is right there in front of
us?
Cheers
Zip
--
BASEBALL IN DA BRONX!
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound Entech Gallo Davis NEAR Seleco
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Faroudja Rega Benz-Micro
Dunlavy Lexicon Zenith Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP
Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic PASS NHT
Arny Krüger
"trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
news:3801EE06...@mc.net...
Agreed.
My opinon and experience is that for all the alternatives you
mention the realism isn't there.
I have a hard time saying that component XYZ (which is a really
pretty good box) "sucks the life out", because I don't know what to
replace it with and have "all the life" suddenly pop into focus.
> I'm not going to belabor this point. Again, audio is a
complicated
> subject, and, when we dissect it there are quite a few elements
that can
> be discussed in acheiving the goal sonic realism. Some guys on
the 'net
> seem to be very distressed by the concept of "fast bass": "How do
you
> measure that?" Sorry, boys, this is highly subjective stuff,
> measurements would probably just get in the way.
Actually measurements say that 100% of the live event as it would
fall on the ears of a human listener is not being put on the
recording.
> Use your brain to
> measure the qualities of the sound at a live music event, and then
use
> your brain to realize that the sound of your stereo sucks in
comparison.
Agreed.
> Go all the way up the signal path, to the recording itself, and
realize
> that not that many recordings, or recording techniques do a good
job of
> getting the scale of live sound correct in the first place.
How about "few if any"?
>Then realize that there are value judgements that can be made and
some audio
> designers tend to be more in tune to this than others. In fact,
most
> don't seem to be in tune at all.
I think that none of them are ever in perfect tune at this time.
Joe Duffy
>
>So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
>audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
>important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact. What's that you say,
I listened to a pair of Triode Support Systems Exemplars
at the designers house paired with homebuilt monoblock
2A3s and it was the most dynamic system I've yet heard,
without most of the horn tradeoffs. Randy played
a record of Mike Post's compositions on a Goldmund Reference
turntable and it scared the living shit out me with
dynamics.
What I remember most is the "they are here" sound versus
the "you are there" sound I get from my watt/puppys.
I get a different tingle from the Trinity Sessions through
them. It is that eerie feeling of being in the exact
acoustic space that it was recorded in.
I guess that the Exemplars remind me the most of live music,
but hearing the recording venue seems to be the most
exciting for me.
Joe
trotsky
>
> Greg:
> I consider this a terrific post, but I will take issue here on this one
> point. The other night, Gigi and I attended a performance of Rodrigo's
> Concierto Aranjuesm performed by the New World Symphony, conducted by
> Michael Tilson Thomas, with Sir Angel Romero as the soloist. We were
> easily able to discern the position of the guitar, the low strings
> (Cellos and Double Bass's) and the higher strings (1st and 2nd seat
> violins - as well as the position of any percussive instruments. I do
> feel that imaging is strongly affected by the venue - in some halls, the
> sound is a mess and localization is impossible.
>
> In a small jazz club - such as the Bluenote or Village Vanguard in NYC, I
> have always found it easy to discern the position of the instruments.
>
> You might also consider that when we attend a live performance we simply
> do not listen for imaging at all - since it is right there in front of
> us?
Those are fine concerns, Zip--now, could you address the crux of the
matter: that I consider every product you sell to be extremely weak in
the area of recreating the dynamic impact of a live performance?
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
Greg:
You consider every product I carry as weak in this dynamic impact area,
yet you have not heard most of the products I carry! In reply I say
balderdash and poppycock ;-)
Ask Felix or Jennifer if that dynamic impact is not one of the STRENGTHS
of their large Dunlavy SC-V's???
I think that large, efficient, dynamic speakers that are driven by high
quality powerful amplifiers in large rooms address that impact question,
Greg.
Horn systems like K-Horns and Altec VOT and JBL Paragon speakers
certainly have that dynamic snap and impact in spades - but at the
expense of imaging and tonal balance - and I have never heard a horn
system totally free of coloration in 30 years of playing with hifi
systems.
However, I will take issue with you - the big Dunlavy speakers (the SC-V
and the SC-VI models), The Genesis 1's and Infinity IRS-V's, the larger
Wilson SLAMMS, and the big NOVA speakers driven by megawatt amplifiers
with their 92-93dB efficiency do have this dynamic snap crackle and pop -
at least when set up in really good large soundrooms - without the
associated coloration of horns and with the ability to properly image and
soundstage.
You are welcome to take issue - this is a great thread, let's keep it
clear of flames for a change, OK?
trotsky
> > Those are fine concerns, Zip--now, could you address the crux of the
> > matter: that I consider every product you sell to be extremely weak in
> > the area of recreating the dynamic impact of a live performance?
> >
>
> Greg:
> You consider every product I carry as weak in this dynamic impact area,
> yet you have not heard most of the products I carry! In reply I say
> balderdash and poppycock ;-)
>
> Ask Felix or Jennifer if that dynamic impact is not one of the STRENGTHS
> of their large Dunlavy SC-V's???
Yes, with respect to Dunlavy's, given the right electronics they are
capable of some degree of realism. Unfortunately, I don't see any
electronics you carry that I would want to listen to for five minutes.
I'm not trying to turn this particular thing into a mudslinging contest
(I swear!), I am just saying that although I do agree with you
*reasonably* good dynamic qualities (try listening to an Naim DBL, for
example, and the SC-V's sound constricted in comparison), there are only
a few brands of electronics I have ever heard in my life that can bring
these qualities out. And I got news for you, Pass isn't one of them.
>
> I think that large, efficient, dynamic speakers that are driven by high
> quality powerful amplifiers in large rooms address that impact question,
> Greg.
Your mileage varies then. I think that what you might find "efficient
and dynamic" I might find more like a dead fish compared to live sound.
>
> Horn systems like K-Horns and Altec VOT and JBL Paragon speakers
> certainly have that dynamic snap and impact in spades - but at the
> expense of imaging and tonal balance - and I have never heard a horn
> system totally free of coloration in 30 years of playing with hifi
> systems.
For once I agree with you, Steve: I have K-horns in the store, and
although I find them somewhat dreadful to listen to, I am still amazed
at how they do have the capability of recreating the width and depth of
a full orchestra. However, you are talking about speakers that are more
or less blasts from the past now--what does this have to do with the
state of hi-fi in 1999? It's pretty fucked up to say that the speakers
you heard that had some more full scale dynamics were around in the 50's
and 60's, doesn't it?
>
> However, I will take issue with you - the big Dunlavy speakers (the SC-V
> and the SC-VI models), The Genesis 1's and Infinity IRS-V's, the larger
> Wilson SLAMMS, and the big NOVA speakers driven by megawatt amplifiers
> with their 92-93dB efficiency do have this dynamic snap crackle and pop -
> at least when set up in really good large soundrooms - without the
> associated coloration of horns and with the ability to properly image and
> soundstage.
Absolutely not true, in my experience. Even you take a cost is no
object approach, these speakers fail dismally as far as I'm concerned.
They are all more confused musically than a $1000 pair of Rega
speakers. And I have heard WAMMs, IRS's, Genesis 1's and the whole
shebang. None of them sound much like live music to me.
>
> You are welcome to take issue - this is a great thread, let's keep it
> clear of flames for a change, OK?
>
No, let's not. Let's talk about visceral impact in audio with some
visceral language for a change. Why do you want everything in your life
to sound limp?
Anonymous
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Sonic realism
Message-ID: <MPG.126bf584c...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>
Organization: Sunshine Stereo, Inc.
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.12
Lines: 70
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:25:01 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.193.165
X-Trace: news2.mia 939666901 216.78.193.165 (Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:35:01 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:35:01 EDT
.sig too long
http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/
--
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
Anonymous
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Sonic realism
References: <3801EE06...@mc.net>
Organization: Sunshine Stereo, Inc.
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.12
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:30:11 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.193.165
X-Trace: news1.mia 939656374 216.78.193.165 (Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:39:34 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:39:34 EDT
RLSpeakers
>Audio is a complicated subject
>People can try and make it sound
>simple, but the fact remains that recording and reproducing the sound of
>music has hundreds of variable. The type of microphones used, the
>acoustics of the recording venue, the amount of overdubbing, if any, the
>recording medium, the mastering quality, and the playback format all
>influence the sound we get when playing back recorded music.
True.
>So the question is, with all these variables, what is it
>about recorded music being played back that makes it so far from the
>live standard?
>The first thing that has to be agreed upon is that it is very different.
> I just plain do not hear the impact of live sound when it is being
>played back on an audio system almost 100% of the time. And therein
>lies the rub.
>So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
>audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
>important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
Try comparing the number of drivers used in a concert speaker setup compared to
a normal home stereo. More drivers = lower distortion and more impact from
more air being moved.
>And it's not just the speakers that are to blame:
What do you base this conclusion on?
>electronics are just as bad. Again, a lot of amps, preamps, cd players,
>etc. do a fine job of sounding "pretty"--clear and distinct, with
>excellent width and depth of image--but, in point of fact, the sound
>just lays there like a dead fish.
See above.
Even if the the live music is not amplified at all, the sound of the
instruments comes from however many of them there might be.
IME the fewer instruments being recorded the more realistic it's likely to
sound.
>There are all
>kinds of stupid things done in the name of "good sound": I have to laugh
>every time I hear somebody proclaiming that there "passive preamp" (and
>could there possibly be a more appropriate name) is just what the doctor
>ordered: yeah, the path to gutlessness in reproduced sound.
An expert opinion?
>Or even
>worse, clueless audiophiles that hook up cd players or phono preamps
>directly to their amps, in an effort to have more of a "straight line"
>single path: more clarity, with even less dynamic impact. Less realism.
Why?
>Use your brain to
>measure the qualities of the sound at a live music event, and then use
>your brain to realize that the sound of your stereo sucks in comparison.
Given what is known about human hearing this seems doomed to failure.
Mike McKelvy
Real Life Sound
http://members.aol.com/rlspeakers/THEREALLIFESOUNDPAGE.html
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
We'll just have to disagree - and I suppose the sentiments of most
audiophiles, music lovers, reviewers, and recording engineers would prove
that I am correct ;-)
trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message news:38025706...@mc.net...
> Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser) wrote:
> >
> > In article <38021F8A...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
>
> > > Those are fine concerns, Zip--now, could you address the crux of the
> > > matter: that I consider every product you sell to be extremely weak in
> > > the area of recreating the dynamic impact of a live performance?
> > >
> >
> > Greg:
> > You consider every product I carry as weak in this dynamic impact area,
> > yet you have not heard most of the products I carry! In reply I say
> > balderdash and poppycock ;-)
> >
> > Ask Felix or Jennifer if that dynamic impact is not one of the STRENGTHS
> > of their large Dunlavy SC-V's???
>
>
>
> Yes, with respect to Dunlavy's, given the right electronics they are
> capable of some degree of realism. Unfortunately, I don't see any
> electronics you carry that I would want to listen to for five minutes.
That may be, but it avoids the question, since the large PASS amps and the
big Conrad Johnson monblocks are superb sounding and EXTREMELY dynamic, as
are the big Dunlavy speakers - as noted by people who are far more capable
of discerning such than you are - like Jonathon Scull, and Harry Pearson,
and Anthony Cordesman and Humberto Gattica and Eric Schilling and Dick
Olsher and on and on ;-)
> I'm not trying to turn this particular thing into a mudslinging contest
> (I swear!),
(yeah right!)
> I am just saying that although I do agree with you
> *reasonably* good dynamic qualities (try listening to an Naim DBL, for
> example, and the SC-V's sound constricted in comparison), there are only
> a few brands of electronics I have ever heard in my life that can bring
> these qualities out. And I got news for you, Pass isn't one of them.
In your opinion, which is sadly in the minority. My last naim products were
a NAP-250 and a NAIT and I got rid of them for some Spectral gear which was
far better.
>
>
>
> >
> > I think that large, efficient, dynamic speakers that are driven by high
> > quality powerful amplifiers in large rooms address that impact question,
> > Greg.
>
>
>
> Your mileage varies then. I think that what you might find "efficient
> and dynamic" I might find more like a dead fish compared to live sound.
>
>
>
> >
> > Horn systems like K-Horns and Altec VOT and JBL Paragon speakers
> > certainly have that dynamic snap and impact in spades - but at the
> > expense of imaging and tonal balance - and I have never heard a horn
> > system totally free of coloration in 30 years of playing with hifi
> > systems.
>
>
>
> For once I agree with you, Steve: I have K-horns in the store, and
> although I find them somewhat dreadful to listen to, I am still amazed
> at how they do have the capability of recreating the width and depth of
> a full orchestra. However, you are talking about speakers that are more
> or less blasts from the past now--what does this have to do with the
> state of hi-fi in 1999? It's pretty fucked up to say that the speakers
> you heard that had some more full scale dynamics were around in the 50's
> and 60's, doesn't it?
No, because the modern horn speakers I have heard are not as good as the
classic horn speakers - and the K Horns are still current, aren't they greg?
The best I ever heaqrd was a set of K-Horns that Tom Colangelo designed (you
do know who he is, right?) - he actually took the mid/tweeter section and
placed it about 15 feet behind the woofer section to properly time align the
signal - as well he redesigned the crossovers and designed special amps to
drive them. That system was glorious ;-)
>
>
> >
> > However, I will take issue with you - the big Dunlavy speakers (the SC-V
> > and the SC-VI models), The Genesis 1's and Infinity IRS-V's, the larger
> > Wilson SLAMMS, and the big NOVA speakers driven by megawatt amplifiers
> > with their 92-93dB efficiency do have this dynamic snap crackle and
pop -
> > at least when set up in really good large soundrooms - without the
> > associated coloration of horns and with the ability to properly image
and
> > soundstage.
>
>
>
> Absolutely not true, in my experience.
Which is minimal and extraordinarily limited compared to my experience, but
to each his own.
> Even you take a cost is no
> object approach, these speakers fail dismally as far as I'm concerned.
Then you are really in need of help!'
> They are all more confused musically than a $1000 pair of Rega
> speakers.
I absolutely love the Rega Jura speakers - but Greg, they are not remotely
in the class of SC-IV, V or VI or IRS or any of these others.
> And I have heard WAMMs, IRS's, Genesis 1's and the whole
> shebang. None of them sound much like live music to me.
Stop listening in the typical dealer showroom or at hifi shows.
> No, let's not. Let's talk about visceral impact in audio with some
> visceral language for a change. Why do you want everything in your life
> to sound limp?
The only thing limp is.......
Never mind - you made your position clear. You think a Rega Jura is better
than a Dunlavy SC-V.
Sure Greg, we believe you, yeah right ;-)
Cheers
Zip
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Two things
(a) You need to visit us someday ;-)
(b) Go tribe? Where are they going?
Zip
Mike Bates <bat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38020450...@aol.com...
trotsky
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" wrote:
>
> Greg:
> We'll just have to disagree - and I suppose the sentiments of most
> audiophiles, music lovers, reviewers, and recording engineers would prove
> that I am correct ;-)
Ah yes, the McDonald's argument--who trashed the thread this time, Spammo?
>
> trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message news:38025706...@mc.net...
> > Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser) wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38021F8A...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
> >
> > > > Those are fine concerns, Zip--now, could you address the crux of the
> > > > matter: that I consider every product you sell to be extremely weak in
> > > > the area of recreating the dynamic impact of a live performance?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Greg:
> > > You consider every product I carry as weak in this dynamic impact area,
> > > yet you have not heard most of the products I carry! In reply I say
> > > balderdash and poppycock ;-)
> > >
> > > Ask Felix or Jennifer if that dynamic impact is not one of the STRENGTHS
> > > of their large Dunlavy SC-V's???
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, with respect to Dunlavy's, given the right electronics they are
> > capable of some degree of realism. Unfortunately, I don't see any
> > electronics you carry that I would want to listen to for five minutes.
>
> That may be, but it avoids the question, since the large PASS amps and the
> big Conrad Johnson monblocks are superb sounding and EXTREMELY dynamic, as
> are the big Dunlavy speakers - as noted by people who are far more capable
> of discerning such than you are - like Jonathon Scull, and Harry Pearson,
> and Anthony Cordesman and Humberto Gattica and Eric Schilling and Dick
> Olsher and on and on ;-)
You are having trouble understanding what is being said, Zip, but you
are doing a fine job of being condescending: who trashed the thread this
time, Spammo?
>
> > I'm not trying to turn this particular thing into a mudslinging contest
> > (I swear!),
>
> (yeah right!)
>
> > I am just saying that although I do agree with you
> > *reasonably* good dynamic qualities (try listening to an Naim DBL, for
> > example, and the SC-V's sound constricted in comparison), there are only
> > a few brands of electronics I have ever heard in my life that can bring
> > these qualities out. And I got news for you, Pass isn't one of them.
>
> In your opinion, which is sadly in the minority. My last naim products were
> a NAP-250 and a NAIT and I got rid of them for some Spectral gear which was
> far better.
What does far better mean, Zip? And what were you doing with and
integrated and a power amp--didn't anybody explain how to hook up the
equipment? Your comments have degenerated into your usual spammish
garbage: who trashed the thread this time?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think that large, efficient, dynamic speakers that are driven by high
> > > quality powerful amplifiers in large rooms address that impact question,
> > > Greg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your mileage varies then. I think that what you might find "efficient
> > and dynamic" I might find more like a dead fish compared to live sound.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Horn systems like K-Horns and Altec VOT and JBL Paragon speakers
> > > certainly have that dynamic snap and impact in spades - but at the
> > > expense of imaging and tonal balance - and I have never heard a horn
> > > system totally free of coloration in 30 years of playing with hifi
> > > systems.
> >
> >
> >
> > For once I agree with you, Steve: I have K-horns in the store, and
> > although I find them somewhat dreadful to listen to, I am still amazed
> > at how they do have the capability of recreating the width and depth of
> > a full orchestra. However, you are talking about speakers that are more
> > or less blasts from the past now--what does this have to do with the
> > state of hi-fi in 1999? It's pretty fucked up to say that the speakers
> > you heard that had some more full scale dynamics were around in the 50's
> > and 60's, doesn't it?
>
> No, because the modern horn speakers I have heard are not as good as the
> classic horn speakers - and the K Horns are still current, aren't they greg?
When were they in their heyday, idiot--certainly not in 1999. Again you
are having trouble comprehending what is being said. Stick to the Howdy
Doody threads, pal.
> The best I ever heaqrd was a set of K-Horns that Tom Colangelo designed (you
> do know who he is, right?)
No--but I'm sure the name dropping will get you a backstage pass at dave
weil's house!
- he actually took the mid/tweeter section and
> placed it about 15 feet behind the woofer section to properly time align the
> signal - as well he redesigned the crossovers and designed special amps to
> drive them. That system was glorious ;-)
ROTFFLMMFAO!!! How do you put mid/tweeter sections 15 ft BEHIND THE
CORNERS OF THE ROOM?!? What kind of precursor to crack were you smoking
that time as you passed through the doors of perception? Wow, I'll bet
that motherfucking sound was glorious, you fucking dopehead! ;-(
Who trashed the thread with his drug influenced comments, Spammo?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > However, I will take issue with you - the big Dunlavy speakers (the SC-V
> > > and the SC-VI models), The Genesis 1's and Infinity IRS-V's, the larger
> > > Wilson SLAMMS, and the big NOVA speakers driven by megawatt amplifiers
> > > with their 92-93dB efficiency do have this dynamic snap crackle and
> pop -
> > > at least when set up in really good large soundrooms - without the
> > > associated coloration of horns and with the ability to properly image
> and
> > > soundstage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolutely not true, in my experience.
>
> Which is minimal and extraordinarily limited compared to my experience, but
> to each his own.
Agreed.™ I've never even smoked a joint.
>
> > Even you take a cost is no
> > object approach, these speakers fail dismally as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Then you are really in need of help!'
>
> > They are all more confused musically than a $1000 pair of Rega
> > speakers.
>
> I absolutely love the Rega Jura speakers - but Greg, they are not remotely
> in the class of SC-IV, V or VI or IRS or any of these others.
You are confused, pothead--you didn't mention Dunlavy's in the paragraph
I was responding to, as seen below:
>
> > And I have heard WAMMs, IRS's, Genesis 1's and the whole
> > shebang. None of them sound much like live music to me.
>
> Stop listening in the typical dealer showroom or at hifi shows.
Right! The manufacturers don't know how to demo their own products!
LOL! The sound was glorious! ;-)
>
> > No, let's not. Let's talk about visceral impact in audio with some
> > visceral language for a change. Why do you want everything in your life
> > to sound limp?
>
> The only thing limp is.......
> Never mind - you made your position clear. You think a Rega Jura is better
> than a Dunlavy SC-V.
Only in your drug soaked mind, Zip. Your lack of education is showing.
> Sure Greg, we believe you, yeah right ;-)
Who's we, Zip--you and your peyote buddies?
Mike Bates
>
> Two things
> (a) You need to visit us someday ;-)
No doubt, the cold winters here in Ohio tend to be way to long!
> (b) Go tribe? Where are they going?
Definitely not to the Bronx. I just got back from the *choke* game.
Boston really taught the boys another lesson 7:-( . Well it looks
like the Yankees are going to do it again!
Hey does anyone wanna trade a couple of good pitchers for few overpaid
out fielders?
@#!^%$ #&*@(*@( &@@#@ !!!!
Mike Bates
TRIBE GONE !!!!!
trotsky
Mike Bates wrote:
>
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> >
> > Mike:
> > Two things
>
> > (a) You need to visit us someday ;-)
>
> No doubt, the cold winters here in Ohio tend to be way to long!
Mike, are you sure you don't want to come to my store instead--I don't
see Zip writing any posts about audio that you think are great.
trotsky
RLSpeakers wrote:
>
> >From: trotsky gsi...@mc.net
>
> >Audio is a complicated subject
>
> >People can try and make it sound
> >simple, but the fact remains that recording and reproducing the sound of
> >music has hundreds of variable. The type of microphones used, the
> >acoustics of the recording venue, the amount of overdubbing, if any, the
> >recording medium, the mastering quality, and the playback format all
> >influence the sound we get when playing back recorded music.
>
> True.
>
> >So the question is, with all these variables, what is it
> >about recorded music being played back that makes it so far from the
> >live standard?
>
> >The first thing that has to be agreed upon is that it is very different.
> > I just plain do not hear the impact of live sound when it is being
> >played back on an audio system almost 100% of the time. And therein
> >lies the rub.
>
> >So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> >audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> >important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
>
> Try comparing the number of drivers used in a concert speaker setup compared to
> a normal home stereo. More drivers = lower distortion and more impact from
> more air being moved.
>
> >And it's not just the speakers that are to blame:
>
> What do you base this conclusion on?
Anecdotal listening experiences--borg need not apply.
dave weil
trotsky wrote:
>
> So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
thinking that it was really live?)
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
>
>
> Mike Bates wrote:
> >
> > Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> > >
> > > Two things
> >
> > > (a) You need to visit us someday ;-)
> >
>
>
>
>
> Mike, are you sure you don't want to come to my store instead--I don't
> see Zip writing any posts about audio that you think are great.
>
Trollsky:
You are, what we call in the vernacular, a NEBBISH!
From visiting you he would get good posts (debatable) and rabies
From me he would get good weather and good music
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
says...
>
>
> trotsky wrote:
>
> >
> > So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> > audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> > important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
>
> sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
> thinking that it was really live?)
>
Dave, that is an oxymoron, asking Singh if he's fooled.
That's like asking a preacher if he has preached.
Jason C. Cotton
>Mike Bates wrote:
>>
>> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike:
>> > Two things
>>
>> > (a) You need to visit us someday ;-)
>>
>> No doubt, the cold winters here in Ohio tend to be way to long!
>Mike, are you sure you don't want to come to my store instead--I don't
>see Zip writing any posts about audio that you think are great.
I see Zippy is mouthing his "local dealer" spiel again...
-Jason
RLSpeakers
>> >And it's not just the speakers that are to blame:
>>
>> What do you base this conclusion on?
>
>
>
>
>Anecdotal listening
>experiences--borg need not apply.
>
IOW nothing of any reliability. We already know you can't hear very well as
demonstraded in the test you failed. We also know you to be a liar since you
claimed that you did not make a wager with D. Haugen that if you lost you would
lave RAO. You lied prior to that when you said you'd honor the wager.
>experiences--borg need not apply.
George M. Middius
> >> What do you base this conclusion on?
> >Anecdotal listening experiences--borg need not apply.
> IOW nothing of any reliability. We already know you can't hear very well as
> demonstraded in the test you failed.
It's a good thing there's no RAO draft -- the normals would
be so chagrined that the 'borgs got Mikey on Their team.
> We also know you to be a liar since you
> claimed that you did not make a wager with D. Haugen that if you lost you would
> lave RAO. You lied prior to that when you said you'd honor the wager.
Don't you love and admire D. Haugen? Gosh, he's the best of
us all!
George M. Middius
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Jason C. Cotton <j...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:7tvpq1$okt@dfw-
> trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> writes:
> >Mike, are you sure you don't want to come to my store instead--I don't
> >see Zip writing any posts about audio that you think are great.
Jason DUH Cotton answered
> I see Zippy is mouthing his "local dealer" spiel again...
Says it all
trotsky
RLSpeakers wrote:
>
> >From: George M. Middius
>
> >Don't you love and admire D. Haugen? Gosh, he's the best of
> >us all!
> >
> >
> >George M. Middius
>
> I used to, even when he gave me hell. Compared to Lyingwelchingdeaftwit, he's
> a saint.
>
LOL! The guy welched out his own death! You can't be blamed I guess,
Mickey--at least you are honest enough to recommend Zalytron's over RL's.
trotsky
Annika1980 wrote:
>
> >From: trotsky gsi...@mc.net
>
> >So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> >audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> >important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
>
> Damn! When did Trotsky grow a brain? I'm not even gonna flame ya since it is
> the first time I've ever agreed with you on anything (besides Zip being a
> buttsniff).
>
> Your post makes a good case for Klipsch speakers. What's that you say?
> "Heresy?" No, I was actually thinkin more along the lines of a big Klipschorn.
> Paul Klipsch has been preaching the benefits of a dynamic loudspeaker for 50
> years now.
Annika, this thread is probably a little beyond you. I was presupposing
that most designers were capable of acheiving sonic accuracy--this rules
out Klipsch.
>
> Next time you go to a live event, look at the speakers. Do they look like
> Maggies? Wilson Watts? Probably not. They are probably big horn-loaded
> mothers ..... just like Klipsch.
Re-read my post, hon--I was talking about concerts that were largely unamplified.
trotsky
"Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)" wrote:
>
> In article <38030D33...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
> >
> >
> > Mike Bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mike:
> > > > Two things
> > >
> > > > (a) You need to visit us someday ;-)
> > >
> > > No doubt, the cold winters here in Ohio tend to be way to long!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike, are you sure you don't want to come to my store instead--I don't
> > see Zip writing any posts about audio that you think are great.
> >
>
> Trollsky:
> You are, what we call in the vernacular, a NEBBISH!
> From visiting you he would get good posts (debatable) and rabies
> From me he would get good weather and good music
>
Gyppie, when are you going to get to the part about the midranges
mounted 15 ft. behind the corners of the room?
trotsky
"Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)" wrote:
>
> In article <3803329F...@mindspring.com>, dwe...@mindspring.com
> says...
> >
> >
> > trotsky wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> > > audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> > > important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
> >
> > So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
> > sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
> > thinking that it was really live?)
> >
>
> Dave, that is an oxymoron, asking Singh if he's fooled.
> That's like asking a preacher if he has preached.
Zip, why did you ruin my thread?
trotsky
dave weil wrote:
>
> trotsky wrote:
>
> >
> > So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> > audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> > important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
>
> So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
> sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
> thinking that it was really live?)
Naim, Exposure, and Quad ESL's are the only products I've heard that
suggested the dynamic realism of live music.
Jason C. Cotton
>Jason C. Cotton <j...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:7tvpq1$okt@dfw-
>> trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> writes:
>> >Mike, are you sure you don't want to come to my store instead--I don't
>> >see Zip writing any posts about audio that you think are great.
>Jason DUH Cotton answered
>> I see Zippy is mouthing his "local dealer" spiel again...
>Says it all
Here's a hint, Pinhead: Replace the text that you snipped out of my post,
and *maybe* my comment will make sense (although given your limited mental
powers, there's no guarantee...) to you.
-Jason
RLSpeakers
>Don't you love and admire D. Haugen? Gosh, he's the best of
>us all!
>
>
>George M. Middius
I used to, even when he gave me hell. Compared to Lyingwelchingdeaftwit, he's
a saint.
Annika1980
>So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
>audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
>important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
Damn! When did Trotsky grow a brain? I'm not even gonna flame ya since it is
the first time I've ever agreed with you on anything (besides Zip being a
buttsniff).
Your post makes a good case for Klipsch speakers. What's that you say?
"Heresy?" No, I was actually thinkin more along the lines of a big Klipschorn.
Paul Klipsch has been preaching the benefits of a dynamic loudspeaker for 50
years now.
Next time you go to a live event, look at the speakers. Do they look like
Maggies? Wilson Watts? Probably not. They are probably big horn-loaded
mothers ..... just like Klipsch.
Not to mention the fact that the big Crown or Marshall amps pack a bit more
punch that a 7-watt SET amp.
Mikeylikst
>trotsky wrote:
>
>> So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
>> audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
>> important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
>
>So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
>sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
>thinking that it was really live?)
>
AFAIK the speakers and the quality of the recording are the areas where dynamic
impact can be improved. Assuming one has normally fucntioning electronics, and
is playing a CD (preferably DDD), since the dynamic range of any other medium
is vastly lower.
There is of course the problem of recordings seeming to never have the same
dynamic range as a live event, thereby limiting what can be heard on playback.
Live music can approach 113 db in dynamic range while CD's usually have around
80-90 db.
Mike McKelvy
the love you take is equal to the love you make..............
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
>
>
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > trotsky wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> > > audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> > > important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
> >
> > So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
> > sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
> > thinking that it was really live?)
>
>
>
> suggested the dynamic realism of live music.
>
Stewart Pinkerton
>In article <3803FEA1...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
>>
>> dave weil wrote:
>> >
>> > trotsky wrote:
>> >
>> > > So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
>> > > audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
>> > > important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
>> >
>> > So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
>> > sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
>> > thinking that it was really live?)
>>
>> Naim, Exposure, and Quad ESL's are the only products I've heard that
>> suggested the dynamic realism of live music.
>>
>You lead a very sheltered audio life. VERY sheltered!
OTOH, that system *will* give results of very high quality (as will
many others), so maybe there's some hope for Trots...........maybe.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>AFAIK the speakers and the quality of the recording are the areas where dynamic
>impact can be improved. Assuming one has normally fucntioning electronics, and
>is playing a CD (preferably DDD), since the dynamic range of any other medium
>is vastly lower.
>
>There is of course the problem of recordings seeming to never have the same
>dynamic range as a live event, thereby limiting what can be heard on playback.
>
>Live music can approach 113 db in dynamic range while CD's usually have around
>80-90 db.
Um, live unamplified music may on very, very rare occasions reach a
*peak level* of 113dB in the front row (although 105 is more likely
even on Wagner!), but the noise floor will be *at least* 30dB even in
the best halls, so the dynamic *range* is more like 80dB absolute
maximum, and more commonly 60-70dB. BTW, the noise floor at an
amplified concert will be at least 50dB, so the 130dB peaks possible
don't actually increase the dynamic *range*.
This is of course why the very best vinyl is (just!) capable of
encompassing full-range music with no compression, resulting in claims
of 'no audible noise floor' from it's adherents.
trotsky
"Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)" wrote:
>
> In article <3803FEA1...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
> >
> >
> > dave weil wrote:
> > >
> > > trotsky wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> > > > audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> > > > important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
> > >
> > > So what *is* the .5% that apparently address "dynamic impact?." And is the
> > > sound interchangable with live music (in other words would you be fooled into
> > > thinking that it was really live?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Naim, Exposure, and Quad ESL's are the only products I've heard that
> > suggested the dynamic realism of live music.
> >
> You lead a very sheltered audio life. VERY sheltered!
It must be tough for you to say something is the best when you've never
heard the best, eh Spammo?
Stephen Axcell
>
>
>Annika1980 wrote:
>>
>> Your post makes a good case for Klipsch speakers. What's that you say?
>> "Heresy?" No, I was actually thinkin more along the lines of a big
>> Klipschorn.
>> Paul Klipsch has been preaching the benefits of a dynamic loudspeaker for 50
>> years now.
>
>
>that most designers were capable of acheiving sonic accuracy--this rules
>out Klipsch.
You may be interested to know that the Heresies had one of the
flattest frequency and phase responses that Hi-Fi World had ever
measured.
--
trotsky
And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
George M. Middius
> And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
> of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
Maybe Zippy will explain how the Heresies might benefit from
dislocating the tweeters and mids from the main speaker box
and relocating them in the next room. That would probably
lead to a whole new kind of "linear" measurements.
George M. Middius
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
> You may be interested to know that the Heresies had one of the
> flattest frequency and phase responses that Hi-Fi World had ever
> measured.
Annika:
Frequency Response results on Remulac do not count. Klipsch speakers
have a response curve that ankes the Himalyas look smooth as glass.
Zip
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
says...
I think she stuck the tweeter in your mouth, Middius, and the woofer up
your arse when she measured them.
trotsky
"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
> > And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
> > of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
>
> Maybe Zippy will explain how the Heresies might benefit from
> dislocating the tweeters and mids from the main speaker box
> and relocating them in the next room. That would probably
> lead to a whole new kind of "linear" measurements.
>
By George, I think you're on to something! The woofers could be located
in an ordinary listening room, and the midrange and tweeter horns could
be located in the anechoic Kroo-chamber that Arnii uses to muffle the screams.
trotsky
"Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)" wrote:
>
> In article <Jr4EOHG05pPH+U...@4ax.com>, Glan...@ipo.net
> says...
> > trotsky said:
> >
> > > And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
> > > of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
> >
> > Maybe Zippy will explain how the Heresies might benefit from
> > dislocating the tweeters and mids from the main speaker box
> > and relocating them in the next room. That would probably
> > lead to a whole new kind of "linear" measurements.
> >
> >
> > George M. Middius
>
> I think she stuck the tweeter in your mouth, Middius, and the woofer up
> your arse when she measured them.
Zip, you have to stop spending so much quality time with Daryl
Strawberry: Annika wasn't the one who commented on the Heresy's
frequency response.
On an unrelated note, what's Celine Dion's next career move, Gyppie?
Stephen Axcell
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser) <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>> Annika1980 wrote:
Except he didn't. I did.
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
She's going to sing into a tub of shit and call the record Greg Singh
listens to Naim
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
OK Stephen - I stand corrected and so do you. They are anything but
flat!
RLSpeakers
>And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
>of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
Is that what they teach EE's?
RLSpeakers
>Um, live unamplified music may on very, very rare occasions reach a
>*peak level* of 113dB in the front row (although 105 is more likely
>even on Wagner!), but the noise floor will be *at least* 30dB even in
>the best halls, so the dynamic *range* is more like 80dB absolute
>maximum, and more commonly 60-70dB. BTW, the noise floor at an
>amplified concert will be at least 50dB, so the 130dB peaks possible
>don't actually increase the dynamic *range*.
>
>This is of course why the very best vinyl is (just!) capable of
>encompassing full-range music with no compression, resulting in claims
>of 'no audible noise floor' from it's adherents.
>
>--
I stand corrected. I must have been remembering the Who setting an spl record
of 113 db or thereabouts.
RLSpeakers
>LOL! The guy welched out his own death! You can't be blamed I guess,
>Mickey--at least you are honest enough to recommend Zalytron's over RL's.
Did he bet someone he was going to die?
I never recomended Zalytron over my own speakers, I simpy said that if you feel
up to the challenge DIY has some very real advantages, not the least of which
would be not having to deal with pond scum like you.
trotsky
The Who were supposed to have had concert levels of 130 dB--you can't
even do your meter-beating correctly!
trotsky
RLSpeakers wrote:
>
> >From: trotsky gsi...@mc.net
>
> >And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
> >of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
>
> Is that what they teach EE's?
Why not get a degree and find out, retardoborg.
George M. Middius
> >And was that in an anechoic chamber or a typical listening room? Moral
> >of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
> Is that what they teach EE's?
guh!
George M. Middius
RLSpeakers
>The Who were supposed to have had concert levels of 130 dB--you can't
>even do your meter-beating correctly!
>
At least my errors are unintentional, and not outright lies and fabrications
such as you are so fond of.
trotsky
RLSpeakers wrote:
>
> >From: trotsky gsi...@mc.net
>
> >The Who were supposed to have had concert levels of 130 dB--you can't
> >even do your meter-beating correctly!
> >
>
> At least my errors are unintentional, and not outright lies and fabrications
> such as you are so fond of.
>
Mickey, did you forget to include the DN references of these supposed transgressions?
Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)
>
>
> RLSpeakers wrote:
> >
> > >pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton)
> >
> > >Um, live unamplified music may on very, very rare occasions reach a
> > >*peak level* of 113dB in the front row (although 105 is more likely
> > >even on Wagner!), but the noise floor will be *at least* 30dB even in
> > >the best halls, so the dynamic *range* is more like 80dB absolute
> > >maximum, and more commonly 60-70dB. BTW, the noise floor at an
> > >amplified concert will be at least 50dB, so the 130dB peaks possible
> > >don't actually increase the dynamic *range*.
> > >
> > >This is of course why the very best vinyl is (just!) capable of
> > >encompassing full-range music with no compression, resulting in claims
> > >of 'no audible noise floor' from it's adherents.
> > >
> > >--
> >
> > I stand corrected. I must have been remembering the Who setting an spl record
> > of 113 db or thereabouts.
>
>
>
>
> even do your meter-beating correctly!
>
Mountain and Yes were louder than the who in the early 70's. I walked
out to the back halls of the Fillmore East because Mountain was so loud!
I believe Mountaain was the alltime dB champ.
Cheers
Zip
Crestman
>
> Annika, this thread is probably a little beyond you. I was presupposing
> that most designers were capable of acheiving sonic accuracy--this rules
> out Klipsch.
Absolutely, Klipsch is a horn loaded version of BOSE!!!! They upgrade to POLK if
you put tube one them!
Screeetch, HONK, HONK SCREEETCH ,HOOOONK= Klipsch !
>
dave weil
"Sunshine Stereo (Steve Zipser)" wrote:
> In article <380508BB...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
> >
> >
> > RLSpeakers wrote:
> > >
> > > >pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton)
> > >
> > > >Um, live unamplified music may on very, very rare occasions reach a
> > > >*peak level* of 113dB in the front row (although 105 is more likely
> > > >even on Wagner!), but the noise floor will be *at least* 30dB even in
> > > >the best halls, so the dynamic *range* is more like 80dB absolute
> > > >maximum, and more commonly 60-70dB. BTW, the noise floor at an
> > > >amplified concert will be at least 50dB, so the 130dB peaks possible
> > > >don't actually increase the dynamic *range*.
> > > >
> > > >This is of course why the very best vinyl is (just!) capable of
> > > >encompassing full-range music with no compression, resulting in claims
> > > >of 'no audible noise floor' from it's adherents.
> > > >
> > > >--
> > >
> > > I stand corrected. I must have been remembering the Who setting an spl record
> > > of 113 db or thereabouts.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Who were supposed to have had concert levels of 130 dB--you can't
> > even do your meter-beating correctly!
> >
>
> Mountain and Yes were louder than the who in the early 70's. I walked
> out to the back halls of the Fillmore East because Mountain was so loud!
> I believe Mountaain was the alltime dB champ.
> Cheers
> Zip
Isn't Deep Purple the "official record holder" according to Guinness?
Loudest show I ever went to was Lords of the New Church at the Schlachthof in Bremen.
Stood about 15 feet away from a 100 watt Marshall, a 15 ft. guitar cord and a
Telecaster. It was certainly louder than the Who.
That was the show that made me pay attention to my hearing vs. loud concerts. Even
Deep Purple or the Who didn't scare me.
It was nice to see Stiv Bators a few months before his death in Paris. He seemed
happy, which makes it even more of a shame.
"Dance." Now there's a forgotten classic...
trotsky
Annika1980 wrote:
>
> >From: trotsky gsi...@mc.net
>
> >> >Annika, this thread is probably a little beyond you. I was presupposing
> >> >that most designers were capable of acheiving sonic accuracy--this rules
> >> >out Klipsch.
>
> >Moral of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
>
> 1. Then how do you determine sonic accuracy?
Whatever leecao.com says.
> 2. Since when are you even concerned with accuracy?
Since yesterday.
Annika1980
>> >Annika, this thread is probably a little beyond you. I was presupposing
>> >that most designers were capable of acheiving sonic accuracy--this rules
>> >out Klipsch.
>Moral of the story: the measurements don't mean squat.
1. Then how do you determine sonic accuracy?
Annika1980
>Mountain and Yes were louder than the who in the early 70's. I walked
>out to the back halls of the Fillmore East because Mountain was so loud!
>I believe Mountaain was the alltime dB champ.
>Cheers
>Zip
You must've never seen the Plasmatics.
Mikeylikst
>Isn't Deep Purple the "official record holder" according to Guinness?
Perhaps, they are now. I have never read a Guinness book but I do recall
reading something on The Who and the 113 db figure being a record many years
ago.
I went to a Melissa Etheridge show at the Universal Amphitheatre and was about
12 rows back. Damn loud. My ears were ringing when we left.
Grand Funk used to play extremely loud. Supposedly their manager read
something about high spl causing some sort of reaction akin to getting high.
Mike McKelvy
the love you take is equal to the love you make..............
theprvrt
from the shortcomings that over 90% of speakers suffer from. They are one of
the most natural sounding loudspeakers by todays standard's and produce some of
the best measurements ever seen from a loudspeaker! In short, they sound real.
A quality that very few loudspeakers can approach! P.S. Unlike its bigger
brothers, there is nothing phasey or distorted sounding about the SDA 2B's or
the SDA CRS and the later SRS 3.1TL for that matter. Your opinions of these
loudspeakers do not negate their merit!
Crestman wrote in message <3805B065...@coalwood.com>...
>>
>>
>> Annika, this thread is probably a little beyond you. I was presupposing
>> that most designers were capable of acheiving sonic accuracy--this rules
>> out Klipsch.
>
Markus Laun
dave weil wrote:
>
> Isn't Deep Purple the "official record holder" according to Guinness?
If I remeber correctly they once reached 140db! At that concert the
keyboarders eras started bleeding... says the roumer.
>
> Loudest show I ever went to was Lords of the New Church at the Schlachthof in Bremen.
> Stood about 15 feet away from a 100 watt Marshall, a 15 ft. guitar cord and a
> Telecaster. It was certainly louder than the Who.
WOW! can you still hear?
dave weil
Markus Laun wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Isn't Deep Purple the "official record holder" according to Guinness?
>
> If I remeber correctly they once reached 140db! At that concert the
> keyboarders eras started bleeding... says the roumer.
I seemed to remember 140 db too but I didn't want to quote a figure because it's been a
long time since I've read that. When I saw them they were loud but it didn't seem
excessive. Now when I saw the Who, my ears rang for about 8 hours after.
> >
> > Loudest show I ever went to was Lords of the New Church at the Schlachthof in Bremen.
> > Stood about 15 feet away from a 100 watt Marshall, a 15 ft. guitar cord and a
> > Telecaster. It was certainly louder than the Who.
> WOW! can you still hear?
Huh? What did you say?
Seriously, my ears rang for almost two days so I'm sure that some harm was done. But I
guess I've been pretty lucky. I have reasonably good hearing and no tinnitus to speak of.
Even being in the infantry and being a 50 cal gunner didn't hurt that much, which is a
testament to ear protection.
But that reminds me that I need to have my ears tested pretty soon.
Sunshine Stereo
says...
>
>
> Markus Laun wrote:
>
> > dave weil wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't Deep Purple the "official record holder" according to Guinness?
> >
> > If I remeber correctly they once reached 140db! At that concert the
> > keyboarders eras started bleeding... says the roumer.
>
> I seemed to remember 140 db too but I didn't want to quote a figure because it's been a
> long time since I've read that. When I saw them they were loud but it didn't seem
> excessive. Now when I saw the Who, my ears rang for about 8 hours after.
I saw Deep Purple with Jefferson Starship in 1973 in an outdoor concert
in the Bronx (yeah it was moderately more civilized back then) in Gealic
Park. They were loud, but there is no doubt that Mountain was louder.
Zip
>
> > >
> > > Loudest show I ever went to was Lords of the New Church at the Schlachthof in Bremen.
> > > Stood about 15 feet away from a 100 watt Marshall, a 15 ft. guitar cord and a
> > > Telecaster. It was certainly louder than the Who.
> > WOW! can you still hear?
>
> Huh? What did you say?
>
> Seriously, my ears rang for almost two days so I'm sure that some harm was done. But I
> guess I've been pretty lucky. I have reasonably good hearing and no tinnitus to speak of.
> Even being in the infantry and being a 50 cal gunner didn't hurt that much, which is a
> testament to ear protection.
>
> But that reminds me that I need to have my ears tested pretty soon.
>
>
>
--
BASEBALL IN DA BRONX Just like it ever was!
goobaudio
outdoor concert
: in the Bronx (yeah it was moderately more civilized back
then) in Gealic
: Park. They were loud, but there is no doubt that Mountain
was louder.
: Zip
Zip:
Was that the park that was at the last stop of one of the
"L" trains or near the last stop? I used to go there all the
time. Looked like it was a ball park or something with
(facing the stage) bleachers on the left and parked trains
on the right? Was living in LA by 73 though so probably did
not see you there. Saw Mountain several times in central
park and the Rock Pile on the Island. Back then nothing was
loud enough, especially outdoors.
--
Chill'n
Phil Abbate
Atlanta GA
http://members.xoom.com/philsaudio/
Disclaimer: All statements are the opinion of the author.
FreezerDoor ®
system:
Martin-Logan Aerius speakers
Velodyne 15" subwoofer
Classe cap151 amplifier
Thanks.
Sunshine Stereo
phils...@mindspring.com says...
> : I saw Deep Purple with Jefferson Starship in 1973 in an
> outdoor concert
> : in the Bronx (yeah it was moderately more civilized back
> then) in Gealic
> : Park. They were loud, but there is no doubt that Mountain
> was louder.
> : Zip
>
> Zip:
>
> Was that the park that was at the last stop of one of the
> "L" trains or near the last stop?
YES - it was right near the Number 1 train - 242nd - also known as the
Broadway and 7th line.
> I used to go there all the
> time. Looked like it was a ball park or something with
> (facing the stage) bleachers on the left and parked trains
> on the right? Was living in LA by 73 though so probably did
> not see you there. Saw Mountain several times in central
> park and the Rock Pile on the Island. Back then nothing was
> loud enough, especially outdoors.
I also saw the Allman Bros there - Jerry Phil Bobby and Billy came out
and they did a mountain jam for about an hour ;-)
Guess that was called Almond Dead.
We saw a few other shows there - but damned if I remember them.
Zip
> Disclaimer: All statements are the opinion of the author.
>
>
>
>
--
Todd Krieger
trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> wrote:
One initial comment, this is the best post I've ever seen from you Greg.
Bravo!
> I tend to see a lot of live musical events. Lately, most often I see
> live jazz shows, minimally miked affairs where the natural sound of
the
> instruments provides most of the sound output. As a result, I tend to
> do a lot of mental comparisons between what I hear at a live show and
> what I hear when I'm at home (or elsewhere) listening to an audio
system.
>
Which is something I do.
> Audio is a complicated subject. People can try and make it sound
> simple, but the fact remains that recording and reproducing the sound
of
> music has hundreds of variable. The type of microphones used, the
> acoustics of the recording venue, the amount of overdubbing, if any,
the
> recording medium, the mastering quality, and the playback format all
> influence the sound we get when playing back recorded music. Add to
> that the playback equipment, the room acoustics, even the volume or
> loudness setting the music is played back at and we have even more
> variables. So the question is, with all these variables, what is it
> about recorded music being played back that makes it so far from the
> live standard?
>
Those variables you mentioned. And **hundreds** of others you did not
mention. Like the types of resistors and capacitors, connectors, power
interface, etc. in the recording equipment. I'm sure hardly any use
Vishay resistors, for example.
> The first thing that has to be agreed upon is that it is very
different.
> I just plain do not hear the impact of live sound when it is being
> played back on an audio system almost 100% of the time. And therein
> lies the rub.
>
Most LP's and CD's have had some compression relative to the original
event. Otherwise, the media would not be able to handle the dynamic
envelope. And if there was a medium which captured the entire dynamic
envelope, one would need an order of magnitude more power to reproduce
it (and speakers which can also handle it) in order to keep the high
amplitude distortion (clipping) to a minimum.
This is often why small-scale jazz recordings are perennial favorites of
audiophiles. These recordings require the least compression.
> Audio systems are capable of doing some things remarkably well. Very
> good audio systems will have a startling sense of clarity and imaging,
> probably more so than what one hears at a live music event. Try as I
> might, I can't recall EVER hearing the pinpoint localization at a live
> music venue that one is "supposed" to be listening for in a home audio
> system.
This is so dependent on venue. The Academy of Music in Philadelphia is
an example of a hall were instrument localization is better than the
best classical recordings I've ever heard. In most cases, however, your
statement is true.
> This is where the home audio system takes a fork in the road,
> because of focus that consumers, designers, and reviewers have placed
on
> certain elements of reproduced music, elements that, unfortunately,
> aren't really indicative of the live music event. Yes, Audio Physic
and
> Avalon speakers, to name two, can image out the ass, but all they are
> really creating is a sense of hyper-realism, overaccentuating a few
> aspects of reproduced sound. And God knows there are plenty of
> recordings that go along for *that* ride.
>
Most audio systems "etch" the highs to some degrees. Causing this
"hyper-realism." A perfect tweeter is as common as hen's teeth. And
most CD and LP systems don't do well here either. And of course, the
distortion components in electronics, which also add HF energy.
> So what's missing? Well, in my way of thinking, about 99.5% of all
> audio equipment does little or nothing to address the single most
> important aspect of sonic realism: dynamic impact.
The compression on recordings I mentioned earlier.
> What's that you say,
> the magazine reviewers are always talking about micro and macro
> dynamics, surely this issue has been addressed a thousand times over?
> What's their point of reference, though?
It's not that sounds just like a live performance, but how close it is
to the illusion of a live performance. This is a relative "science."
> In the twenty plus years I
> have been reading magazines, I can't recall a single time where
magazine
> reviewers have said that a certain aspect of the sound of particular
> component was reminiscent of live music.
Julian Hirsch mentioned this context quite often, in my recollections.
> Probably because it wouldn't
> be true. Most products do a fine job of sounding "pretty", but almost
> none really seem to want to go for the jugular: that is,
semi-accurately
> reproduce the dynamic wallop of a kick drum, trumpet, or the
percussive
> attack of a piano, for instance.
Compression, my boy, compression. In the recordings.
> Speakers, for instance, generally go
> in the opposite direction: Brand X (Thiel, actually) is ever so proud
of
> their concrete baffle, and the way that it sucks the life out of the
> music.
Whatever "life" is...
> A guy from Monitor Audio once told me that they use the same
> Noise Killer compound that they use in car stereo applications to damp
> cabinet vibrations--I didn't have the heart to tell him that his
> speakers sounding less dynamic than any other speakers I had ever
heard
> in my life.
Once again, maybe the speaker is being more true to the *recording*.
The cabinet vibrations are *improving* dynamics, but for the wrong
reason to do so. Actually, I'd prefer a rigid baffle to a damped one,
at face value. (What's better than damping unwanted vibrations?? Not
letting such vibrations occur in the first place...)
> And it's not just the speakers that are to blame:
> electronics are just as bad. Again, a lot of amps, preamps, cd
players,
> etc. do a fine job of sounding "pretty"--clear and distinct, with
> excellent width and depth of image--but, in point of fact, the sound
> just lays there like a dead fish. This in part explains the
popularity
> of some tube electronics--good sounding tube gear can have a magical
way
> of reproducing dynamic contrasts in the music, unfortunately this
can't
> seem to be done to a great degree in the bass region.
Get a VAC PA100/100 tube amp. Best bass I've heard in an amp, tube or
solid state.
> There are all
> kinds of stupid things done in the name of "good sound": I have to
laugh
> every time I hear somebody proclaiming that there "passive preamp"
(and
> could there possibly be a more appropriate name) is just what the
doctor
> ordered: yeah, the path to gutlessness in reproduced sound.
HEY!! I USE A PASSIVE PREAMP!! What does "gutlessness" sound like?
I've heard the complaint that passive preamps sound dead, but I never
had that problem. Then again, I'm aware of impedance and cable
interface requirements in regard to passive preamps.
> Or even
> worse, clueless audiophiles that hook up cd players or phono preamps
> directly to their amps, in an effort to have more of a "straight line"
> single path: more clarity, with even less dynamic impact. Less
realism.
>
It sounds like you like a little dynamic "splash" in your sound. I
personally prefer delineation, where the dynamics are amongst the
instruments themselves, as opposed to a dynamic "puree."
> I'm not going to belabor this point. Again, audio is a complicated
> subject, and, when we dissect it there are quite a few elements that
can
> be discussed in acheiving the goal sonic realism. Some guys on the
'net
> seem to be very distressed by the concept of "fast bass": "How do you
> measure that?" Sorry, boys, this is highly subjective stuff,
> measurements would probably just get in the way. Use your brain to
> measure the qualities of the sound at a live music event, and then use
> your brain to realize that the sound of your stereo sucks in
comparison.
As I said, it's not that is sounds just like a live performance, but how
close it can get to the illusion of one.
> Go all the way up the signal path, to the recording itself, and
realize
> that not that many recordings, or recording techniques do a good job
of
> getting the scale of live sound correct in the first place.
Bingo.
> Then
> realize that there are value judgements that can be made and some
audio
> designers tend to be more in tune to this than others. In fact, most
> don't seem to be in tune at all.
>
A good recording engineer tries to instill as little "judgment" as
possible. If the musicians play dry, the recording should sound
accordingly. The closer the master sounds to the actual musicians live,
the better the recording. The engineer should never try to enhance the
sound, for the musicians sound the way *they* want to, and that should
be conveyed on the recording.
Todd Krieger
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.