[Ethan Winer]

One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played back
it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you. The
experiment shown in my newest video proves it's not an easy task! We weren't
entirely successful, but did manage to get fairly close with some of the
instruments. Look for Recorded Realism near the bottom of the RealTraps
Videos page:

http://www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

Also available for download in higher resolution on Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/1834249

Enjoy!

--Ethan

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...

One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played
back it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you.

You've got it backwards -- so that you are in the original acoustic space.

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...

One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played
back it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you.

You've got it backwards -- so that you are in the original acoustic space.

Both illusions have been tried over the years; as the signal-to-noise ratio
improved, we've moved from the bring-the-musicians-to-your-room approach to
the put-the-listener-into-the-space approach. But there's room for both,
although, as Michael Flanders said, "I can think of nothing I should hate
more than to have a symphony orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

Peace,
Paul

[Ethan Winer]

Guys,

You've got it backwards -- so that you are in the original acoustic space.

Yes, that too, but it's a different goal. I think you need a surround setup
for that to be convincing.

as Michael Flanders said, "I can think of nothing I should hate more than
to have a symphony orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

Agreed fully. Funny side story: When I was doing the opening monologue I
said "string quartet or rock band" and also said "orchestra." When I edited
the video I realized an orchestra is NOT something you want in your living
room! So I took out that part. :-)

Thanks guys.

--Ethan

[Daniel Fuchs[_3_]]

Ethan Winer wrote:

When I
edited the video I realized an orchestra is NOT something you want in
your living room! So I took out that part. :-)

Ethan, the video editing is terrible.. ;-))

Apart from that, I wonder why you chose a single mic to record, and why
the 4033 of all mics.

The cello was fairly convincing IMHO. I didn't find the percussion very
"realistic", though.


Daniel

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played
back it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you.
The experiment shown in my newest video proves it's not an easy task! We
weren't entirely successful, but did manage to get fairly close with some
of the instruments. Look for Recorded Realism near the bottom of the
RealTraps Videos page:

http://www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

Also available for download in higher resolution on Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/1834249

Enjoy!

--Ethan

This is a version of a loudspeaker evaluation protocol I have used many
times. As done, it eliminates essentially all the variables except the
loudspeaker. The Mackie HR624 exhibits a symptom of inaccuracy found in
many monitors. The 24 dB/octave slopes of the crossover are introducing
Electrical Phase Distortion, yielding a somewhat "pinched" sound in the 3
KHz crossover region.

A monitor with gentler crossover slopes will sound more accurate. For any
analog EQ, "a slope greater than 6 dB/octave introduces EPD that is
noticeable and irreversible".

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

This is a version of a loudspeaker evaluation protocol I have used many
times. As done, it eliminates essentially all the variables except the
loudspeaker. The Mackie HR624 exhibits a symptom of inaccuracy found in
many monitors. The 24 dB/octave slopes of the crossover are introducing
Electrical Phase Distortion, yielding a somewhat "pinched" sound in the 3
KHz crossover region.

A monitor with gentler crossover slopes will sound more accurate.

Not necessarily, on several counts. First, one purpose of higher-order
crossovers is to lessen the area of overlap, where both drivers are
contributing to the sound. Having more overlap, as you have with gentler
slopes, runs the risk of:

Having both drivers operating, but with very different dispersion patterns.

Generating acoustical phase distortion because the two drivers are not
located at the same point in space.

Another purpose of higher-order distortion is to roll off the signals
rapidly enough to stay away from troublesome areas. With a gentler slope,
you run the risk of putting significant signal in at the frequencies of cone
breakup (woofer) or fundamental resonance (tweeter).

There isn't one best answer, unfortunately; 6dB/octave crossovers have
strengths and weaknesses, as do higher-order crossovers. I've heard
genuinely excellent and accurate sound with all kinds of crossovers.
Sometimes I think it depends more on the designer's skill than the
particular engineering solution chosen.

And by the way, the "pinched" sound at the crossover frequency of the Mackie
could also be coming from cone breakup, distortion in the tweeter, horn
effects in the tweeter, or other driver problems rather than the crossover.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played
back it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you.

You've got it backwards -- so that you are in the original acoustic
space.

Both illusions have been tried over the years; as the signal-to-noise
ratio
improved, we've moved from the bring-the-musicians-to-your-room approach
to the put-the-listener-into-the-space approach. But there's room for
both,
although, as Michael Flanders said, "I can think of nothing I should hate
more than to have a symphony orchestra actually playing in my sitting
room."

I was trying to think of that quote. Thanks.

A room might be able to provide the correct reverberation for a string
quartet -- but if it did, it would badly color the sound that playback of
other types of music would be unacceptable.

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
although, as Michael Flanders said, "I can think of nothing I should
hate
more than to have a symphony orchestra actually playing in my sitting
room."

I was trying to think of that quote. Thanks.

A room might be able to provide the correct reverberation for a string
quartet -- but if it did, it would badly color the sound that playback of
other types of music would be unacceptable.

Oh, I dunno -- I've done the "bring 'em to your room" type of recording with
folk groups, jazz trios, and other small ensembles. (Basically recording in
a fairly dead acoustic, letting the listener's room provide the setting.) I
agree with you (and Mr. Flanders) that it's not an appropriate approach for
an orchestra.

Peace,
Paul

[Ethan Winer]

Daniel,

Ethan, the video editing is terrible.. ;-))

No kidding. I edited based on the audio and let the video do what it will.
If only I hadn't moved my arms so much it'd be much less obvious. But the
edits removed some extra parts that were unnecessary and would have been
distracting.

--Ethan

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Paul Stamler" wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

This is a version of a loudspeaker evaluation protocol I have used many
times. As done, it eliminates essentially all the variables except the
loudspeaker. The Mackie HR624 exhibits a symptom of inaccuracy found
in many monitors. The 24 dB/octave slopes of the crossover are
introducing Electrical Phase Distortion, yielding a somewhat "pinched"
sound in the 3 KHz crossover region.

A monitor with gentler crossover slopes will sound more accurate.

[snip]

There isn't one best answer, unfortunately; 6dB/octave crossovers have
strengths and weaknesses, as do higher-order crossovers. I've heard
genuinely excellent and accurate sound with all kinds of crossovers.
Sometimes I think it depends more on the designer's skill than the
particular engineering solution chosen.

Agreed, however ...

And by the way, the "pinched" sound at the crossover frequency of the
Mackie could also be coming from cone breakup, distortion in the tweeter,
horn effects in the tweeter, or other driver problems rather than the
crossover.

And yet I've heard that "sound" from many monitors, with various types of
drivers, playing at levels well below any risk of breakup. I've also heard
it when using analog EQ with severe slopes on elements of a mix.

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the Mackie
HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.

Peace,
Paul

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Don Pearce]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...
This is a version of a loudspeaker evaluation protocol I have used many
times. As done, it eliminates essentially all the variables except the
loudspeaker. The Mackie HR624 exhibits a symptom of inaccuracy found
in many monitors. The 24 dB/octave slopes of the crossover are
introducing Electrical Phase Distortion, yielding a somewhat "pinched"
sound in the 3 KHz crossover region.

A monitor with gentler crossover slopes will sound more accurate.
[snip]

There isn't one best answer, unfortunately; 6dB/octave crossovers have
strengths and weaknesses, as do higher-order crossovers. I've heard
genuinely excellent and accurate sound with all kinds of crossovers.
Sometimes I think it depends more on the designer's skill than the
particular engineering solution chosen.

Agreed, however ...

And by the way, the "pinched" sound at the crossover frequency of the
Mackie could also be coming from cone breakup, distortion in the tweeter,
horn effects in the tweeter, or other driver problems rather than the
crossover.

And yet I've heard that "sound" from many monitors, with various types of
drivers, playing at levels well below any risk of breakup. I've also heard
it when using analog EQ with severe slopes on elements of a mix.

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the Mackie
HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.

I think that judgement is possibly a step too far given the evidence. I
would say that inaccuracy in that speaker was a second order effect
compared to that of the room. Ethan had surrounded the setup with gobos,
but they didn't extend full height and that would certainly have some
effect.

It was certainly a very interesting test though.

d

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
[snip]
And by the way, the "pinched" sound at the crossover frequency of the
Mackie could also be coming from cone breakup, distortion in the
tweeter, horn effects in the tweeter, or other driver problems rather
than the crossover.

And yet I've heard that "sound" from many monitors, with various types
of drivers, playing at levels well below any risk of breakup. I've
also heard it when using analog EQ with severe slopes on elements of a
mix.

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the Mackie
HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.

I think that judgement is possibly a step too far given the evidence. I
would say that inaccuracy in that speaker was a second order effect
compared to that of the room. Ethan had surrounded the setup with gobos,
but they didn't extend full height and that would certainly have some
effect.

It was certainly a very interesting test though.

d

There is a consistent, discernible aberration in the playback's upper
midrange. It is there with all instruments. The "room" *we* hear largely
is not picked up by the DPA. Our perception as heard through the AT4033
includes the exact room in each case. The only variants are the DPA and
the Mackie. I'm quite satisfied the aberration from the Mackie.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:54:59 -0400, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played back
it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you. The
experiment shown in my newest video proves it's not an easy task! We weren't
entirely successful, but did manage to get fairly close with some of the
instruments. Look for Recorded Realism near the bottom of the RealTraps
Videos page:

http://www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

I was really surprised how well the cello worked (for me). Some
of the little shakers came off far worse (for me). Very interesting
indeed!

But for a really surprising recording, catch the sound on "How to
Set Up and Treat a Listening Room". Not to spoil the surprise, but
near the end it's revealed that sound is from the on-camera mic.
Now, *that's* room treatment.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-10-01, Paul Stamler wrote:

Oh, I dunno -- I've done the "bring 'em to your room" type of recording with
folk groups, jazz trios, and other small ensembles. (Basically recording in
a fairly dead acoustic, letting the listener's room provide the setting.) I
agree with you (and Mr. Flanders) that it's not an appropriate approach for
an orchestra.

Certainly not if you try to reproduce the sound levels they'd produce if
you squished them into my front room. They're loud in a big concert hall
or a school hall or a theatre - especially if you're close to them. I
still remember my first rehearsal with one in a rented school hall.

Flanders and Swann were good though.

"Then you'd only get the true sterephonic effect if you sat in the
cupboard" or something to that effect.

- Richard

[Daniel Fuchs[_3_]]

Ethan Winer wrote:

No kidding.

In fact I was just kiddin'... ;-)

What about the single 4033 then?


Best,
Daniel

[Ethan Winer]

Daniel,

In fact I was just kiddin'... ;-)

Whew! :-)

What about the single 4033 then?

I have a pair of 4033s but I figured Stereo would just confuse the issue,
especially on the larger instruments like acoustic guitar and cello when
compared to the small Mackie speaker.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Roy,

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the Mackie
HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.

I agree with Don that the room dominates. In every case you are hearing the
Mackie through the 4033 five feet away, not the DPA close up. More to the
point, Mackie HR speakers are likely the flattest speakers available at
reasonable prices. If you have access to Philip Newell's Book "Recording
Studio Design" take a look at Appendix 2. There are 36 popular "pro"
monitors compared for frequency response, ringing, distortion, etc and the
Mackie (824) is among the flattest. Much flatter than some currently popular
models including some that are very expensive. The Mackie's distortion is
also about the lowest in the bunch.

--Ethan

[Don Pearce]

Ethan Winer wrote:
Roy,

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the
Mackie HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.

I agree with Don that the room dominates. In every case you are hearing
the Mackie through the 4033 five feet away, not the DPA close up. More
to the point, Mackie HR speakers are likely the flattest speakers
available at reasonable prices. If you have access to Philip Newell's
Book "Recording Studio Design" take a look at Appendix 2. There are 36
popular "pro" monitors compared for frequency response, ringing,
distortion, etc and the Mackie (824) is among the flattest. Much flatter
than some currently popular models including some that are very
expensive. The Mackie's distortion is also about the lowest in the bunch.

--Ethan

Just one question, Ethan. Why didn't you tilt the Mackie speaker so the
mic was on its tweeter axis? I think that would have given it a better
chance of doing a good job.

d

[Don Pearce]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
[snip]
And by the way, the "pinched" sound at the crossover frequency of the
Mackie could also be coming from cone breakup, distortion in the
tweeter, horn effects in the tweeter, or other driver problems rather
than the crossover.
And yet I've heard that "sound" from many monitors, with various types
of drivers, playing at levels well below any risk of breakup. I've
also heard it when using analog EQ with severe slopes on elements of a
mix.

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the Mackie
HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.
I think that judgement is possibly a step too far given the evidence. I
would say that inaccuracy in that speaker was a second order effect
compared to that of the room. Ethan had surrounded the setup with gobos,
but they didn't extend full height and that would certainly have some
effect.

It was certainly a very interesting test though.

d

There is a consistent, discernible aberration in the playback's upper
midrange. It is there with all instruments. The "room" *we* hear largely
is not picked up by the DPA. Our perception as heard through the AT4033
includes the exact room in each case. The only variants are the DPA and
the Mackie. I'm quite satisfied the aberration from the Mackie.


OK, opinions differ, but what I hear on the Mackie version is definitely
a double dose of room - it simply isn't just a tonal balance variation
of the sort that could be fixed with eq.

d

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
[snip]
And by the way, the "pinched" sound at the crossover frequency of
the Mackie could also be coming from cone breakup, distortion in the
tweeter, horn effects in the tweeter, or other driver problems
rather than the crossover.

And yet I've heard that "sound" from many monitors, with various
types of drivers, playing at levels well below any risk of breakup.
I've also heard it when using analog EQ with severe slopes on
elements of a mix.

Whatever its source, Mr. Winer has plainly demonstrated that the
Mackie HR624 is not sufficiently accurate for pro applications.

I think that judgement is possibly a step too far given the evidence.
I would say that inaccuracy in that speaker was a second order effect
compared to that of the room. Ethan had surrounded the setup with
gobos, but they didn't extend full height and that would certainly
have some effect.

It was certainly a very interesting test though.

d

There is a consistent, discernible aberration in the playback's upper
midrange. It is there with all instruments. The "room" *we* hear
largely is not picked up by the DPA. Our perception as heard through
the AT4033 includes the exact room in each case. The only variants are
the DPA and the Mackie. I'm quite satisfied the aberration is from the
Mackie.


OK, opinions differ, but what I hear on the Mackie version is definitely
a double dose of room - it simply isn't just a tonal balance variation
of the sort that could be fixed with eq.

d

.... and what I hear on the Mackie versions is not, and really can't be, a
"double dose of room". The added "room" from the DPA is close to
negligible. What I hear is Electrical Phase Distortion, not "just a tonal
balance variation of the sort that could be fixed with eq" The
contribution is there and will result in adjustments in a mix that should
not be made.

A better form of loudspeaker evaluation protocol uses recorded program
material. The playback via a monitor and mic is compared to a direct feed
of the playback. For this, care must be taken to minimize influence from
the room. Another method is to suspend the test mic above the test monitor
lying on its back in an open field.

After comparing numerous monitors, it is easy to discern the more accurate
ones from the others. I stand on my comment about the Mackie HR624.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[John Connors]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:54:59 -0400, Ethan Winer wrote:

One goal of music recording is to capture a true sound, so when played back
it sounds like the musicians are right there in the room with you. The
experiment shown in my newest video proves it's not an easy task! We weren't
entirely successful, but did manage to get fairly close with some of the
instruments. Look for Recorded Realism near the bottom of the RealTraps
Videos page:

http://www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

Also available for download in higher resolution on Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/1834249

Enjoy!

--Ethan

General commentary...

Overall, I thought the Mackie sounded "thin" compared to the live.

Even with the wood sticks, you can hear a mid tone that is missing from the
Mackie up until you hit them together hard at the end at which point that
mid tone comes out.


I thought the acoustic guitar was totally different sounding through the
Mackie.
The electric guitar was reasonable.
The cello sounded very good up until the point where you were hitting
multiple strings and then there was some oddness going on.
Maybe the speaker was overloading?

I happen to like the Mackie monitors BTW.
I was using Event ASP8 for this though and played a low levels.

Interesting experiment!

[Ethan Winer]

Why didn't you tilt the Mackie speaker so the mic was on its tweeter axis?
I think that would have given it a better chance of doing a good job.

The microphone was directly on-axis. Perhaps it's not clear in the video
given the angle of the camera looking down, but I definitely thought of that
and set the microphone height accordingly. The microphone was also pointed
straight at the Mackie speaker.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Thanks John. To my ears the cello sounds pretty close but lacks deep bass.
I'm sure the loss of bass was due to that particular close microphone
placement.

--Ethan






"John Connors" wrote:

General commentary...

Overall, I thought the Mackie sounded "thin" compared to the live.

Even with the wood sticks, you can hear a mid tone that is missing from
the Mackie up until you hit them together hard at the end at which point
that mid tone comes out.


I thought the acoustic guitar was totally different sounding through the
Mackie.
The electric guitar was reasonable.
The cello sounded very good up until the point where you were hitting
multiple strings and then there was some oddness going on.
Maybe the speaker was overloading?

I happen to like the Mackie monitors BTW.
I was using Event ASP8 for this though and played a low levels.

Interesting experiment!