Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
ansermetniac ansermetniac is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
videochas www.locoworks.com videochas www.locoworks.com is offline
Banned
 
Posts: 134
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Steve de Mena Steve de Mena is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
tony sayer tony sayer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Norman M. Schwartz Norman M. Schwartz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
tony sayer tony sayer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default 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


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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."
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Norman M. Schwartz Norman M. Schwartz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Norman M. Schwartz Norman M. Schwartz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Bob Lombard Bob Lombard is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
ansermetniac ansermetniac is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.music.classical.recordings,rec.audio.opinion,alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
matching reverb transformer to reverb tank? ralf Vacuum Tubes 7 November 10th 06 01:37 AM
Adding Headphones? [email protected] Car Audio 3 April 26th 06 05:48 PM
Help: Adding nav. to '02 Acura MDX? Jonathan Car Audio 0 November 1st 05 02:23 PM
adding an Eq to factory HDU LAVALLE Car Audio 2 April 1st 04 05:31 AM
adding an amplifier--Help! Mark D. Zacharias General 0 July 23rd 03 11:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"