I have been listenig to a lot of high end equipment lately and I have
come to the opinion that a lot of it is fundamentally flawed. When I
hear things they sound very nice but they dont sound realistic. What I
mean is often a real instrument or someone singing in a room sounds
kinda boring and hi-fi manufacturers make things sound nicer than they
really are.
For example go and record a single voice with a good mic without
compression,eq at a distance that avoids the proximty effect. then
play it back on your beautiful hifi. It will probably sound good but
it won't sound exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than the raw sound
of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about distortion etc
but I think we all take them with a grain of salt deep down.
Maybe its good that things sound better than real. I'd be interested
to hear other peoples opinions on this. Has anyone heard some
equipment that sounds "boringly real"?

Ben Hoadley wrote:
I have been listenig to a lot of high end equipment lately and I have
come to the opinion that a lot of it is fundamentally flawed. When I
hear things they sound very nice but they dont sound realistic. What I
mean is often a real instrument or someone singing in a room sounds
kinda boring and hi-fi manufacturers make things sound nicer than they
really are.
For example go and record a single voice with a good mic without
compression,eq at a distance that avoids the proximty effect. then
play it back on your beautiful hifi. It will probably sound good but
it won't sound exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than the raw sound
of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about distortion etc
but I think we all take them with a grain of salt deep down.
Maybe its good that things sound better than real. I'd be interested
to hear other peoples opinions on this. Has anyone heard some
equipment that sounds "boringly real"?

It's often been remarked for a long time that the best accurate systems
don't sound exceptional in terms of making an initial strong impression.
That being said, no system/recording I've ever heard reproduces acoustic
music as it really sounds.

(Ben Hoadley) writes:

For example go and record a single voice with a good mic
without compression,eq at a distance that avoids the
proximty effect. then play it back on your beautiful
hifi. It will probably sound good but it won't sound
exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than
the raw sound of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about
distortion etc but I think we all take them with a grain
of salt deep down. Maybe its good that things sound
better than real. I'd be interested to hear other peoples
opinions on this. Has anyone heard some equipment that
sounds "boringly real"?

I think Quad ESL 63s do this for voice. I've tried something
pretty much as above and the result was quite
disconcertingly realistic. It's best to use somebody else's
voice since no one knows what their own voice sounds like.

For more complex sounds the question is harder. To
paraphrase Flanders and Swann, we go to a lot of trouble to
recreate the effect of a symphony orchestra in our living
rooms. But having a symphony orchestra in one's living room
would be quite unpleasant -- think of all the saliva from
the brass section, for one thing -- and not at all like a
concert hall.

--
Jón Fairbairn

Ben Hoadley wrote:
|| I have been listenig to a lot of high end equipment lately and I have
|| come to the opinion that a lot of it is fundamentally flawed. When I
|| hear things they sound very nice but they dont sound realistic. What
|| I mean is often a real instrument or someone singing in a room sounds
|| kinda boring and hi-fi manufacturers make things sound nicer than
|| they really are.
|| For example go and record a single voice with a good mic without
|| compression,eq at a distance that avoids the proximty effect. then
|| play it back on your beautiful hifi. It will probably sound good but
|| it won't sound exacty like you. I think with instruments its even
|| more obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than the raw
|| sound of some guy playing over there.
|| I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about distortion
|| etc but I think we all take them with a grain of salt deep down.
|| Maybe its good that things sound better than real. I'd be interested
|| to hear other peoples opinions on this. Has anyone heard some
|| equipment that sounds "boringly real"?

My first experiments started 1966 when I was supposed to rehearse my Double
Bass for the school orchestra. I borrowed daddy's Grundig Magnetophon tape
machine and played once in the mike. Then every day I would play the tape
and continue reading. At least through the closed door it sounded absolutly
realistic and my mom was fooled a whole week, until she entered one day.
m doing a lot of Video work and there is often voice and ambient sounds. I
use the stereo mike Sony ECM959A. You would think the person is talking in
the room, the sound is absolutly natural. In fact, even if you think your
voice sounds different, you can fool the closest relatives playing your
recorded voice.
I have 360° radiating speakers, so even if you walk around the room you
cannot distinguish between the real and recorded voice.
What the OP descibes seems to be a tube amp setup, where things sound better
than real(in his own words). I prefer the sound being undistinguishable from
the original.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/

Oddly enough, I've had a reaction to live music which is at odds with yours.
The times that I've attended live concerts recently leaves me disappointed in
terms of the sound. I believe I often find the "unrealistic" sound of my home
stereo to provide a more satisfying overall experience. Music affects my
emotions and it either grabs me or doesn't. I am "grabbed" more often at home.
I speak here of classical music.

On 19 Dec 2003 18:01:43 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn"
wrote:

(Ben Hoadley) writes:

For example go and record a single voice with a good mic
without compression,eq at a distance that avoids the
proximty effect. then play it back on your beautiful
hifi. It will probably sound good but it won't sound
exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than
the raw sound of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about
distortion etc but I think we all take them with a grain
of salt deep down. Maybe its good that things sound
better than real. I'd be interested to hear other peoples
opinions on this. Has anyone heard some equipment that
sounds "boringly real"?

I think Quad ESL 63s do this for voice. I've tried something
pretty much as above and the result was quite
disconcertingly realistic. It's best to use somebody else's
voice since no one knows what their own voice sounds like.

I tend to agree, and I would extrapolate further to say that the vast
majority of 'natural' sounding systems that I've heard, have included
large planar speakers. My own Apogee Duetta Signatures do not impress
at first (aside from their appearance!), but throw a remarkably
natural soundstage that just gets better the longer you listen to it,
with stunningly clean midrange and detailed but sweet treble. This is
also a feature of the bigger Magnepans and the modern Martin-Logans.

This seems to be *very* difficult for box spekers to achieve, and only
a very select (and expensive!) few that I've so far heard can approach
the 'natural' sound of big planars. All the above IMHO, natch!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

It's often been remarked for a long time that the best accurate systems
don't sound exceptional in terms of making an initial strong impression.
That being said, no system/recording I've ever heard reproduces acoustic
music as it really sounds.

Our goal for recording my SACD "The Window" was to try to accurately
capture and then reproduce the sound of an acoustic band performing in
a studio. It was recorded directly to DSD and is a hybrid multichannel
SACD. A full review is online at High Fidelity Review:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/re...umber=17575041

Best Regards - David Elias
www.davidelias.com

What the OP descibes seems to be a tube amp setup, where things sound better
than real(in his own words). I prefer the sound being undistinguishable from
the original.

not only tubes. I think decent (not great) power amps are more common.
Speakers are a more common source of the problem

LnArth wrote:
Oddly enough, I've had a reaction to live music which is at odds with yours.
The times that I've attended live concerts recently leaves me disappointed in
terms of the sound. I believe I often find the "unrealistic" sound of my home
stereo to provide a more satisfying overall experience. Music affects my
emotions and it either grabs me or doesn't. I am "grabbed" more often at home.
I speak here of classical music.

Perhaps you've haven't been to a classical concert in a place that had
exceptional acoustics. I would agree that a really bad acoustic can leave
one to thinking that an audio system is prefereable.

For more complex sounds the question is harder. To
paraphrase Flanders and Swann, we go to a lot of trouble to
recreate the effect of a symphony orchestra in our living
rooms. But having a symphony orchestra in one's living room
would be quite unpleasant -- think of all the saliva from
the brass section, for one thing -- and not at all like a
concert hall.

--
Jón Fairbairn


I don't think the goal is to have the sound of the orchestra in your listening
room. I think the goal is for the listening room to sonically disappear and to
have the illusion of the concerthall with the orchestra take it's place.

(LnArth) wrote in message ...
Oddly enough, I've had a reaction to live music which is at odds with yours.
The times that I've attended live concerts recently leaves me disappointed in
terms of the sound. I believe I often find the "unrealistic" sound of my home
stereo to provide a more satisfying overall experience. Music affects my
emotions and it either grabs me or doesn't. I am "grabbed" more often at home.
I speak here of classical music.

This is not at odds at all, it reaffirms my point.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

For more complex sounds the question is harder. To
paraphrase Flanders and Swann, we go to a lot of trouble to
recreate the effect of a symphony orchestra in our living
rooms. But having a symphony orchestra in one's living room
would be quite unpleasant -- think of all the saliva from
the brass section, for one thing -- and not at all like a
concert hall.

--
Jón Fairbairn



I don't think the goal is to have the sound of the orchestra in your
listening
room. I think the goal is for the listening room to sonically disappear
and to
have the illusion of the concerthall with the orchestra take it's place.

This, of course, gets back to the fundamental question of the purpose of
Hi-Fi: Are we attempting to recreate what a listener would have heard in
the concert hall, or what the recording engineer heard in the control room.
While it seems these should be the same goals, the majority of recorded
music was not, as a matter of fact, recorded in anything resembling a
concert hall. It was recorded in a studio and frequently engineered to a
specific sound that you would never hear in a concert hall.

I would only apply the concert hall standard to recordings made in concert
halls.

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...
(LnArth) wrote in message
...
Oddly enough, I've had a reaction to live music which is at odds with
yours.
The times that I've attended live concerts recently leaves me
disappointed in
terms of the sound. I believe I often find the "unrealistic" sound of my
home
stereo to provide a more satisfying overall experience. Music affects
my
emotions and it either grabs me or doesn't. I am "grabbed" more often
at home.
I speak here of classical music.

IMO this depends upon the concert hall and even more importantly where
within it you happend to be sitting.

This is not at odds at all, it reaffirms my point.

There are many classical pieces I never took to (they didn't grab) in
recordings at home. After hearing it "live" I became to understand what the
fuss was all about. Then listening to that recording at home again I was
able to hear the live event in my mind's ear and could take to it then and
forever more. All recordings and any systems that I ever heard were many
orders of magnitude lesser than a good seating location in a decent
"auditorium". For me recordings are only attempted reproductions of the real
thing available for the sole purpose of being enjoyed in the comfort and
privacy of your home at any hour of the day or night.

(S888Wheel) writes:

I don't think the goal is to have the sound of the
orchestra in your listening room.

I have the distinct impression that Flanders and Swann were
a humerous outfit, but I could be wrong.

I think the goal is for
the listening room to sonically disappear and to have the
illusion of the concerthall with the orchestra take it's
place.

Of course. But you can see that that is a very different
proposition to that of producing the illusion of someone
speaking in the room, which was my point.

--
Jón Fairbairn
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2003-08-02)

Norman Schwartz:

All recordings and any systems that I ever heard were many
orders of magnitude lesser than a good seating location in a decent
"auditorium". For me recordings are only attempted reproductions of the real
thing available for the sole purpose of being enjoyed in the comfort and
privacy of your home at any hour of the day or night.

That's fine for you.

I prefer listening to music at home to nearly any live performance. Practically
every time I go to a concert, whether because of others' talking, rattling,
perfume, etc., no more than a half-hour has passed before I wish the concert
were over and I could be home.

People are so ****ing annoying in public, even classical concertgoers. I had a
subscription at the Kennedy Center for years, but I dropped it, oh, ten years
ago because of all the talking -- this one couple in particular whom I was
always seated a few rows away from.

I can't imagine what it's like now with cellphones (and the sense of
entitlement that seems to come with owning one).

I seldom have to worry about the behavior of others when I'm listening to my
stereo.

I don't get why there's even a comparison. They're two such completely
different experiences. Stereo: I can wear what I want, eat what I want, listen
when I want. Concert: have to wear something at least semi-dressy, be there at
a certain time, sit at attention, put up with other people. No obstacles to
hearing music v. all the obstacles that can be thrown at one.

The only concerts I didn't wish I were home during have been Bruce
Springsteen's. And he's not my favorite singer.

Many thanks to whoever invented the stereo. Many, many thanks.

On 12/21/03 4:34 PM, in article ,
"Farrell8882" wrote:

I prefer listening to music at home to nearly any live performance.
Practically
every time I go to a concert, whether because of others' talking, rattling,
perfume, etc., no more than a half-hour has passed before I wish the concert
were over and I could be home.

Ah, that is all part of the performance! And how organic it is!

While a recording doctored by a good engineer, tends towards perfection, I
prefer the imperfections and annoyances in a real setting - somehow the
club, feeling a bit inebriated with a couple of drinks and the jazz or blues
washing over me is ... Bliss!

Now, at home, the system is as good as I can afford, so I can experience
perfection for what it is, but live -- well, a whole different system of
judgment comes into play!

Sorry to heard you don't prefer the live performances - well, to each their
own - it seems to have two standards one for home, one for live!

wrote:

On 12/21/03 4:34 PM, in article ,
"Farrell8882" wrote:

I prefer listening to music at home to nearly any live performance.
Practically
every time I go to a concert, whether because of others' talking, rattling,
perfume, etc., no more than a half-hour has passed before I wish the
concert
were over and I could be home.

Ah, that is all part of the performance! And how organic it is!

Unless you're talking about strawberries, melon, or peppers, just because
something's organic doesn't make it better.

While a recording doctored by a good engineer, tends towards perfection, I
prefer the imperfections and annoyances in a real setting - somehow the
club, feeling a bit inebriated with a couple of drinks and the jazz or blues
washing over me is ... Bliss!

More like **** (returning to your organic theme), as in how ****ed off I get
when I go to concerts.


Now, at home, the system is as good as I can afford, so I can experience
perfection for what it is, but live -- well, a whole different system of
judgment comes into play!

I couldn't agree more. How I love to listen at home. How I hate not to be able
to listen in concert.

Sorry to heard you don't prefer the live performances

WHY?

I don't get why there's even a comparison. They're two such completely
different experiences. Stereo: I can wear what I want, eat what I want, listen
when I want. Concert: have to wear something at least semi-dressy, be there at
a certain time, sit at attention, put up with other people. No obstacles to
hearing music v. all the obstacles that can be thrown at one.


there's a comparison because we are willing to spend thousans on
equipment and are very impressed with spec sheets, but I think if they
actually achieved perfect reproduction it would be so bland we'd
probably think it inferior. when we play our cds we like to think wow
that sounds cool. when you pass a busker playing acousic guitar you
never think wow that sounds cool, maybe nice or crap but not wow gee
wizz

On 12/21/03 9:11 PM, in article , "Farrell8882"
wrote:

wrote:

On 12/21/03 4:34 PM, in article ,
"Farrell8882" wrote:

I prefer listening to music at home to nearly any live performance.
Practically
every time I go to a concert, whether because of others' talking, rattling,
perfume, etc., no more than a half-hour has passed before I wish the
concert
were over and I could be home.

Ah, that is all part of the performance! And how organic it is!

Unless you're talking about strawberries, melon, or peppers, just because
something's organic doesn't make it better.

In this case I am not referring to "organic" as some sort of no-pesticides -
just that a performance that is truly alive will have some imperfections --
all the "warts" that make it a performance - some distractions, a little
noise, doesn't bother me - obviously does for you.

While a recording doctored by a good engineer, tends towards perfection, I
prefer the imperfections and annoyances in a real setting - somehow the
club, feeling a bit inebriated with a couple of drinks and the jazz or blues
washing over me is ... Bliss!

More like **** (returning to your organic theme), as in how ****ed off I get
when I go to concerts.

Sorry that you don't like it - just trying to present an alternate point of
view. You obviously don't like music with other people around that may make
any kind of noise or disturbance.

Now, at home, the system is as good as I can afford, so I can experience
perfection for what it is, but live -- well, a whole different system of
judgment comes into play!

I couldn't agree more. How I love to listen at home. How I hate not to be able
to listen in concert.

If there is little chance for you to enjoy a live performance without being
distracted by other audience members' faults - I wish you the ability to get
over that or find some sort of venue you *can* stand.

Sorry to heard you don't prefer the live performances

WHY?


Because I like it so much - I would wish that you would enjoy it as much as
I do. That's all - just good wishes for you and others.

(Ben Hoadley)

there's a comparison because we are willing to spend thousans on
equipment and are very impressed with spec sheets,

I couldn't care less about spec sheets, just with how something sounds.

I wonder if I'm the only one that finds this thread particular sad and
disturbing. Isn't this hobby of ours supposed to be "about the music". The
dictionary.com definition of High Fidelity is "The electronic reproduction
of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded sources, with minimal
distortion." While we can, at times, come close to minimal distortion, we
are far from this ideal. The only way to enjoy music "as it exists in
nature", is to go hear it in nature, ie. in a concert hall. That
Audiophilia has created a (sub)culture in which it is considered preferable
to hear recorded music at home over going to a concert is, I believe, a
distortion of the purpose of recorded music. Recorded music became popuar
for several reasons, but primary among them was the cost factor of live
concert attendance. It seems sad indeed, that many people spend anually,
far more on their equipment than a 2 ticket full subscription to the NY
Phil. at Avery Fisher Hall (in the best seats in the house) would cost.

If the only time and reason we attend a concert is to recalibrate our
listening mechanism for the sake of dialing in our home stereos, something
is wrong. As a performer, the only time that real music making takes place
is when there is an involvement between performer and audience, and the only
way to truly appreciate and enjoy music, is to be present at such an event.
Anything else is nothing more than "the electronic reproduction of
sound...with minimal distortion."

"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:TNGFb.177163$_M.808700@attbi_s54...
I wonder if I'm the only one that finds this thread particular sad and
disturbing. Isn't this hobby of ours supposed to be "about the music".
The
dictionary.com definition of High Fidelity is "The electronic reproduction
of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded sources, with minimal
distortion." While we can, at times, come close to minimal distortion, we
are far from this ideal. The only way to enjoy music "as it exists in
nature", is to go hear it in nature, ie. in a concert hall. That
Audiophilia has created a (sub)culture in which it is considered
preferable
to hear recorded music at home over going to a concert is, I believe, a
distortion of the purpose of recorded music. Recorded music became popuar
for several reasons, but primary among them was the cost factor of live
concert attendance. It seems sad indeed, that many people spend anually,
far more on their equipment than a 2 ticket full subscription to the NY
Phil. at Avery Fisher Hall (in the best seats in the house) would cost.

If the only time and reason we attend a concert is to recalibrate our
listening mechanism for the sake of dialing in our home stereos, something
is wrong. As a performer, the only time that real music making takes
place
is when there is an involvement between performer and audience, and the
only
way to truly appreciate and enjoy music, is to be present at such an
event.
Anything else is nothing more than "the electronic reproduction of
sound...with minimal distortion."

I couldn't agree more. I love the whole concert experience, whether it's the
Seattle Symphony at Benaroya Hall or Paul McCartney at the Tacoma Dome, or
Spyro Gyra at Jazz Alley. While I appreciate the convenience of "audio on
demand" from my hi-fi, it can't compare with the "distortion free by
definition" full-surround experience of a live concert. Actually seeing the
French horn player flub the solo bit in Beethoven's 5th, or watching the
trumpet player nearly bust a blood vessel playing that intricate muted
trumpet passage in Pictures at an Exhibition is emotionally overwhelming.
Actually hearing "Hey Jude" and "Blackbird" played live by the composer was
one of the most uplifting moments of my entire life.

"Jón Fairbairn" wrote in message
news:vNmFb.12295$VB2.22063@attbi_s51...
(S888Wheel) writes:

I don't think the goal is to have the sound of the
orchestra in your listening room.

I have the distinct impression that Flanders and Swann were
a humerous outfit, but I could be wrong.


A little poem I wrote years ago:

AT THE DROP OF SOME WHIMSY

Mr. Flanders and Mr. Swann
were put on the turntable and began
to drop their hats
all over the flat

but lunchtime came
to stop all that

so Mr. Flanders and Mr. Swann
are back in their cover
where they began
a pity, that


If you've never heard any of their records, particularly "At the Drop of a
Hat", you've missed some of the most sophisticated musical jokery ever put
through a loudspeaker. Recommended.

Given the fact that a recording of one speaking outside could be fairly lacking
in room sound and given the fact that one is not likely to overload their
listening room with the playback of such a recording, one could take the
position that the recreation of that recorded voice in the listening room would
be desirable even though we don't want to recreate the sound of an orchestra
playing in our room

If the only time and reason we attend a concert is to recalibrate our
listening mechanism for the sake of dialing in our home stereos, something
is wrong. As a performer, the only time that real music making takes place
is when there is an involvement between performer and audience, and the only
way to truly appreciate and enjoy music, is to be present at such an event.
Anything else is nothing more than "the electronic reproduction of
sound...with minimal distortion."



I quite disagree. While I share your love for live music I see no reason to
disparage someone who goes to concerts to "recalibrate" their references. I
think it is simply not true to claim playback isn't real music. I think it is
unfair to denigrate anyone's enjoyment of playback. I think many an artist
managed to communicate beautifully with their audience through recorded media.

"Harry Lavo" writes:

"Jón Fairbairn" wrote in message
news:vNmFb.12295$VB2.22063@attbi_s51...
(S888Wheel) writes:

I don't think the goal is to have the sound of the
orchestra in your listening room.

I have the distinct impression that Flanders and Swann were
a humerous outfit, but I could be wrong.

(I /can/ spell humorous, honestly!)

[...]

If you've never heard any of their records, particularly
"At the Drop of a Hat", you've missed some of the most
sophisticated musical jokery ever put through a
loudspeaker. Recommended.

For a moment there I wondered whether you were taking my
above comment literally, but then if you understand Flanders
and Swann, you understand dry British humour so must have
understood me.

To refer to the rest of the thread, I'd go for a live
concert every time, but for the expense. For the most part
I'd expect the audience to remain quiet, apart from the
occasional cough. I've noticed that audience quietness goes
in phases over the years, though possibly with a downward
trend. Certainly an unruly audience detracts from the
listening experience for orchestral and chamber music. Less
so for rock and for jazz some sort of murmuring seems to be
pretty much de rigeur. What I find most difficult about live
performances for the latter types is excessive volume, which
often reaches a level where I think I would enjoy it better
at home. Ear plugs improve things, but there's something
absurd about that, especially as I'd have to spend a
significant amount of money on improving the frequency
response of my earplugs -- given that, you really can get
greater fidelity at home.

I don't think it's possible to reproduce a 100-piece
orchestra in a modest living room and have it sound
realistic from just two speakers.

--
Jón Fairbairn

Norman Schwartz wrote:

There are many classical pieces I never took to (they didn't grab) in
recordings at home. After hearing it "live" I became to understand what the
fuss was all about. Then listening to that recording at home again I was
able to hear the live event in my mind's ear and could take to it then and
forever more. All recordings and any systems that I ever heard were many
orders of magnitude lesser than a good seating location in a decent
"auditorium". For me recordings are only attempted reproductions of the real
thing available for the sole purpose of being enjoyed in the comfort and
privacy of your home at any hour of the day or night.

I have had this experience, too, and in general I agree with
Norm. However, having attended too many concerts with ringing
cell phones, crinkling candy wrappers, attendees communicating
with their deaf spouses, etc., I also appreciate the ability
of the hifi to allow listening to a piece with few or no
distractions.

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Listening to music live and at home are two very different experiences. Which I
chose i depends upon a number of factors .

If I can hear music in a small club or small concert hall where I can sit
close to the performers and see them clearly, it can be very exciting and
satisfying. I sense the energy and am better able to feel more a part of the
entire live music experience.

Music in a large concert hall or festival amphitheatre is usually not very
enjoyable for me. There is a formality and stiffness in that type of setting
that reduces the musical pleasure for me. Also , when sitting far away from the
musicians, the warmth and immediacy of hearing the music live is greatly
reduced.

Therefore, I have season tickets to a chamber music series held in a very small
concert hall, and go to jazz events held in small clubs or concert halls.
I avoid attending symphony concerts and large jazz festivals as they are held
in settings that reduce the musical pleasure for me.

I also agree with the comments about mode of dress and relaxed atmosphere in
listening to music at home. You can repeat a tune or a segment of a larger
composition if you so desire. You can control the volume to exactly what you
prefer. (Many live performances are either too loud, or not loud enough.) There
are far fewer disturbances to intrude on one's enjoyment of the music when
listening at home. If a disturbance does occur, such as the telephone ringing,
you can stop the music and begin again wherever you like. You don't have to put
up with numerous coughing or talking people. You can have a drink or nibble on
some food while listening.
You can select a comfortable chair or sofa. You can listen at any hour of the
day or night.

Listening to music live and at home each have pros and cons. Thankfully both
options are available to us.

Big problem. You're dead right.
Interestingly, the problem is most obvious with voices, because it's what
you're trained to hear most.



"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...
I have been listenig to a lot of high end equipment lately and I have
come to the opinion that a lot of it is fundamentally flawed. When I
hear things they sound very nice but they dont sound realistic. What I
mean is often a real instrument or someone singing in a room sounds
kinda boring and hi-fi manufacturers make things sound nicer than they
really are.
For example go and record a single voice with a good mic without
compression,eq at a distance that avoids the proximty effect. then
play it back on your beautiful hifi. It will probably sound good but
it won't sound exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than the raw sound
of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about distortion etc
but I think we all take them with a grain of salt deep down.
Maybe its good that things sound better than real. I'd be interested
to hear other peoples opinions on this. Has anyone heard some
equipment that sounds "boringly real"?

"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message ...
Big problem. You're dead right.
Interestingly, the problem is most obvious with voices, because it's what
you're trained to hear most.



I'm glad someone is interested in the real issue. perhaps a lot of
people missed the point. according to a friend the problem is not
linearity or dynamic limiting as mush as "dynamic linearity". Any
thoughts?

Hmm. Difficult to say what is to be understood under "dynamic linearity".
Could you elaborate further? It is true that some power amplifiers show a
linearity problem that shows up only in an IM test with a large LF (e.g.
50Hz or lower). I'm not sure if this can be considered responsible for the
"better than the original" effect.

The effect is very real though. I know of studio people who report that this
or that tape machine produces an output that sounds "better" than what came
in.

On the other hand, loudspeakers are often completely mis-designed. It's not
unusual to find reviews in magazines (not to name certain German ones) where
the measurements show the speaker isn't flat to even within +-6dB and where
the speaker is hailed as a "Superbox". On trade shows such as the CES (US)
or the High-End Messe (DE) the most hilarious contraptions are shown that
have the most obvious flaws in them (ever seen an "inverted d'Appolito"? It
was a monster with the woofer in the middle, midranges below and above that
and tweeters on the top and bottom. The woodwork was stunningly well done).

Another thought is that when you play a mono signal through a stereo system
(or if the sound is simply centre stage), and you're sitting in the sweet
spot, both ears are off axis, as far as the summation of the two signals is
concerned. The result is that the ears receive something quite different
than if that same mono signal is replayed through the same loudspeaker
placed in the centre. If I'm not mistaken, the difference between the two
options (stereo triangle with mono feed or one speaker physically in the
centre) has a significant dip around 4kHz as its most notable feature.

In the case of a multimiked recording, the engineer will -knowingly or not-
EQ the different channels such that the differences in frequency response
with respect to pan position are compensated for. In two-mike recordings
this effect is not compensated, though AB (noncoincident) fares somewhat
better than XY (coincident) miking.

This means that unless recording technique and reproduction is matched, even
perfectly designed audio chains are liable to operate in a "flawed" mode.
This could either be euphonic or dull sounding, depending on the conditions.

A simple mechanism that can also create a better-than-real impression is
simply that with classical music you can turn up the volume so high it's
louder at your ears than in a real concert.

Cheers,

Bruno

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:%gxIb.14044$I07.37642@attbi_s53...
"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message
...
Big problem. You're dead right.
Interestingly, the problem is most obvious with voices, because it's
what
you're trained to hear most.



I'm glad someone is interested in the real issue. perhaps a lot of
people missed the point. according to a friend the problem is not
linearity or dynamic limiting as mush as "dynamic linearity". Any
thoughts?

Actually Ben I've had the "luck" of hearing a few things reproduced
so absolutely realisticly that they were able to totally fool people
into the belief of reality. The sets of these experiences can only be
counted on one hand and 2 fingers would still be left over, but they
never sound "boringly real". I'm not sure that everyone would care to
go through all the trouble and the incredible expense needed to
reproduce these absolute reality experiences from recordings but they
are possible.

First I need to preface this by saying that the possibility of
achieving true musical or vocal realism in a recorded situation has
nothing to do with the parts of this thread dealing with live vs
recorded music per se. If I liked listening to Uzbek folk music,
symphonic music utilizing orchestras of never less than 100 players,
acoustic rock by long deceased performers and secret forbidden
religious ceremonial chants then likely I would most often need to
listen to prerecorded music. There are hundreds of other reasons why
live music isn't a reasonable possibility for many people not the
least of which are the problems that people in some places would have
even trying to get to a place that performed works like The Symphony
of Thousand or Verdi's Requiem. So while there may be nothing that
beats a live and un-sound-reinforced concert by the 3 Tenors from a
front row seat in some grand opera house, hearing this live just
isn't a reasonable possibility for millions of people. But it
actually is possible to make sound equipment and recordings of almost
anything (including your mother's voice) that can sound so realistic,
it can fool anyone into believing that the sound they are hearing is
in fact real and even the directional components are correct. This
experience is not at all "boringly real" but it is a great shock to
the system and gave me goosebumps the size of walnuts each time I was
lucky enough to experience the event.

As well, we aren't considering the fact that some artists want to add
special effects to recordings for the sake of their art. This is
their privledge and with these kinds of recordings there is no way to
reproduce the recording so that it can ever sound like something
real, live or natural. We have to get our definitions straight here.
So let's use a clear example. This example would suppose that you
attend a school event where a group of 5 or 6 students including a
close relative (child, brother/sister, cousin etc.) is singing on one
side of, but very near the front of a stage, say stage left from
where you sit rather towards the center of the first row of seats and
on stage right we have some incredible singing artist like Linda
Ronstadt who has rehearsed the children and is singing with them, but
importantly as well in the rear of this concert venue on the balcony
Harry Connick Jr. is playing piano accompaniment with vocal back-up.
The moment is beautiful, everyone is keeping perfect time, all the
voices come together perfectly and lucky person that you are, you
have a very good video and audio recording of the event.

The video is actually unimportant except that without it you might
need to close your eyes while listening to the audio recording,
because we will assume you hired professional recording engineers
familiar with the special recording techniques and comb-filter
processing required to make these "All Reality Recordings" (ARR is
the name I will use for the process I can briefly describe later).
Since the first demonstrations of this type of recording makeable at
will (in other words any time anywhere) (that I heard) utilized
headphones for the demos, we will assume that later when you play
this recording back you will wear headphones while watching the video
on as large a projection system as possible (to promote visual
realism). I assure you it is possible for you to be totally fooled
into being certain that what you are listening to is the same live
performance you heard the first time in person. In fact the acoustic
envirnment you WERE in would seem to be exactly there again.
Considering this example we can already see that this recreation of
total reality sound recording is limited in many ways but not always
the way you'd think.

It is possible to produce these kinds of recordings of any source
that will not have any further information added to its content in
post production. Electronic instruments are not really more difficult
to record and reproduce this way except that for the most part you
end up listening to what came out of the loudspeaker in the artist's
guitar cabinets or organ box. There is no editing allowed and no
after-the-fact special effects. Some performers can do this kind of
thing and most can't. And there are dozens of reasons why nobody
bothers to make these kinds of recordings or playback systems,
although expense isn't the biggest factor preventing them from being
made, it is considerable.

From 1973 until 1979 I worked for many audio companies and eventually
specialized in the loudspeaker end of the business. When I worked for
Disney as an Imagineer developing loudspeaker systems for EPCOT and
especially for the French Theater at EPCOT, no expense was spared to
try to figure out how to make recorded and played-back sound as
absolutely realistic as possible. Almost by accident a few recordings
were made that seemed to point in the right direction and a few
loudspeaker systems were developed that seemed to have total reality
playback potential. When anyone hears this kind of playback it
staggers you. And it is often the little sounds in life that are the
shockers giving you big goosebumps. The wind blowing through the
trees is an example. There is so much high frequency energy and so
many phase and time relationships that have to be kept controlled to
reproduce such sound that just showing the "specifications" of the
content of the recorded material would require a dozen books. And
always when we few lucky Imagineers heard little snippets of this
sound it was a revelation. As well the recording environment always
seemed to be completely recreated as well so the sound of the room
you were in seemed to disappear. Another very interesting effect in
either mono or stereo was that if you walked towards the sound source
the voice or instrument just seemed to sound like it was nearer, not
really louder, until at a certain point you felt sure that there was
just some invisible barrier right in front of you and if you only put
your arm through it you might actually touch the person or instrument
making the words or music.

The problem was that while we could make these kinds of recordings
once in a while on very special digital recorders sampling up in the
80-100khz range, using special microphones made by Bruel & Kjaer, and
then played back through special test loudspeaker systems that might
take hours to tweak correctly, the results were inconsistant. In an
area of perhaps 30 square feet, on one recording, in one room, this
sense of total reality could be achievable. It wasn't just imaging,
we joked that it was "acoustical miraging". And since EPCOT had to be
built, we workers got back to building all the sound systems needed
for all the shows in EPCOT. While the French Theater at EPCOT has one
of the most realistic large scale sound systems ever made for movie
playback, it wasn't a tenth as realistic as some of the playback the
Imagineers heard back in the lab. The French theater movie audio
track is a recording of the live sounds of the French countryside
recorded from a very soundless balloon. This was why as much reality
as possible was a goal for this venue's sound system. I had the good
fortune to be the Imigineer who designed the sound system for the
French theater and the Imagineer who developed the various
loudpseaker systems that all the Imagineers used in their own venues.
Thus the French theater sound system design could be tailored by me
as much as any major sound system could be, for exactly the job it
had to do.

At nearly the same time as I was an Imagineer working on EPCOT and
Tokyo Disneyland a man named Gary Georgi was making recordings that
would recreate this special reality every time they were played back
through headphones or a very few loudspeakers. He was very interested
in my loudspeaker work for Disney and he attended the AES
presentations I made on the topic. He did a demonstration for me
which has become legend amongsyt audio engineers who heard it is the
early 80s. He had a recording made of a person talking while
wandering around a room mostly in front of the "test subject
listener" but once in a while walking all the way around the
"listener" (actually the recording position of the "listener' was
recreated by processing). There was an interesting acoustic source
used as part of the recording. It was the striking and flaring of a
match. This sound is so unique and soft that any acoustic smearing
will make it sound totally unrealistic. This sound was used near the
end of recording to capture the listener's attention and then came
the shocker as the recorded performer had moved to a position, which
when played back sounded exactly like he was whispering to the
listener from an inch or two away from, and behind, the demonstration
listener's right ear. As all the listeners had done before me I
jumped because of the natural reaction to having someone move so
obviously and unexpectedly inside "my space" where I was unprotected.

Gary wanted to have loudspeakers made that would reproduce the same
effect as headphones could produce (or nearly so) so that the
recording technique and processing he had figured out could be used
in demos without headphones. You see there is a peculiar phenomena
whereby most of the sound impinging on the eardrum has been
reflected....by the ear itself. Our ears are asymmetrical. The comb
filter effect of our ear cavity surfaces and lobes has been well
documented now and so even with single speaker headphones not only is
left/right information easy to determine but front/back and
above/below information can be clearly represented on a single
recording so that it is possible to produce an acoustic image that is
so realistic that it begins to cross the line between reality and
obvious recording. The best binaural recordings using dummy heads
with dummy ears shaped like real ears showed what the different comb
filter effects looked like from all directions. I had been able to
quantify further many of the "other" critieria for the entire
throughput system to be able to recreate a realistic signal including
the dynamic range of the amplifier and speaker, response curve of the
speaker in all directions, bandpass of each component, noise floor,
amp current delivery capability and slew rate, square wave response
(phase), nearfield listening with long delay farfield reverb
components and a dozen other criteria in order of importance.
Eventually Gary got the speakers he needed and he made some
demonstrations with those speakers.

I heard many demos on these loudspeakers using non-processed program
materials and I can definitely say that they had as fine of image
recreation (imaging) as any loudspeakers I have ever heard. There
were some very interesting features about the speakers. The cabinets
were almost totally inert because the secondary sound emissions from
loudspeaker cabinets can easily ruin the "mirage". The speakers also
had a very high ratio of driven (speaker) surface to non-driven
(cabinet, frame, connector etc.) surface (seems the driven surfaces
need to be about 12%+ of the total surface area of the loudspeaker
enclosure/system, assuming the total of all cabinet acoustic energy
emissions in all directions, is down at least 17 db from the output
of the moving drivers) . The front and back of the drivers was firmly
mounted and if possible the low frequency speakers were used in
matched pairs in each cabinet (back to back) so that the movement of
the cabinet from what is known as reactive-opposite force is minimal
if not totally eliminated. As much as it wouldn't seem possible, a
bass loudspeaker cone moving back and forth can easily move a speaker
cabinet "forth and back", thus moving the sound source and muddling
the sound (notwithstanding tip-toes or other partial restraints). Al
Bodine of Bodine Soundrive a vibrational expert of mythical
proportions has commented that these loudspeaker enclosures had the
highest modulus frequency of any he had ever tested (up into the
80-120khz range) thus any of the sound energy the cabinet transferred
into the air was so far outside the audible range that it didn't
affect the acoustic image at all. There were so many atypical and
unusual design factors incorporated into these loudspeakers that most
manufacturers turned down the chance to make them under license.

Gary Georgi was also well known at the time as one of the founders of
Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs recordings, and as the distributor for
Satin Moving coil phono cartridges and step up silver wire
transformers along with many other products. He was reputable and
respected. The recent Stereophile discussion about MFSL recordings of
acoustic and electronic music (like Pink Floyd) point out that Gary's
passion was absolute realism in sound recording and reproduction.
Imperfect soul that he was, he was losing his high frequency acuity
by the time I met him and unfortunately he eventually suffered a
heart attack about 2 years after I first met him in the 80s. He never
really had the chance to popularize the method of processing
recordings so that the original sound of the instrument and the
recording room could be brought to listeners in it's purest form.
Even if he had (because Bruel & Kjaer did eventually produce papers
on the comb filtering and low distortions levels needed) 99% of all
loudspeakers ever made would just trash the recordings anyway. Yes,
loudspeakers can be highly distorted devices (up to 10% combined
distortions at 90db average level is considered quite transparent by
our ear/brain combo) but it is often the phase, moving image source,
rise time, dynamic range and the interference of other spurious but
closely related cabinet noises that ruin the reality of an acoustic
image. Those who are interested can ask further questions in this
thread but some of the smallest details about what I've written here,
require volumes to properly cover. But to again answer Ben's
question, yes I've heard some program materials through a very few
loudspeakers and headphones that sound like absolute reality,
although it could never be described as boring. WK

We don't get enough sound in our glass

(Ben Hoadley) wrote in message
...
I have been listenig to a lot of high end equipment lately and I have
come to the opinion that a lot of it is fundamentally flawed. When I
hear things they sound very nice but they dont sound realistic. What I
mean is often a real instrument or someone singing in a room sounds
kinda boring and hi-fi manufacturers make things sound nicer than they
really are.
For example go and record a single voice with a good mic without
compression,eq at a distance that avoids the proximty effect. then
play it back on your beautiful hifi. It will probably sound good but
it won't sound exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than the raw sound
of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about distortion etc
but I think we all take them with a grain of salt deep down.
Maybe its good that things sound better than real. I'd be interested
to hear other peoples opinions on this. Has anyone heard some
equipment that sounds "boringly real"?

"watch king" wrote in message
...
Actually Ben I've had the "luck" of hearing a few things reproduced
so absolutely realisticly that they were able to totally fool people
into the belief of reality. The sets of these experiences can only be
counted on one hand and 2 fingers would still be left over, but they
never sound "boringly real". I'm not sure that everyone would care to
go through all the trouble and the incredible expense needed to
reproduce these absolute reality experiences from recordings but they
are possible.

First I need to preface this by saying that the possibility of
achieving true musical or vocal realism in a recorded situation has
nothing to do with the parts of this thread dealing with live vs
recorded music per se. If I liked listening to Uzbek folk music,
symphonic music utilizing orchestras of never less than 100 players,
acoustic rock by long deceased performers and secret forbidden
religious ceremonial chants then likely I would most often need to
listen to prerecorded music. There are hundreds of other reasons why
live music isn't a reasonable possibility for many people not the
least of which are the problems that people in some places would have
even trying to get to a place that performed works like The Symphony
of Thousand or Verdi's Requiem. So while there may be nothing that
beats a live and un-sound-reinforced concert by the 3 Tenors from a
front row seat in some grand opera house, hearing this live just
isn't a reasonable possibility for millions of people. But it
actually is possible to make sound equipment and recordings of almost
anything (including your mother's voice) that can sound so realistic,
it can fool anyone into believing that the sound they are hearing is
in fact real and even the directional components are correct. This
experience is not at all "boringly real" but it is a great shock to
the system and gave me goosebumps the size of walnuts each time I was
lucky enough to experience the event.

As well, we aren't considering the fact that some artists want to add
special effects to recordings for the sake of their art. This is
their privledge and with these kinds of recordings there is no way to
reproduce the recording so that it can ever sound like something
real, live or natural. We have to get our definitions straight here.
So let's use a clear example. This example would suppose that you
attend a school event where a group of 5 or 6 students including a
close relative (child, brother/sister, cousin etc.) is singing on one
side of, but very near the front of a stage, say stage left from
where you sit rather towards the center of the first row of seats and
on stage right we have some incredible singing artist like Linda
Ronstadt who has rehearsed the children and is singing with them, but
importantly as well in the rear of this concert venue on the balcony
Harry Connick Jr. is playing piano accompaniment with vocal back-up.
The moment is beautiful, everyone is keeping perfect time, all the
voices come together perfectly and lucky person that you are, you
have a very good video and audio recording of the event.

The video is actually unimportant except that without it you might
need to close your eyes while listening to the audio recording,
because we will assume you hired professional recording engineers
familiar with the special recording techniques and comb-filter
processing required to make these "All Reality Recordings" (ARR is
the name I will use for the process I can briefly describe later).
Since the first demonstrations of this type of recording makeable at
will (in other words any time anywhere) (that I heard) utilized
headphones for the demos, we will assume that later when you play
this recording back you will wear headphones while watching the video
on as large a projection system as possible (to promote visual
realism). I assure you it is possible for you to be totally fooled
into being certain that what you are listening to is the same live
performance you heard the first time in person. In fact the acoustic
envirnment you WERE in would seem to be exactly there again.
Considering this example we can already see that this recreation of
total reality sound recording is limited in many ways but not always
the way you'd think.

It is possible to produce these kinds of recordings of any source
that will not have any further information added to its content in
post production. Electronic instruments are not really more difficult
to record and reproduce this way except that for the most part you
end up listening to what came out of the loudspeaker in the artist's
guitar cabinets or organ box. There is no editing allowed and no
after-the-fact special effects. Some performers can do this kind of
thing and most can't. And there are dozens of reasons why nobody
bothers to make these kinds of recordings or playback systems,
although expense isn't the biggest factor preventing them from being
made, it is considerable.

From 1973 until 1979 I worked for many audio companies and eventually
specialized in the loudspeaker end of the business. When I worked for
Disney as an Imagineer developing loudspeaker systems for EPCOT and
especially for the French Theater at EPCOT, no expense was spared to
try to figure out how to make recorded and played-back sound as
absolutely realistic as possible. Almost by accident a few recordings
were made that seemed to point in the right direction and a few
loudspeaker systems were developed that seemed to have total reality
playback potential. When anyone hears this kind of playback it
staggers you. And it is often the little sounds in life that are the
shockers giving you big goosebumps. The wind blowing through the
trees is an example. There is so much high frequency energy and so
many phase and time relationships that have to be kept controlled to
reproduce such sound that just showing the "specifications" of the
content of the recorded material would require a dozen books. And
always when we few lucky Imagineers heard little snippets of this
sound it was a revelation. As well the recording environment always
seemed to be completely recreated as well so the sound of the room
you were in seemed to disappear. Another very interesting effect in
either mono or stereo was that if you walked towards the sound source
the voice or instrument just seemed to sound like it was nearer, not
really louder, until at a certain point you felt sure that there was
just some invisible barrier right in front of you and if you only put
your arm through it you might actually touch the person or instrument
making the words or music.

The problem was that while we could make these kinds of recordings
once in a while on very special digital recorders sampling up in the
80-100khz range, using special microphones made by Bruel & Kjaer, and
then played back through special test loudspeaker systems that might
take hours to tweak correctly, the results were inconsistant. In an
area of perhaps 30 square feet, on one recording, in one room, this
sense of total reality could be achievable. It wasn't just imaging,
we joked that it was "acoustical miraging". And since EPCOT had to be
built, we workers got back to building all the sound systems needed
for all the shows in EPCOT. While the French Theater at EPCOT has one
of the most realistic large scale sound systems ever made for movie
playback, it wasn't a tenth as realistic as some of the playback the
Imagineers heard back in the lab. The French theater movie audio
track is a recording of the live sounds of the French countryside
recorded from a very soundless balloon. This was why as much reality
as possible was a goal for this venue's sound system. I had the good
fortune to be the Imigineer who designed the sound system for the
French theater and the Imagineer who developed the various
loudpseaker systems that all the Imagineers used in their own venues.
Thus the French theater sound system design could be tailored by me
as much as any major sound system could be, for exactly the job it
had to do.

At nearly the same time as I was an Imagineer working on EPCOT and
Tokyo Disneyland a man named Gary Georgi was making recordings that
would recreate this special reality every time they were played back
through headphones or a very few loudspeakers. He was very interested
in my loudspeaker work for Disney and he attended the AES
presentations I made on the topic. He did a demonstration for me
which has become legend amongsyt audio engineers who heard it is the
early 80s. He had a recording made of a person talking while
wandering around a room mostly in front of the "test subject
listener" but once in a while walking all the way around the
"listener" (actually the recording position of the "listener' was
recreated by processing). There was an interesting acoustic source
used as part of the recording. It was the striking and flaring of a
match. This sound is so unique and soft that any acoustic smearing
will make it sound totally unrealistic. This sound was used near the
end of recording to capture the listener's attention and then came
the shocker as the recorded performer had moved to a position, which
when played back sounded exactly like he was whispering to the
listener from an inch or two away from, and behind, the demonstration
listener's right ear. As all the listeners had done before me I
jumped because of the natural reaction to having someone move so
obviously and unexpectedly inside "my space" where I was unprotected.

Gary wanted to have loudspeakers made that would reproduce the same
effect as headphones could produce (or nearly so) so that the
recording technique and processing he had figured out could be used
in demos without headphones. You see there is a peculiar phenomena
whereby most of the sound impinging on the eardrum has been
reflected....by the ear itself. Our ears are asymmetrical. The comb
filter effect of our ear cavity surfaces and lobes has been well
documented now and so even with single speaker headphones not only is
left/right information easy to determine but front/back and
above/below information can be clearly represented on a single
recording so that it is possible to produce an acoustic image that is
so realistic that it begins to cross the line between reality and
obvious recording. The best binaural recordings using dummy heads
with dummy ears shaped like real ears showed what the different comb
filter effects looked like from all directions. I had been able to
quantify further many of the "other" critieria for the entire
throughput system to be able to recreate a realistic signal including
the dynamic range of the amplifier and speaker, response curve of the
speaker in all directions, bandpass of each component, noise floor,
amp current delivery capability and slew rate, square wave response
(phase), nearfield listening with long delay farfield reverb
components and a dozen other criteria in order of importance.
Eventually Gary got the speakers he needed and he made some
demonstrations with those speakers.

I heard many demos on these loudspeakers using non-processed program
materials and I can definitely say that they had as fine of image
recreation (imaging) as any loudspeakers I have ever heard. There
were some very interesting features about the speakers. The cabinets
were almost totally inert because the secondary sound emissions from
loudspeaker cabinets can easily ruin the "mirage". The speakers also
had a very high ratio of driven (speaker) surface to non-driven
(cabinet, frame, connector etc.) surface (seems the driven surfaces
need to be about 12%+ of the total surface area of the loudspeaker
enclosure/system, assuming the total of all cabinet acoustic energy
emissions in all directions, is down at least 17 db from the output
of the moving drivers) . The front and back of the drivers was firmly
mounted and if possible the low frequency speakers were used in
matched pairs in each cabinet (back to back) so that the movement of
the cabinet from what is known as reactive-opposite force is minimal
if not totally eliminated. As much as it wouldn't seem possible, a
bass loudspeaker cone moving back and forth can easily move a speaker
cabinet "forth and back", thus moving the sound source and muddling
the sound (notwithstanding tip-toes or other partial restraints). Al
Bodine of Bodine Soundrive a vibrational expert of mythical
proportions has commented that these loudspeaker enclosures had the
highest modulus frequency of any he had ever tested (up into the
80-120khz range) thus any of the sound energy the cabinet transferred
into the air was so far outside the audible range that it didn't
affect the acoustic image at all. There were so many atypical and
unusual design factors incorporated into these loudspeakers that most
manufacturers turned down the chance to make them under license.

Gary Georgi was also well known at the time as one of the founders of
Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs recordings, and as the distributor for
Satin Moving coil phono cartridges and step up silver wire
transformers along with many other products. He was reputable and
respected. The recent Stereophile discussion about MFSL recordings of
acoustic and electronic music (like Pink Floyd) point out that Gary's
passion was absolute realism in sound recording and reproduction.
Imperfect soul that he was, he was losing his high frequency acuity
by the time I met him and unfortunately he eventually suffered a
heart attack about 2 years after I first met him in the 80s. He never
really had the chance to popularize the method of processing
recordings so that the original sound of the instrument and the
recording room could be brought to listeners in it's purest form.
Even if he had (because Bruel & Kjaer did eventually produce papers
on the comb filtering and low distortions levels needed) 99% of all
loudspeakers ever made would just trash the recordings anyway. Yes,
loudspeakers can be highly distorted devices (up to 10% combined
distortions at 90db average level is considered quite transparent by
our ear/brain combo) but it is often the phase, moving image source,
rise time, dynamic range and the interference of other spurious but
closely related cabinet noises that ruin the reality of an acoustic
image. Those who are interested can ask further questions in this
thread but some of the smallest details about what I've written here,
require volumes to properly cover. But to again answer Ben's
question, yes I've heard some program materials through a very few
loudspeakers and headphones that sound like absolute reality,
although it could never be described as boring. WK

We don't get enough sound in our glass

(Ben Hoadley) wrote in message
...
I have been listenig to a lot of high end equipment lately and I have
come to the opinion that a lot of it is fundamentally flawed. When I
hear things they sound very nice but they dont sound realistic. What I
mean is often a real instrument or someone singing in a room sounds
kinda boring and hi-fi manufacturers make things sound nicer than they
really are.
For example go and record a single voice with a good mic without
compression,eq at a distance that avoids the proximty effect. then
play it back on your beautiful hifi. It will probably sound good but
it won't sound exacty like you. I think with instruments its even more
obvious. things take on a lush full quality rather than the raw sound
of some guy playing over there.
I know the manufacturers give out all those specs about distortion etc
but I think we all take them with a grain of salt deep down.
Maybe its good that things sound better than real. I'd be interested
to hear other peoples opinions on this. Has anyone heard some
equipment that sounds "boringly real"?



Very interesting account. Thank you.

You're comments about the wind in particular caught my attention. While I
use mostly music for evaluating potential new or different audio gear, I
also use as a test disk a sampler disk put out by Crown for their SASS
microphone. In addition to musical excerpts, the disk contains excerpts
including wind a pine forest, a babbling brook, surf crashing on a rocky
shore, a butane torch being lit, a bicycle pump being used, a bowling ball
hit pins (mic above), a fireworks display, a community swimming pool, a dirt
bike pass-by, and an Indy 500 pit-row recording. Most of these clips
readily show up high frequency anonamalies...I found them particularly
revealing in showing differences in transparency and high frequency
correctness. And among them, the wind in the trees, the babbling brook, and
the surf crashing on shore, all of which seem to have a non-coherent
high-frequency energy level, proved the most difficult. It takes accurate
reproduction and extreme transparency for them to sound "real".

Thanks again for the story.