| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
science vs vs pseudo science
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
There is simply no substitute for a complete set of truly accurate measurements for evaluationg the potential for loudspeakers to accurately reproduce complex musical sounds. OtOH if the purpose of speakers is to listen to them and enjoy the music they reproduce there is no substitute for listening to them to determine which will do the best job for that purpose. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
(Howard Ferstler) wrote:
While we all want speakers to entertain us, the idea of "high-fidelity sound reproduction" is to have the components involved be a sonically transparent as possible. So far, so good. That way, the recording entertains us in the least sonically offensive way possible and best reveals just what it is that we have on the recording. That is a reference standard, and if we dump that concept then basically we are saying that taste rules and that the whole concept of hi-fi sound reproduction is a pointless. Sorry but taste (and listening) does rule, not measurements. Since most audiophiles were not at the recording session and don't have access to the master tapes, your idea that this is a meaningful reference is misguided. There has to be some sort of reference standard for what this hobby stands for, and to say that it rotates about taste and preference and only taste and preference shoots the whole enterprise in the head. snip There are all sorts of preferences out there, but I cannot see how we can have a hobby that professes to be involved with the accurate reproduction of sound if we do not at least set standards for low distortion, flat response, and decent bandwidth with every component in the chain. snip I continue to be amazed that some so-called hi-fi enthusiasts appear to like components that have verifiable distortion characteristics, Since all components have some distortion (none are perfect at reproducing an input) it remains the preference of each consumer-audiophile as to what distortions they can live with. admit that they like distorted components (see the above comments about how certain speakers may sound, and of course remember what we can get from certain kinds of amplifiers), and pay good money for the pleasure. Taste, preference, and pleasure are all well and good, but it is a good idea to remember that the bottom line is the ability to cleanly and accurately reproduce the input signals and leave the modifications to the recording engineer at his end. A pedantic pronouncement if I have ever heard one. If measurements are your reference, then you don't need to audition a set of speakers before reviewing or purchasing do you? One speaker has 3% distortion at 8000Hz and another has 3% distortion at 80Hz? The amount of distortion is the same, isn't it? Which speaker will sound better? By your standards, who cares? The only meaningful reference for evaluating audio components is to "The Absolute Sound" of live unamplified music in a real space. Does the component reproduce a 'believable' reproduction of that sound as you remember it, or not? As a music lover, nothing else matters. Regards, Mike |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
Howard Ferstler wrote:
While we all want speakers to entertain us, the idea of "high-fidelity sound reproduction" is to have the components involved be a sonically transparent as possible. That way, the recording entertains us in the least sonically offensive way possible and best reveals just what it is that we have on the recording. That is a reference standard, and if we dump that concept then basically we are saying that taste rules and that the whole concept of hi-fi sound reproduction is a pointless. There has to be some sort of reference standard for what this hobby stands for, and to say that it rotates about taste and preference and only taste and preference shoots the whole enterprise in the head. The only reference standard is the sound of live music in a real acoustic space (realism). It is not a zero sum gain system, like a photograph or a motion picture, which attempts to present your eyes with a reproduction of precise shapes and colors. Nor is it an "accuracy" system, such that if you can just place a measurement microphone in front of your speakers and get a waveform that is exactly what is on the recording, then you are done. There is a whole world of spacial requirements that need to be met before you have realism. I can give you an excellent example of what I mean. Suppose you love the sound of Oscar Peterson so much you want to reproduce it with the greatest realism possible in this life. You purchase a Yamaha electronic player piano, and some discs of Peterson recording his keystrokes on a recorder piano just like it. This technology is mature enough that every nuance of timing and touch can be recorded and reproduced on any of these pianos. No, you don't place it in a well-damped room so that you hear only the sound of the piano. You place it - well, anywhere that a real piano would sound good, because that is exactly what it is. And you let it play. It sounds unarguably real, because it IS real. Yet it is not a zero sum gain system, because it may not sound exactly like it did in the room that Peterson recorded it in, and the instrument that is playing may not be exactly the same model he played. Nor is it an accuracy system, because you can place it in a concert hall for one kind of sound, a recording studio for another, or a living room for yet another. No matter, they all sound different, but they all sound real, and they are unmistakably Peterson, playing in a real space. What's more, you can walk all around the piano and hear it in different perspectives. So you have a system of music reproduction that is extremely realistic without having the quality called "accuracy." There is no point whatsoever in measuring the reproduction and comparing the waveforms to the original "recording," because the recording is only a set of data for the keystrokes, and the one has nothing to do with the other. The recording could be thought of as a sort of a concentrate, intended to be mixed with a good acoustic space on playback in order to sound real. Yes, it would be possible to measure the output of the player piano in an anechoic chamber and compare it to the sound of the original in the same environment, but that would have nothing to do with how the system works in the real, intended playback world. Similarly, it is good for speakers to measure with low distortion and accurate frequency response with test signals, but meeting those requirements is not the end of the story, but rather only a beginning. Now, if we could only get a player bass and some player drums, I would be in heaven! Then we could arrange them in a similar geometrical arrangement to the original, and we would have the ultimate realistic jazz trio! Gary Eickmeier |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: While we all want speakers to entertain us, the idea of "high-fidelity sound reproduction" is to have the components involved be a sonically transparent as possible. That way, the recording entertains us in the least sonically offensive way possible and best reveals just what it is that we have on the recording. That is a reference standard, and if we dump that concept then basically we are saying that taste rules and that the whole concept of hi-fi sound reproduction is a pointless. There has to be some sort of reference standard for what this hobby stands for, and to say that it rotates about taste and preference and only taste and preference shoots the whole enterprise in the head. The only reference standard is the sound of live music in a real acoustic space (realism). No two performances or mastering sessions are going to be the same. So unless you are playing live microphone feeds ove ryour home system, pursuit of 'absolute sound' with reference to live preformance is going to mean tweaking your system differently for each recording you play back, trying to get it to conform to that 'absolute' standard. What works to get an early 80's DG recording to reach the 'absolute sound' might not work well to get 50's Mercury Living Presence recording to do the same. On the other hand, if you aim to let your system tranduce the what's on the disc as transparently as possible, then you leave it to the record's performers and producers to make the sound a 'absolute'. Which, IMO is the way it should be. This is a simplification, of course. It assumes that at least SOME recordings do approach or reach the 'absolute sound' status, and taht all that's required is to provide them with as transparent a system as you can. Suppose you love the sound of Oscar Peterson so much you want to reproduce it with the greatest realism possible in this life. You purchase a Yamaha electronic player piano, and some discs of Peterson recording his keystrokes on a recorder piano just like it. This technology is mature enough that every nuance of timing and touch can be recorded and reproduced on any of these pianos. No, you don't place it in a well-damped room so that you hear only the sound of the piano. You place it - well, anywhere that a real piano would sound good, because that is exactly what it is. And you let it play. It sounds unarguably real, because it IS real. It would sound 'real' in a well-damped room too ; it would sound like a real piano in a well-damped room. In the setup you describe, it sounds like a real piano in whatever room you use. So the question boils down to : what do you mean by *real*? That the instrument sound like it's in the particular room you are using? Or that it sound like it's in a room, but not yours? So you have a system of music reproduction that is extremely realistic without having the quality called "accuracy." There is no point whatsoever in measuring the reproduction and comparing the waveforms to the original "recording," because the recording is only a set of data for the keystrokes, and the one has nothing to do with the other. A Yamaha keystroke-capture piano is not the same sort of recording as a CD, for the reason you cite: it does not even attempt to capture contextual information. It's like running an electric guitar straight into the mixing console, versus setting up a mike in the rehearsal room. -- -S. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
Steven Sullivan wrote:
On the other hand, if you aim to let your system tranduce the what's on the disc as transparently as possible, then you leave it to the record's performers and producers to make the sound a 'absolute'. Which, IMO is the way it should be. Steven, You still haven't quite "clicked" on what I said. It is not a "what's on the disc" system; the original performance was not recorded from the perspective of a person listening in the concert hall. Many recordings are very close-miked, concocted creations of the producer. Transparency, or "hearing into the recording," has little to do with what the system is. Even with the most careful, simply miked live recording, the information is just not in the recording to enable you to place yourself there, where the audience might have heard the performance and complete acoustics of the original space. Such a system exists, but it is binaural recording, not stereophonic as the system is most often employed. Another good example of what I mean would be the live-vs-recorded demos from the 50s and 60s (and some more recent). The way you fool people into thinking that the speakers are the real thing is to make very close recordings which are almost anechoic, so that when they are played back in a real room, they take on only the acoustics of the room they are in. I present this as another example of a realistic system of recording and reproduction that is not a "you are there" system, but rather a "they are here" system. And that is OK, because it can sound very real. And the realism would increase if the speakers for the instruments in question had radiation patterns that were close to those instruments. It would sound 'real' in a well-damped room too ; it would sound like a real piano in a well-damped room. In the setup you describe, it sounds like a real piano in whatever room you use. So the question boils down to : what do you mean by *real*? That the instrument sound like it's in the particular room you are using? Or that it sound like it's in a room, but not yours? The more anechoically (or closer) it is recorded, the more it will sound like it's in your room. The more of the original room or hall's acoustic that is contained in the recording, the more it may sound like it's playing in that space. But loudspeaker sound in a real room cannot get all the way to the recorded space, except possibly in some exotic lab situations with many speakers and channels. Most recordings are closer to the former situation, miked close to the performance, but we must include some "hall sound," whether in the recording step or in post production, because few of us can listen in a large, good acoustic space. More often in cars and Walkmen! A Yamaha keystroke-capture piano is not the same sort of recording as a CD, for the reason you cite: it does not even attempt to capture contextual information. It's like running an electric guitar straight into the mixing console, versus setting up a mike in the rehearsal room. Quite often what we hear live is the electric guitar or the bass plugged straight into an amp and played on a musical instrument speaker set on the stage next to them. We don't want to record this signal straight into the mix without some spacial processing, because we don't usually want any instrument to attach itself to the speaker grills. But have you ever noticed that the closer miked instruments (and singers) will "pull out" into your room, and the more distant miked sounds will settle back around or behind the front wall of the listening room? This is mainly because the close-miked stuff takes on more of your room's acoustic space, and so seems to pop out in front of the rest. Provided your speakers are pulled out a bit from the walls. My point is that all of this transparency, and accuracy, and hearing into the recording, are red herrings, myths, engineering urban legends that will not die. If we change our thinking on all this, we just might start getting somewhere. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
"Mkuller" wrote in message
... The only meaningful reference for evaluating audio components is to "The Absolute Sound" of live unamplified music in a real space. Does the component reproduce a 'believable' reproduction of that sound as you remember it, or not? As a music lover, nothing else matters. It then follows that you will 1 component which sounds most as does orchestra row X, then row Y, then balcony 1, 2 etc., etc. plus where is "real space"? Is Carnegie or Avery Fisher Hall the real space? People have different hearing capabilities as do component manufacturers themselves. How is one to establish the most believable reproduction? Believable to whose hearing, believable for what space? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: On the other hand, if you aim to let your system tranduce the what's on the disc as transparently as possible, then you leave it to the record's performers and producers to make the sound a 'absolute'. Which, IMO is the way it should be. Steven, You still haven't quite "clicked" on what I said. It is not a "what's on the disc" system; the original performance was not recorded from the perspective of a person listening in the concert hall. Some are, some aren't. The ones that aren't may attempt to simulate that effect. Many recordings are very close-miked, concocted creations of the producer. Transparency, or "hearing into the recording," has little to do with what the system is. Even with the most careful, simply miked live recording, the information is just not in the recording to enable you to place yourself there, where the audience might have heard the performance and complete acoustics of the original space. Such a system exists, but it is binaural recording, not stereophonic as the system is most often employed. And this goes to my point -- what is meant by 'real'? Are you attempting to recreate in your living room the sensation of being in a concert hall, seventh row center? Or are you attempting to simulate the sensation of real instruments playing in *your* room? The original 'performance' may have been recorded by any number of tricks, includign recording differnet bits of it at different sessions, dropping in replacement notes, etc. You probably wouldn't want to recreate *that* sensation at all. But when it's finally mixed and mastered, the engineers attempt to create the illusion of an integral performance in space (this won't necessariuly hold true for pop music, of course). The 'final reference' here is what the producers heard in the studio. Good or bad, that's what was intended to be heard at home, even though all mixing/mastering engineers are aware that it'll likely never sound quite the same in someone's home as it did in the mixing/mastering studio. Another good example of what I mean would be the live-vs-recorded demos from the 50s and 60s (and some more recent). The way you fool people into thinking that the speakers are the real thing is to make very close recordings which are almost anechoic, so that when they are played back in a real room, they take on only the acoustics of the room they are in. I present this as another example of a realistic system of recording and reproduction that is not a "you are there" system, but rather a "they are here" system. And that is OK, because it can sound very real. And the realism would increase if the speakers for the instruments in question had radiation patterns that were close to those instruments. But the room they are in matters. The sound of a *real* orchestra playing in a 12 X 10 X 8 room might not be something one would want to hear. So the idea is not simply to make instruments sound 'real', but also to create an illusion of another room. It would sound 'real' in a well-damped room too ; it would sound like a real piano in a well-damped room. In the setup you describe, it sounds like a real piano in whatever room you use. So the question boils down to : what do you mean by *real*? That the instrument sound like it's in the particular room you are using? Or that it sound like it's in a room, but not yours? The more anechoically (or closer) it is recorded, the more it will sound like it's in your room. The more of the original room or hall's acoustic that is contained in the recording, the more it may sound like it's playing in that space. But loudspeaker sound in a real room cannot get all the way to the recorded space, except possibly in some exotic lab situations with many speakers and channels. Most recordings are closer to the former situation, miked close to the performance, but we must include some "hall sound," whether in the recording step or in post production, because few of us can listen in a large, good acoustic space. More often in cars and Walkmen! Here we agree...the the illusion of space and integrity can be engineered in elsewhere in the recording/mixing/mastering chain, such that playback in the studio simulates 'being there' at an idealized performance in an idealized performance space. That I presume, is what the engineers are aiming for. I'm not saying that the simulation is perfect. A Yamaha keystroke-capture piano is not the same sort of recording as a CD, for the reason you cite: it does not even attempt to capture contextual information. It's like running an electric guitar straight into the mixing console, versus setting up a mike in the rehearsal room. Quite often what we hear live is the electric guitar or the bass plugged straight into an amp and played on a musical instrument speaker set on the stage next to them. We don't want to record this signal straight into the mix without some spacial processing, because we don't usually want any instrument to attach itself to the speaker grills. This strikes me as quibbling, or maybe I'm still not getting it. The point is that a keystroke-capture piano *is* analogous to the ultimate in close-miking: straight from the instrument to the board with no processing..and no ambience cues, either real or faked, and not analogous to symphonies on CD. It may or may not sound the way a piano 'should' to different listeners in different spaces, and to that extent it may or may not sound 'real although it is undoubtedly always 'really' in the room. But have you ever noticed that the closer miked instruments (and singers) will "pull out" into your room, and the more distant miked sounds will settle back around or behind the front wall of the listening room? This is mainly because the close-miked stuff takes on more of your room's acoustic space, and so seems to pop out in front of the rest. Provided your speakers are pulled out a bit from the walls. My point is that all of this transparency, and accuracy, and hearing into the recording, are red herrings, myths, engineering urban legends that will not die. If we change our thinking on all this, we just might start getting somewhere. Well, 'accuracy' is a red herring in that the source recordings are not equally 'accurate' to begin with; the devotee of the 'absolute sound' -- an idealized live performance in an idealized space -- would therefore be forever re-adjusting his system to suit different recordings, in an attempt to make them all sound like the 'absolute'. It's a red herring even if the 'absolute' is taken to be not an ideal live performance, but the sound of the playback in the original studio (i.e., what the producers heard). Few of us are privy to that experience, so how can we recreate it 'accurately'? But we *can* at least define 'accurate' in terms of what is done to the *signal* between the time it is read off the recording medium and the time it leaves the speaker as a sound wave. -- -S. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
"Mkuller" wrote in message
The only meaningful reference for evaluating audio components is to "The Absolute Sound" of live unamplified music in a real space. Does the component reproduce a 'believable' reproduction of that sound as you remember it, or not? As a music lover, nothing else matters. "Norman Schwartz" wrote: It then follows that you will 1 component which sounds most as does orchestra row X, then row Y, then balcony 1, 2 etc., etc. plus where is "real space"? Is Carnegie or Avery Fisher Hall the real space? People have different hearing capabilities as do component manufacturers themselves. How is one to establish the most believable reproduction? Believable to whose hearing, believable for what space? Good point. You're asking "what is your reference and what are your 'listening biases'?" To answer your last question first - believable to me or whoever is making the purchasing decision is all that matters. Personally, I like to sit in the center of the orchestra in about Row M (where the acoustician who tunes the hall sits). That way, I get the full dynamic power of the orchestra from (pp to fff), the inner detail and the different sections are pretty well integrated. At different times, I have had seats just about everywhere in the hall and in different concert venues. So when I say "believable", I mean does a string section or oboe, for example, sound that way from any of those seats in real life, or is the equipment changing the timbral relationships, dynamic contrasts, tonal balance, etc. In that context I have a number of 'reference' recordings that are well recorded, music I enjoy, and that I am very familiar with to use for evaluating components. But there is no substitute for attending a live performance of unamplified music to 'recalibrate' my reference sound memory. Regards, Mike |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
I said
OtOH if the purpose of speakers is to listen to them and enjoy the music they reproduce there is no substitute for listening to them to determine which will do the best job for that purpose. Howard said While we all want speakers to entertain us, I think it is a mistake to make any such global presumptions. Howard said the idea of "high-fidelity sound reproduction" is to have the components involved be a sonically transparent as possible That is one idea of high fidelity. There are other ideas of high fidelity. The validity of which ideas are more valid are in the eye or in this case ear of the beholder. "High fidelity" cannot exist in a vacuum. The question must be fidelity to what? To the recording? To the sound of live music? To what? How do you judge fidelity to a recording? a recording doesn't exist without playback equipment. Are we then cornered into using playbeack equipment as a reference for fidelity? Then we must come to grips with the fact that absolute fidelity to an original live performance isn't possible with today's technology. So that means there will be comprimises. The choice of comprimises and the choice of source to measure fidelity are subjective choices based on what each of us wants from our playback. Then we have to consider the different approaches to reaching higher fidelity as we have decided to measure it. Some people are quite happy to match colorations with counter colorations while some, as you have suggested, seek maximum trnasparency with each component. The true measure of success is found in the final listening experience. There is no getting around that. measurements are there to serve the listening experience and not visa versa. At least it is that way for me. If you tell me that another system measures better than mine and it doesn't sound as good to me I am not going to adjust my preferences to match the measurements. Howard said That way, the recording entertains us in the least sonically offensive way possible and best reveals just what it is that we have on the recording. You have your way and I have my way. Your way is not "the right" way it is your way. What you may think is the best revelation of what is on a recording may not coincide with what I think is the best revelation of what is on a recording. One cannot talk about what is on a recording without playback. You are then stuck with playback equipment as a reference. I prefer the sound of live music provided it is in a good acoustic envirement to the sound of any playback of live music. So that is my reference and my goal. The problem is I cannot compare a recording of live music to live music. I have no idea what the absolute shortcommings are of any given recording of live music. So this leads to the possibility that colorations in other components may compensate for inherent colorations in recordings. There is no question that many components that are claimed to be less transparent and more colored by many on RAHE lead to a better illusion of live music in playback for my ears. So, your premises do not seem to work for my preferences and my choice of reference for fidelity for my ears. You have your way and I have my way. So if the components that create a better illusion of live music for me really are more colored and less transparent by measurement then your way simply does nto provide the best result for my ears and sensibilities. Howard said That is a reference standard, That is your choice for a reference standard. As I have already pointed out. If you use recordings as a reference standard you are stuck with the playback equipment needed to hear that recording as a reference satndard as well. My choice of reference, as already stated for reasons already stated, is live music in a good acoustic envirement. I am quite happy with my choice of reference standard. Howard said and if we dump that concept then basically we are saying that taste rules and that the whole concept of hi-fi sound reproduction is a pointless. One does not have to dump the idea of having a reference standard to come to grips with the fact that not all people agree with your choice for a reference standard. I think recordings as reference standard is inherently problamatic. You can't hear a recording without playback. It is a catch 22. Howard said There has to be some sort of reference standard for what this hobby stands for, Nonsense. There does not have to be any single reference standard. that is just tyrany imposed on a hobby. Howard said and to say that it rotates about taste and preference and only taste and preference shoots the whole enterprise in the head Well. ultimately it does. the alternative is to tell customers that what they want is irrelevant they must take what a group of other people have deemed better for them instead. The freedom to choose has not hurt the industry. What you seemt o be proposing, I believe, would. Howard said One may prefer a given set of speakers, because they suit one's taste. And as long as we have a free market that will continue to be the case. Howard said Perhaps they like C&W music and like the kind of sound that a standard juke box delivers. Or perhaps they hang out at discos and like their speakers at home to deliver the same kind of overall bass-thumping impact. Or perhaps they like the midrange frequencies somewhat withdrawn in level, in order to have a mellow sounding recording that still has sparkle in the top octave. Or perhaps they like the kind of tubby bass you get with woofer systems that have ample even-order harmonic distortion. Or perhaps they do not like systems that go deep into the bass range, because then they cannot hear the midrange with the forward clarity they prefer. There are all sorts of preferences out there, but I cannot see how we can have a hobby that professes to be involved with the accurate reproduction of sound if we do not at least set standards for low distortion, flat response, and decent bandwidth with every component in the chain. Note that these parameters do not fully take into account dispersion and first-arrival phase characteristics with speakers, Fortunenatly for those of us that find your way to higher fidelity less satisfying we are not stuck with your vision of high fidelity. why you would want to deprive those of us with different sensibilities of our choice in the name of some cause in a hobby is beyond me. Howard said and this is fine. I think that when it comes to such things taste can play a part, simply because different environments and different recordings respond differently to speakers with differing dispersion patterns, particularly as it relates to the strength of the first-arrival signals and the stability of the "critical distance" between the direct and reverberant fields. I have heard excellent examples of both types (including two different and fine Dunlavy models that I have reviewed in The Sensible Sound), and have no problem when it comes to taste and disperion in speakers. However, this does not mean that measurements do not count. For me they count as far as they can corolate to my listening experience. OTOH I will not adjust my preferences to measuements that are alleged to show higher fidelity. As I said to begin with, the final arbitrator of quality is the listening experience. I will not endure playback quality that is less appealing just because someone tells me the numbers say it should be better. Howard said Rather, it tells us that measurements inform us about just what a speaker is doing in terms of the more important performance parameters. I am all for designers trying to corolate measurements with performance but ultimately ideal performance is subjective. Howard said I continue to be amazed that some so-called hi-fi enthusiasts appear to like components that have verifiable distortion characteristics, admit that they like distorted components (see the above comments about how certain speakers may sound, and of course remember what we can get from certain kinds of amplifiers), and pay good money for the pleasure. Do you not like the playback you have at your home? If you answer yes than you have just admitted to liking playback with varifiable distortion characteristics. if someone could arange to bring Miles Davis and his band back to life and have them play Kind of Blue in the studio just for me at my convenience and on my budget that would be great. it aint gonna happen. We are stuck with playback and all it's colorations if we want to hear the vast majority of our favorite music. I judge the quality of playback with my ears, period. It is with my ears and my sensibilities that I connect with the music. as said before, those sensibilities will not be dictataed by what you or others say they ought to be based on some measurements. Howard said Taste, preference, and pleasure are all well and good, but it is a good idea to remember that the bottom line is the ability to cleanly and accurately reproduce the input signals and leave the modifications to the recording engineer at his end. You have your bottom line and I have mine. It seems you cannot find peace with the existance of different bottom lines. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
I said
you use recordings as a reference standard you are stuck with the playback equipment needed to hear that recording as a reference satndard as well. My choice of reference, as already stated for reasons already stated, is live music in a good acoustic envirement. I am quite happy with my choice of reference standard. Tom said So you are implying that a studio recording isn't "live" music? While I don't disagree with you in principle I hasten to add that NO recording is "live." I'm not sure what you are adding. I didn't say "studio recordings" I said "recordings" which already includes recordings of live music at a live venue. Tom said I'm all for the idea of being "taken" to the concert venue but that doesn't mean that suspension of disbelief MUST be a function acquired at the original event. What do you mean function? Tom said The filmsound people have much to offer us in this regard. They generally don't "capture" sound on the set. Yet, some of the most realistic recordings I've heard rely largely on foley and other sound effects. Thet seem to know that it doesn't have to BE real, it only has to seem that way. Of course. Film is a stylized art form. No one ever experiences the suspension of disbelief while watching a film. One always knows it is a film.That opens up all kinds of accepted conventions in film making that make for better story telling which also remind one that what they are watching and hearing is a film and not real life. You are comparing apples to oranges here. When some of us listen to a recording of live music some of us do want that experience to suspend disbelief as much as possible. One could say that some studio recordings, say Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is the equivilent of film. We may like what we hear but there is no concert hall for this stylized recording to take us back to. Tom said As for pure reference; few of us have a recording of an acoustical music event where the recording was made while we were there. I am lucky enough to have a few of these and generally speaking they don't necesarily sound any more enjoyable or more "realistic" than the same material with the same artists made in a studio. That is true and it doesn't solve the problem even if one has been to the live sessions. Once recorded one has the recording not the live event. They are not the same and the recording always relies on playback equipment to be heard. So recordings cannot be seen as pefect references at all if one seeks the sound of live music in playback. Tom said So what's the reference? IMO it is what one chooses to use as a reference. Tom said Everybody says "live acoustical music" but how many have a recording of live music where they attended the event? That isn't what everybody says. I say it is my general memory of what live music in a good acoustic venue generally sounds like. The differences between that general experience and playback are big enough that even such a broad reference gives direction to my goals for playback and for source material. Tom said The real "reference" is the "imagination" I have of how "live music" should sound. Call it imagination if you like. I call it experience and memory. I think there is a substantial difference. Tom said There's nothing really wrong with that but I think we should all look intensely into the mirror when we talk "reference." Fair enough. Tom said This is one reason I like environmental recordings as a reference. Thunderstorms, birds, loons on a lake, streams, oceans and tides are things that real people have heard in "live" circumstance. Some of us have spent a fair amount of time in front of live musicians as well. Howard said and to say that it rotates about taste and preference and only taste and preference shoots the whole enterprise in the head Well. ultimately it does. the alternative is to tell customers that what they want is irrelevant they must take what a group of other people have deemed better for them instead. The freedom to choose has not hurt the industry. What you seemt o be proposing, I believe, would. Tom said The freedom to choose is one of the reasons Bose is so sucessful. They know that size and appearance is more important than sound quality to most customers so they arrange their engineering to coincide with what people really want. I don't see how freedom of choice per se gives Bose an edge over any other company but I do see their focus on making their products as unintrusive as possible was one of a number of good choices they made from a marketing stand point. But I don't see the relevence of Bose to this issue. We were talking about the freedom to choose one's reference for the evaluation of system playback. Tom said And,in some cases, the Wave Radio, they bring sound enjoyment to a class of customers who could really use a modern boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with one. I still don't see what this has to do with the topic. Howard said One may prefer a given set of speakers, because they suit one's taste. I said And as long as we have a free market that will continue to be the case. Tom said And Bose will continue to thrive. As may the folks that brought you "high-end" cables. But you claim that all cables sound the same unless they are broken. Are you claiming that Bose products sound the same as their competion? It looks like a flawed attempt at guilt by assoiation. Why are you introducing more irrelevent subject matter? There was no mention of cables until you brought it up. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:7FSmb.36307$HS4.128508@attbi_s01... *snip* Everybody says "live acoustical music" but how many have a recording of live music where they attended the event? That isn't what everybody says. I say it is my general memory of what live music in a good acoustic venue generally sounds like. The differences between that general experience and playback are big enough that even such a broad reference gives direction to my goals for playback and for source material. The problem here, of course, is that the "general memory of what live music in a good acoustic venue generally sounds like" just isn't a viable reference. As a member of a performing choir, I've heard my choir live in Avery Fisher, Alice Tully, Carnegie, Merkin, Weil Recital and many other halls. While the choir is remarkable consistent in its sound, we sound very different depending on the venue. This should suprise no one, given the dramatic difference in acoustic space between the venues. The question is, therefore, how can we base our audio system reference on such a variable? The answer is, we can't. If I know what a Steinway D sounds like in Weil Recital Hall, and I hear a recording of said, I have a reference. OTOH, if I hear a recording of the same piano in Alice Tully, I no longer have a reference against which to compare. A number of years ago, I was listening to a recording of Midori playing the Dvorak Viloin Concerto. As I was listening, I said out loud to my wife, that the recording sounded just like Avery Fisher Hall down to the smear in the mid-band (that was very obvious before the last acoustic adjustment.) Looking at the CD, it was, in fact, recorded live at Avery Fisher in 1989. That's a reference. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
Tom said
Everybody says "live acoustical music" but how many have a recording of live music where they attended the event? I said That isn't what everybody says. I say it is my general memory of what live music in a good acoustic venue generally sounds like. The differences between that general experience and playback are big enough that even such a broad reference gives direction to my goals for playback and for source material. Bruce said The problem here, of course, is that the "general memory of what live music in a good acoustic venue generally sounds like" just isn't a viable reference. I disagree. As different as it is from venue to venue there are certain desirable qualities that are universally consistant. Bruce said As a member of a performing choir, I've heard my choir live in Avery Fisher, Alice Tully, Carnegie, Merkin, Weil Recital and many other halls. While the choir is remarkable consistent in its sound, we sound very different depending on the venue. I bet those differences, as large as they may be, are trivial compared to what you hear with playback of chior music compared to the live sound in any of those venues. Bruce said This should suprise no one, given the dramatic difference in acoustic space between the venues. Of course it doesn't. Bruce said The question is, therefore, how can we base our audio system reference on such a variable? Start with a wide range of recordings of live music from different venues. Bruce said The answer is, we can't. Maybe you can't. i have no problem. the differences are big enough between live music in general and playback that it is easy to note what is wrong with playback generally speaking. Bruce said If I know what a Steinway D sounds like in Weil Recital Hall, and I hear a recording of said, I have a reference. OTOH, if I hear a recording of the same piano in Alice Tully, I no longer have a reference against which to compare. Sure you do. You still have the sound of the Steinway. I mean come on, if someone you know talks to you in a room you have never been in do you no longer recognize the voice? Bruce said A number of years ago, I was listening to a recording of Midori playing the Dvorak Viloin Concerto. As I was listening, I said out loud to my wife, that the recording sounded just like Avery Fisher Hall down to the smear in the mid-band (that was very obvious before the last acoustic adjustment.) Looking at the CD, it was, in fact, recorded live at Avery Fisher in 1989. That's a reference. So what are you saying? That if one hasn't been in the specific hall they have no idea what an orchestra would sound like at all in that hall? Familiarity certainly helps. I would not expect someone to use recordings of a specific instrument that they have never heard in person as a reference. I think it is fair to say that people with little experience listening to live music will have trouble using that limmited experience as a reference. But, there are certain elements of orchestral sound that are reliable from hall to hall that can make orchestral music from an unfamiliar hall useful as a reference. I do think it is important though to use many different sources for evaluation. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:08cnb.32349$9E1.121748@attbi_s52... *snip* A number of years ago, I was listening to a recording of Midori playing the Dvorak Viloin Concerto. As I was listening, I said out loud to my wife, that the recording sounded just like Avery Fisher Hall down to the smear in the mid-band (that was very obvious before the last acoustic adjustment.) Looking at the CD, it was, in fact, recorded live at Avery Fisher in 1989. That's a reference. So what are you saying? That if one hasn't been in the specific hall they have no idea what an orchestra would sound like at all in that hall? I didn't say that they'd have no idea. What I am saying is that if we're talking about establishing a reference, the reference has to be exactly that, a known reference. If I'd never heard an orchestral performance at Avery Fisher, how would I have known that the mid-band smear present on the recording wasn't something endemic to the hall and that I shouldn't try to correct it out of my system? You seem to have broadened the reference of "acoustic music played in an acoustic space", to simply acoustic music (as you've eliminated the venue from the equation), and taken from this standpoint, there should be no difference whether the music was recorded with a full house at Carnegie, or recorded and engineered in a studio. Familiarity certainly helps. Actually, I believe that familiarity doesn't merely help, but that without it you simply can't have a reference. You can have an idea, but a reference is a known quantity, not an idea. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
Bruce said
I was listening to a recording of Midori playing the Dvorak Viloin Concerto. As I was listening, I said out loud to my wife, that the recording sounded just like Avery Fisher Hall down to the smear in the mid-band (that was very obvious before the last acoustic adjustment.) Looking at the CD, it was, in fact, recorded live at Avery Fisher in 1989. That's a reference. I said So what are you saying? That if one hasn't been in the specific hall they have no idea what an orchestra would sound like at all in that hall? Bruce said I didn't say that they'd have no idea. What I am saying is that if we're talking about establishing a reference, the reference has to be exactly that, a known reference. Such exactness is not possible. Microphone placement alone makes such exactness impossible for orchetral recordings. Bruce said If I'd never heard an orchestral performance at Avery Fisher, how would I have known that the mid-band smear present on the recording wasn't something endemic to the hall and that I shouldn't try to correct it out of my system? That's easy. You simply have to use a wide enough range of source material to distinguish what is characteristic of the venue, what is characteristic of the recording engineer and what is characteristic of the mastering. Yeah, if you use one recording for your source and don't know anything about it you are bound to make that kind of mistake. OTOH if you are hearing a mid-band smear on all your recordings you can probably deduct that it is the equipment and not all the recordings. Heck even if it is all the recordings you still want to fix the effect if you hear it with everything you play. Bruce said You seem to have broadened the reference of "acoustic music played in an acoustic space", to simply acoustic music (as you've eliminated the venue from the equation), Not at all. I simply think that if you use enough source material and pay attention to what that source material is (where it was recorded, who recorded it and who mastered it and when) then you can eventually figure out what is unique to the source and what is not. That includes the specific sound of a venue. Bruce said and taken from this standpoint, there should be no difference whether the music was recorded with a full house at Carnegie, or recorded and engineered in a studio. There are other differences as well that one will never be able to reference via experience. it does not change what I want to hear out of my playback. I said Familiarity certainly helps Bruce said Actually, I believe that familiarity doesn't merely help, but that without it you simply can't have a reference. You can have an idea, but a reference is a known quantity, not an idea. Given the fact that you aren't going to hear a live performance from the perspective of the microphones ( impossible in most cases) under recording conditions it follows that "you" will never have a reference by the parameters you have proposed. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
I said
Given the fact that you aren't going to hear a live performance from the perspective of the microphones ( impossible in most cases) under recording conditions it follows that "you" will never have a reference by the parameters you have proposed. Tom said Which goes back to the original point tha concept of "live acoustic music" is far too vague to be a specific reference. I never proposed that it is a "specific" reference. Of course it is a general reference for those of us that use it as a reference. It is sufficiently different enough and superior enough to all playback that it works fine as a general reference for some of us. Tom said But, also we don't need to know the perspctive of the microphone UNLESS we are evaluating tyhe microphone. You sure do. If you are looking to use a specific recording as a "known reference" you must know the sound from the perspective of the microphones. The sound of a hall and the sound of a recording in a hall will vary widely depending on listener position and microphone position. Tom said My original point was that few folks arguing the point actually even have a specific reference such as postulated by Mr Abrams. Few have even been at a live performance of which they have a recording, of any quality of any kind. Many of us who use the sound of live music as the ideal for the sound of playback already know this. It does not change our aesthetic values. Tom said Most of those that do are recording engineers or muscians as in Mr Abrams case. Few are 'audiophiles'. So? Tom said But the original point is that a general statement of "live acoustic music" is vague. A good idea ... not a true reference. Well I guess I should sell everything and start over. Tom doesn't believe my choice of reference is a "true reference." IMO you are wrong. Some people don't need exactness to use a genereal reference to give one a general direction. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:Z_wnb.51241$HS4.234088@attbi_s01... I said Given the fact that you aren't going to hear a live performance from the perspective of the microphones ( impossible in most cases) under recording conditions it follows that "you" will never have a reference by the parameters you have proposed. Tom said Which goes back to the original point tha concept of "live acoustic music" is far too vague to be a specific reference. I never proposed that it is a "specific" reference. Of course it is a general reference for those of us that use it as a reference. It is sufficiently different enough and superior enough to all playback that it works fine as a general reference for some of us. Tom said But, also we don't need to know the perspctive of the microphone UNLESS we are evaluating tyhe microphone. You sure do. If you are looking to use a specific recording as a "known reference" you must know the sound from the perspective of the microphones. The sound of a hall and the sound of a recording in a hall will vary widely depending on listener position and microphone position. Tom said My original point was that few folks arguing the point actually even have a specific reference such as postulated by Mr Abrams. Few have even been at a live performance of which they have a recording, of any quality of any kind. Many of us who use the sound of live music as the ideal for the sound of playback already know this. It does not change our aesthetic values. Tom said Most of those that do are recording engineers or muscians as in Mr Abrams case. Few are 'audiophiles'. So? Tom said But the original point is that a general statement of "live acoustic music" is vague. A good idea ... not a true reference. Well I guess I should sell everything and start over. Tom doesn't believe my choice of reference is a "true reference." IMO you are wrong. Some people don't need exactness to use a genereal reference to give one a general direction. But wheelie at the end of the day the position of the mic that recored the sound is not the same postions as the audiance heard the sound and a mic is not the same as a human ear by a long chalk. but the relitive postions of all are esentail in being able to re-create something close to the orginally intended sound (god how i hate the phrase absolute sound). we all persue the recreation of illusions. so tom is wrong ! and you is right!! |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
science vs vs pseudo science
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
| rec.audio.opinion, isn't exactly rocket science | Audio Opinions | |||
| science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
