Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:10:57 GMT, "Matthew*B.*Tepper"
wrote: "William Sommerwerck" appears to have caused the following letters to be typed in : My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more. Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant. (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.) Does this mean that it might be possible to denimbusify recordings with too much phony added reverb? Not reaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllly Abbedd |
#42
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Jul 6, 9:18 am, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:13:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: IMHO the best way to get a good classical recording is to use a good hall to make the recording and put the microphones on the right place. I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to start a campaign against the complete swamping of almost every recording of "early" music with reverberation, as if (a) we'd not realise it was early music unless this big audio sign was up saying "this is early music, listen to the reverb" and (b) all pre-baroque music was played and listened to in vast cathedrals and caverns... Again, this is off-topic, but it needs a response. It's not just the "early music" that's swamped in reverb -- most recordings of the music of any era has added reverb. I've felt for some years that we're not hearing early (and Baroque) music properly, because this added reverb audibly "contradicts" the acoustics of the relatively small spaces in which these works were performed. (I'm not talking about the Vespers of 1610, okay?) I've always had the impression that when a recording is swamped with reverb either the playing wasn't very good or the producer/engineer didn't really understand what he was recording. My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You have jogged my memory back to the fifties (those fabulous fifties) when a buddy of mine had a spring reverb unit in his car. Every time we drove over railroad tracks there was a huge blang. It was very dynamic, but not at all like a concert hall. |
#43
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more. Acoustically treat your listening environment. |
#44
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Mogens V." wrote in message . dk... Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. I've sometimes been thinking about exactly what you say here, i.e. a rear setup creating a natural ambiace, as it happens in the real theatre/hall due to reflections. Kindof a minimal effect, just to add what a spaciousness-wise 'flat' stereo recording don't have. Yes, I've tried some crappy consumer gear attempting to do that, of cause to no avail. I'll have a look at your suggested gear. One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband absorption and diffusers. Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going to fix your room. Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. I cant see it either but I sure can hear 3d in stereo recordings in my treated listening room. Of course some recordings have more than others but I do not hear any room or 3d with any stereo gear in untreated rooms. I just hear the untreated room. This is kind of odd but intuitive once one listens for awhile in a treated room. Listening to pop music in my treated room I can hear things like the different reverbs or delays on the individual instruments and where the effects are returned in the panorama. I had a hard time telling if there was any reverb in the untreated room. peace dawg |
#45
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
ansermetniac wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:10:57 GMT, "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote: "William Sommerwerck" appears to have caused the following letters to be typed in : My feelings on all acounts. So the more important question is how to get the reverb OUT of all these recordings, rather than add more. Not necessarily. Believe it or not, synthesizing (or extracting) ambience actually makes the recordings sound _less_ reverberant. (I duck, because missiles will soon be flying. But it's true.) Does this mean that it might be possible to denimbusify recordings with too much phony added reverb? Not reaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllly Abbedd LOL! Steve |
#46
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:33:44 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: I have NEVER seen a review in Stereophile saying the recording was too reverberant. Interpret this as you like. I haven't reviewed for Stereophile in 15 years. And what does that have to do with my observation, one way or another? It presents the possibility that Stereophile reviewers might be more interested in reveling in the rich, creamy reproduction of reverb than in considering whether it ought to be there at all :-) |
#47
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V."
wrote: Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens. Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised resolution of digital :-) |
#48
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:22:35 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: I even had my wife give the two versions a listen and she (who normally considers audio experimentation as foolishness) agreed with me. Ah, the audiophile's trump card is played yet again! :-) |
#49
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V." wrote: Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens. Yes, I do know what you mean. I wrote in another post I do have good stereo imaging and spacial definition _behind_ speakers; it's in the real part of the room _I'm_ in that's missing 3D definition. It's a new appartment, so I haven't finished the interior, meaning I'm aware I have some standing waves and reflections to deal with. It'll probably all fall nicely in place in due time, so I'll 'delay' looking into artificial arrrangements till then. I always get so much good info out of you guys'n'girls in here -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#50
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:27:54 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote: On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:22:35 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: I even had my wife give the two versions a listen and she (who normally considers audio experimentation as foolishness) agreed with me. Ah, the audiophile's trump card is played yet again! :-) Trump card? I've always read that as "I've got nothing". ;-) d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#51
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
I have NEVER seen a review in Stereophile saying the recording
was too reverberant. Interpret this as you like. I haven't reviewed for Stereophile in 15 years. And what does that have to do with my observation, one way or another? It presents the possibility that Stereophile reviewers might be more interested in reveling in the rich, creamy reproduction of reverb than in considering whether it ought to be there at all. :-) Ummm... Creamy reverb... |
#52
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V." wrote: Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens. Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised resolution of digital :-) Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room. No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Like putting Channel #5 on a pig and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning. peace dawg |
#53
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
In article et, Deputy
Dumbya Dawg writes "Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V." wrote: Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens. Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised resolution of digital :-) Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room. No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?.. Like putting Channel #5 on a pig and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning. Chanel 5 mon ami peace dawg -- Tony Sayer |
#54
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
wrote: Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope to an oil-painting"? |
#55
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. This is true, BUT you won't know what is important and what isn't. With headphones, the imaging is changed dramatically. One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable headphone devices out there. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#56
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote in message nk.net... "Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V." wrote: Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens. Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised resolution of digital :-) Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room. No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Like putting Channel #5 on a pig and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning. Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. peace dawg |
#57
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope to an oil-painting"? Useful for close listening, but without the room... -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#58
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
tony sayer wrote:
In article et, Deputy Dumbya Dawg writes "Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:26:57 +0200, "Mogens V." wrote: Of cause not. However, I fail to see how the fixed room can provide what's not present in a 2D stereo recording. But, somehow, you CAN get 3D from 2-channel playback. It's non-intuitive, and easy to argue against. But it happens. Rather like the infinite resolution of analogue versus the quantised resolution of digital :-) Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room. No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?.. That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways hidden next to some bookshelf. Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still... -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#59
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear
the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?.. That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways hidden next to some bookshelf. Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still... Come to that any websites advising on the subject?.... -- Tony Sayer |
#60
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
|
#61
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Carey Carlan wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in : One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable headphone devices out there. How do you create multitrack binaural recordings? By using digital gimmickery like the Lake processor to pan discrete sources around inside a virtual soundstage. The effect is surprisingly good. And, of course, it falls apart totally on speakers. There have also been binaural recordings with spot-mikes added as well, and of course there's Streetnoise... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#62
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
... (Scott Dorsey) wrote in : One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable headphone devices out there. --scott How do you create multitrack binaural recordings? 2 tracks at a time, each binaurally miked. Peace, Paul |
#63
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:24:30 +0000, Carey Carlan wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in : One solution to this, of course, is binaural recordings which are optimized for headphone listening and which have accurate imaging on headphones, But that's a limited market and there isn't much out there. Which is kind of surprising given the popularity of portable headphone devices out there. --scott How do you create multitrack binaural recordings? Leave the mics in the same place in the same room for every track. |
#64
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Mogens V." wrote in message . dk... Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope to an oil-painting"? Useful for close listening, but without the room... And isn't that what he wanted to find out?, what effect his room is having on recordings? -- Mogens V. |
#65
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message news On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope to an oil-painting"? It's useful for your intended purpose which I read to be finding out if your _listening room_ is adding to or concealing anything from a recording. |
#66
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
tony sayer wrote:
No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?.. That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways hidden next to some bookshelf. Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still... Come to that any websites advising on the subject?.... Surely quite a lot, like these ones: http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html http://www.realtraps.com/ http://www.whealy.com/drumming/Soundproofing/index.html http://www.rivesaudio.com/ http://www.soundproofing.org/sales/GreenGlue.htm http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/ http://www.ymec.com/products/rade/ Not really links to materials, but search for what's mentioned. Sometimes just pics of how it's been done can be helpful. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#67
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote in message . dk... Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:28:28 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. But will it be useful information? Or like saying "Take a microscope to an oil-painting"? Useful for close listening, but without the room... And isn't that what he wanted to find out?, what effect his room is having on recordings? Absolutely, only, the way I see it, headphones tell how the room affects the flat 2D recording, not providing the (same full) room experience. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#68
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
No matter how much you spend on equipment, you will
never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. This is a misleading statement -- its opposite (or contrapositive) is not true -- good room acoustics do not guarantee the audibility of detail if the electronics and speakers don't deliver it. Ideally, you want both good (that is, appropriate for playback) acoustics, and good equipment. |
#69
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
William Sommerwerck wrote:
No matter how much you spend on equipment, you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. This is a misleading statement -- its opposite (or contrapositive) is not true -- good room acoustics do not guarantee the audibility of detail if the electronics and speakers don't deliver it. Ideally, you want both good (that is, appropriate for playback) acoustics, and good equipment. Well, he has a point, despite some choise of phrasings... 'won't hear _all_ detail' and 'acoustically treated' would be better. If rooms would have to be fully optimized, not many private homes would have a decent musical experience. I agree that large expenditure on equipment may be a halfways waste in a less than adequate room, but even so, it will help - it's just the wrong way around, of cause. Many years ago I was totally broke and couldn't afford good gear. All I had was a Kodak Photo CD player into an Aiwa gettoblaster with somewhat decent amplifier, provided modest listening levels. I was working in a shop building amps, speakers and lights for band rental, and grapped hi quality filter components and a set of Wifa trebles for my set of seemingly crappy Philips speakers with 6½" drivers and slaves. I modified the drivers/slaves spider suspension, treated the paper cones against breakups and reinforced the boxes. Put the whole setup up on mic stands to get it off floor coupling. The room was quite good with a large carpet and bookshelves to partially break refelctions. A bass problem in a corner was solved with a large foam matress wrapped in thick velvet cloth behind a bookshelve. We had a bunch of hifi freaks in'n'out of the shop. One of them paid me a visit and was all open mouth in shock over the sound quality from such crappy gear. Once I got my used Hieraga class A amp copy, things changed incredibly. This is of cause nothing but a totally irrelevant (high end wise) story, but still serves to point out the importance of even just very modest room treatment and especially decent (modified) speakers. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#70
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message ... Tell you what. Put Madonna's Immaculate Collection on and if you don't hear 3d from your stereo with that overdone example of a recording your system is being drown out by the acoustics of your room. No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Like putting Channel #5 on a pig and wondering why all you can smell is pig in the morning. Rather than cables, tubes, pigs and perfumes, put on a decent pair of headphones and you will know exactly what's in any recording. Except for the imaging part being non existent in headphones you are right. If you really think that headphones image please come over to my house cause I want to watch you crap your pants when you hear my system. I'll get the rubber covers out. peace dawg |
#71
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... No matter how much you spend on equipment you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. It amazes me how people will spend thousands on cables and new tubes and then wonder why they cant hear anything different. Possibly they don't know anything about how to do so?.. That, and that a sound treated room doesn't look like a normal living room, plus furnitures gets arranged according to indoor decoration rules, leaving those speakers to look nicer and unobtrusive halfways hidden next to some bookshelf. Yes, I'm aware nice looking materials do exist; still... Come to that any websites advising on the subject?.... -- Tony Sayer http://www.recording.org/forum-34.html http://forum.studiotips.com/index.php peace dawg |
#72
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. No matter how much you spend on equipment, you will never hear the detail that is in the recordings if your room is not acoustically optimized. This is a misleading statement -- its opposite (or contrapositive) is not true -- good room acoustics do not guarantee the audibility of detail if the electronics and speakers don't deliver it. Ideally, you want both good (that is, appropriate for playback) acoustics, and good equipment. But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques, the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed. peace dawg |
#73
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques,
the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed. You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without qualification -- implies it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that the better the setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the recording "really" sounds like. |
#74
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques, the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed. You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without qualification -- implies it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that the better the setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the recording "really" sounds like. -------- William, you have the habit of quoting the immediately previous post without attribution. That can be annoying, though not in this case. Reading this thread has caused me to note that I share at least one sentiment with 'abbedd': What the recording 'really' sounds like is not of great importance. I want the music to sound good. Mr. 'abbedd' and I disagree on specifics, is all. bl |
#75
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques, the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed. You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without qualification -- implies it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that the better the setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the recording "really" sounds like. Perhaps overstated I agree, but my overstatement complements the understatement that preceded it. My point is, too often many people search for sonic reality in a very unbalanced way, heavy on the equipment and light on acoustics. Had I met just one person in the past who would have impressed the importance of acoustics on me I would have spent a lot less money chasing sonic nirvana purchasing equipment and more time enjoying the equipment I already had for the last 30 years. I want to be that voice crying in the wind for some people chasing sonic nirvana here today. Perhaps even some of those who are or will be mixing music I want to hear over and over in the future. peace dawg |
#76
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
Reading this thread has caused me to note that I share
at least one sentiment with abbedd: What the recording "really" sounds like is not of great importance. I want the music to sound good. This is an aesthetic issue of profound importance, but I'm so busy that I don't have time to discuss it at length, except to say that it's been my experience that, the more-accurately a recording is reproduced, the more one (or at least, I) enjoy the performance. I don't want the music to "sound good" -- I want to hear the recording, without "editorial comments" from the amps, speakers, room, etc. I might add that abbedd is indeed defending accurate reproduction -- what the recording "really" sounds like. Room treatment is one element of high-fidelity reproduction. |
#77
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 10:04:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: I might add that abbedd is indeed defending accurate reproduction Even against an army of trolls equipped with forked tongues and mouth flung bovine manure Abbedd There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad. Salvador Dali |
#78
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote in message One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more audible was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps, broadband absorption and diffusers. Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if the room is blowing back early reflections from your speakers you are masking the low level detail that provides the reverb in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb is not going to fix your room. peace dawg I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass, recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when the music program stops, is the first sonic component to become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound. Conversely since I feel the reverb in recordings is first to be lost in the blowback of an acoustically untreated room it is only logical to assume that reverb will be one of the first "WOW sounds" that a listener will benefit from when he adequately acoustically optimizes his reproduction system. Listeners can be quoted as saying " I heard this a million times and I never heard xxxxxxxx before" They will describe hearing individual sounds that were always there just masked by the acoustics of the listening room. This same experience can be obtained in the bass once the room treatment reaches critical mass, bass instruments become more tame and musical playing individual notes in there own space. Impossible in a room with room modes overhanging and overpowering what is coming out of the speakers. A professional bass player who listened to Led Zep II a million times heard it on my system in a treated room and said about one of the songs " oh that's how it goes". And he heard it here before treatment. I hope this helps some people to peruse treating your listening rooms and perhaps stop wasting time with equipment upgrades until you get your listening room optimized. peace dawg |
#79
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass, recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when the music program stops, is the first sonic component to become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound. Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically -- reverberant, this is not so. The average room's decay time is considerably shorter than the reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking it. The improvement you hear is to better imaging, and the resulting ability to better appreciate the recording's ambience. |
#80
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Adding reverb to hi-fi
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass, recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when the music program stops, is the first sonic component to become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound. Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically -- reverberant, this is not so. The average room's decay time is considerably shorter than the reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking it. The improvement you hear is to better imaging, and the resulting ability to better appreciate the recording's ambience. Don't particularly know what the "average room" is but now that I have become aware of what a rooms early reflections bearing down on me sound like and what a room that does not do this sounds like. Now I can easily hear and clearly distinguish the room sound in untreated rooms. Not only in playback but I can hear my friends room affecting his voice on recordings he makes in his studio. If this is what you mean by better appreciating the recording's ambience then we agree 100% I dont care to argue semantics with you but I know that to my ears I can tell the difference in the reverb, bass, inner detail of imaging and timbre of instruments and effects used (what type effect, settings of it, where it is returned in the soundstage) easily in my treated room where before treatment they were never audible to me in the same way before. So again I stress that room treatment be addressed by anyone serious about really hearing what is in the recordings you play. Make acoustic treatment your next upgrade quest and don't futz around with adding reverb to recordings that already have it. peace dawg |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
matching reverb transformer to reverb tank? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Adding Headphones? | Car Audio | |||
Help: Adding nav. to '02 Acura MDX? | Car Audio | |||
adding an Eq to factory HDU | Car Audio | |||
adding an amplifier--Help! | General |