Reading through all these DBT posts, I came to the conclusion that changing
parts of the audio-chain other than speakers mainly influences the
perception of the qualities mentioned in the title.

My question is now, how to evaluate this in auditions?

For example: I sit down in my listening chair and play the
Organ-Symphony(1976, DG, Barenboim). Now I know in the beginning the Celli
and in lesser amount also the brass instruments produce a scratching sound
when intonating, which a friend once made me aware of, and once you heard
it, it almost jumps into the ear. On very good speakers it is much less, but
I havn't heard any without this noise.
Well, that one was still easy, even if I had not heard it until the friend
could "show" me.

Now the imaging... I know the picture of the concert hall and where the
different instruments are positioned, so listening I can identify the
instruments and it is easier to locate the positions also in the recorded
music.
But when the organ comes in, I'm at a loss. It has its own depth and
width, but is not positioned behind the orchester. In fact it somehow
overlaps with the musicians.

Now that friend told me, hehe- this was mixed together afterwards from
different recordings. I do not know if this is true, but to hear these fine
details, IMHO you have to have just phantastic speakers and a "golden eared"
friend.

So there seem to be two difficulties evaluating:
Subjective feelings (like taste) cannot be discussed, is imaging subjective?
Can it be learned?
Are the speakers up to reveal the differences?
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

From reviews I read, speakers are very important for these variables, which
is why I'm trying to audition the Triangle Titus in NY, so far without much
success (it seems they are available only in California.) Several reviews
mention that small speakers are better in these variables.

But with 16 channel recordings how can the natural sound stage be preserved?
I am getting here into a controversial (and emotional) issue that is not a
hardware issue, but after enjoying for almost 2 years dozens of recordings
made with a pair of binaural mics, I cannot listen to commercial recordings
any more because they destroy the sound stage.

For example, I compared the sound on a Bruckner fifth recorded with only a
pair of binaurals to the famous Kna Parsifal Bayreuth 62 on Philips, which
CW says in superb sound ("the only recording that captures the Bayreuth
sound") and to Mahler 9 with Bernstein on DG and with Solti on London. With
the binaurals, when a solo oboe plays, you hear the aura around the sound
that makes it sound slightly distant, specifically placed in a context of a
hall and it has a certain "lonely-languid" quality. Then, when an orchestral
tutti section erupts, which Bruckner uses a lot in abrupt transitions, the
aura around the instruments changes - it is greatly diminished, presumably
because the "aura" or air around the sound is the reflected sound, which can
be appreciated better in solo passages because the primary sound is not so
loud. So you have this back and forth rhythm of the ambience, which changes
the timbre in tutti vs. solo. This balance is gone in commercial recordings,
because there is no change in ambience from solo to tutti, from ppp to fff,
it's just quieter or louder.

The whole charm of unadulterated sound, captured with only a pair of mics
has to do with the balance of ambience around the sound in different
passages. In an opera house the orchestra is in a pit, so that even in the
tutti passages there is a distinctive opera house orchestral sound, because
you hear a mixture of direct sound and a lot of reflected sound (compared to
a concert hall) even from the orchestra. The singers sound singing "from
over there". This is lost in commercial recordings, with multiple mics
placed close to the instruments and on stage. As you go higher up into the
balcony in an opera house you get so much more reflected sound that the
timbre changes completely and you get more of this boxy fuzzy sound, excited
by the French horns, this distinctive "comic" or "theatrical" sound of an
opera house - you never get that in commercial multiple-channel commercial
recordings.

Noam

"Ban" wrote in message
news:BWEXb.308440$I06.3150879@attbi_s01...
Reading through all these DBT posts, I came to the conclusion that
changing
parts of the audio-chain other than speakers mainly influences the
perception of the qualities mentioned in the title.

Perception is right! If it makes you feel good to play around with
different cables and cd players, etc. looking for the right "match," then by
all means, have fun. But, if your gool is to effect real change then you
might as well not even bother. If you like looking at an amplifier that is
milled out of a solid block of aluminum more then one made of plastic then
you are likely to will yourself into thinking that it sounds better. The
same goes for cables and the like, whether you can see them or just know
that they are there. That is the point of DBTs. DBT's show that cables all
sound the same as do most cd players when tested objectivly. That is why so
many 'audiophiles' hate them. Let's be honest: a $10k cd player looks
pretty and is a status symbol, that's it. As for Imaging, soundstage, and
3D, they really only have to do with the quality of the source (that is the
source that you are playing), your speakers, and (probably most importantly
and most overlooked) room acoustics. If you put your time and money into
those three things you will not be dissapointed.

My question is now, how to evaluate this in auditions?

For example: I sit down in my listening chair and play the
Organ-Symphony(1976, DG, Barenboim). Now I know in the beginning the
Celli
and in lesser amount also the brass instruments produce a scratching sound
when intonating, which a friend once made me aware of, and once you heard
it, it almost jumps into the ear. On very good speakers it is much less,
but
I havn't heard any without this noise.
Well, that one was still easy, even if I had not heard it until the friend
could "show" me.

Now the imaging... I know the picture of the concert hall and where the
different instruments are positioned, so listening I can identify the
instruments and it is easier to locate the positions also in the recorded
music.
But when the organ comes in, I'm at a loss. It has its own depth and
width, but is not positioned behind the orchester. In fact it somehow
overlaps with the musicians.

Now that friend told me, hehe- this was mixed together afterwards from
different recordings. I do not know if this is true, but to hear these
fine
details, IMHO you have to have just phantastic speakers and a "golden
eared"
friend.

So there seem to be two difficulties evaluating:
Subjective feelings (like taste) cannot be discussed, is imaging
subjective?
Can it be learned?
Are the speakers up to reveal the differences?
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Tsatske wrote:
From reviews I read, speakers are very important for these variables, which
is why I'm trying to audition the Triangle Titus in NY, so far without much
success (it seems they are available only in California.) Several reviews
mention that small speakers are better in these variables.

But with 16 channel recordings how can the natural sound stage be preserved?
I am getting here into a controversial (and emotional) issue that is not a
hardware issue, but after enjoying for almost 2 years dozens of recordings
made with a pair of binaural mics, I cannot listen to commercial recordings
any more because they destroy the sound stage.

First of all, binaural is a completely different and separate system
from stereophonic. You can't compare the two, each has its advantages
and disadvantages. You don't play binaural recordings the same way as
stereo, and vice-versa.

Yes, binaural should be more accurate as far as recording only what the
microphones heard from a certain point in the hall, comparable to what
you would hear from the same place. But the disadvantage of such a
recording is it has to be played back in a specialized system, dedicated
to binaural, and is not real suited for commercial release for general
purposes.

Secondly, for Ban, yes, the recording is a separate work of art, and may
or may not resemble the original sound precisely. It has been created
for stereo playback, to sound as good as possible on most sound systems.
It has probably been multi-tracked, may have reverb added, etc, etc. In
playback, YOU establish the soundstage by means of the type of speaker
and their placement, including the possibility of surround speakers and
processing, and the acoustics of the room. THEN, from within the
playback environment that you have established, the different recordings
can image and balance themselves according to the manipulations of the
recording producers. Some defects in playback electronics can
superimpose themselves on this scenario and affect imaging, such as
scratches, pops, ticks, and hiss, most of which have been licked long
ago. These effects would, usually, come to the surface (frontmost) of
the soundstage you have established, and obscure some other imaging
details. Similarly, an emphasis in the high frequencies can make the
resultant image more forward than it should be, but generally speaking,
with today's flat sources and amps, the signal path is not a big factor
in establishing imaging - certainly not as great as speakers and acoustics!

Thirdly, be aware that recordings will usually image better than real
life; by this I mean if you DO get a definite position for that organ,
it is probably artificial! Go to a live concert (if you can find one
that is not amplified and spoiled by a P.A. system) and close your eyes
and try to image the instruments. Unless you are very close in a very
small room, it may be difficult. I consider imaging important to me in
my playback system, but I also realize that I shouldn't worry about it
if I can't place every sound in the recording somewhere definite. Some
sounds may be even purposely placed all around you. It's a lot of fun
when you can place an instrument or an audience sound really precisely,
but it is not to worry when it doesn't happen every time.

Gary Eickmeier

"Ban" wrote in message
news:BWEXb.308440$I06.3150879@attbi_s01...
Reading through all these DBT posts, I came to the conclusion that
changing
parts of the audio-chain other than speakers mainly influences the
perception of the qualities mentioned in the title.

My question is now, how to evaluate this in auditions?

For example: I sit down in my listening chair and play the
Organ-Symphony(1976, DG, Barenboim). Now I know in the beginning the
Celli
and in lesser amount also the brass instruments produce a scratching sound
when intonating, which a friend once made me aware of, and once you heard
it, it almost jumps into the ear. On very good speakers it is much less,
but
I havn't heard any without this noise.
Well, that one was still easy, even if I had not heard it until the friend
could "show" me.

Now the imaging... I know the picture of the concert hall and where the
different instruments are positioned, so listening I can identify the
instruments and it is easier to locate the positions also in the recorded
music.
But when the organ comes in, I'm at a loss. It has its own depth and
width, but is not positioned behind the orchester. In fact it somehow
overlaps with the musicians.

Ban, have you auditioned this piece of music in different listening
settings? The characteristic of the listening environment is often suspect
with these types of things.


Now that friend told me, hehe- this was mixed together afterwards from
different recordings. I do not know if this is true, but to hear these
fine
details, IMHO you have to have just phantastic speakers and a "golden
eared"
friend.

So there seem to be two difficulties evaluating:
Subjective feelings (like taste) cannot be discussed, is imaging
subjective?
Can it be learned?
Are the speakers up to reveal the differences?
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy