Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ion... An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears level with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you really hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more direct sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much of the crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers bouncing a bunch of sound around. Listen to something for 30 years and become normalised to it. Everything else sounds wrong. geoff |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for acoustic music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room. The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways to /ruin/ the illusion of reality. William, you seem to forget that the 'illusion of reality' is not a criteria that is important for most listeners, including serious musical listeners. geoff |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... I did not say that, or even imply it, and I don't believe anyone else did. Did Willie actually write that? LOL! |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Here's the thing. For a true live impression either the recording venue or the listening space has to be anechoic. If you have an acoustic contribution from both simultaneously you have no chance of it sounding live. I respectfully disagree. Have you ever experienced approaching a large public space -- a railway station maybe - and hearing music being played from quite far off. You know instantly whether that is live or a recording. Quality doesn't come into it -- it just sounds different. With over a thousand different recordings made in dozens of venues and dozens of happy customers I think I can weigh in on this a little. Part of the problem is a matter of standards for an impression of the live venue in the listening environment. What does "The same" mean to you? If you are talking things that sound same enough to be indistingushable in an ABX test, then a live recording that sounds the same as live sound is never going to happen, since live sound isn't even the same thing at the live performance. Every different take of a musical performance is different and be distinguished from all the others. If you are talking similar enough that you can recognize whether or not the singer is the same person, then probably. Ever wonder why some recording guys walk around repositioning and reorienting microphones, maybe with a finger in one ear? Stuff sounds very different when you do that. One driving force behind this little dance is the fact that the live sound is different when you walk around and/or reorient your head and/or listen with one ear or two. So, when you are asking the question "Are the live and recorded sound the same?" Your first barrier is that the live sound isn't just one thing. Your second problem is that if you put a mic at a location, the signal coming out of the mic never sounds identically the same as what you hear when you put your head where the mic is. If you understand how the pickup patterns of microphones interact with their environment then there is no mystery to that. As a rule the micing location that sounds the most like a performance sounds like at a certain place in the room is closer to the source than that certain place in the room. But it will still sound different. If you want to get about as close to having the live and recorded sound be very similar than a binaural recording listened to with very good earphones probably comes as close as you can get. Too bad binaural recordings sound so weird over loudspeakers. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message nacquisition... In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for acoustic music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room. The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways to /ruin/ the illusion of reality. You are sometimes correct, but as I said, WHEN DONE PROPERLY. What part of that is not clear? (And by "done properly" I don't simply mean arithmetic precision of some sort, but an overall aesthetic awareness. Too many engineers don't really have that, even though they might be brilliant in a purely engineering setting.) The very simple idea is to offer up subconscious cues to the listener such that when in a crap listening environment, there is a better (though not guaranteed) chance to overcome a murky local environment -- at least in terms of the ultimate goal, which is conveying *music*. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Very illuminating, but it doesn't help explain why Bose speakers just sound so bloody awful. "Bose speakers" aren't just one thing. IME their best efforts can be found in Bose branded OEM audio systems in certain automobiles. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Like most (but not all) listeners, I was suckered by the 901s. A year ago I figured out a likely reason why so many reviewers were fooled. If anyone is interested... I am curious. It's also important to point out that Bose marketed a line of wretchedly bad speakers (with highly inflated "list" prices) that gave Bose dealers an opportunity to sell Bose products at a "discount". The Bose speakers are designed to sound very good with short listening tests. They sound brighter and boomier than the competition, because that's what sells speakers: brief listening comparisons. Bose looked at how people shop for and buy speakers and then designed speakers to perform well under those circumstances. That is a sort of marketing genius. The most-damning thing one can say about Dr Bose and his company is that they did absolutely nothing whatsoever to advance the art of sound reproduction. Merchandising is another matter -- Bose mastered The Big Lie long before Apple. Actually, Bose has done a lot of research into speaker design and radiation patterns, and there are a bunch of papers in the JAES that were funded by Bose. Mind you, Bose doesn't use this research to make good sounding speakers, because they aren't in the business of making good sounding speakers. But you cannot fault Bose for not helping to advance the state of the science even if not the technology. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... **PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room. Many don't like that multi-microphone approach, and I would agree when such recordings are done badly. But done properly, the "fake" approach won't hurt you in a good reproduction environment, but will substantially help in a poor one. IME this is true. It is my preferred micing/mixing technique, too. I've done it well and I've done it badly, when it is bad it is about as bad as it gets. But there is a broad sweet spot and when you get all the planets and moons lined up, the results can be really quite gratifying to lots of people. Once upon a time I was listening to one such recording in my car with the windows open. Someone pulled up and said "That was made at such-and-such a place?" and they were right. That's about as close as I've ever gotten to "fooling" someone with a recording. Actually I have done better - by playing such a recording over the house system in the same venue. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for acoustic music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room. The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways to /ruin/ the illusion of reality. That's what all the golden ears say... ;-) It is not the only thing they have wrong! |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss? A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music. And this research result in what commercial product that truly sounded like live music? It has not resulted in any commercial products. Really, little of the fundamental research that Bose has financed and performed has resulted in any real applications. Give it some time. When it is applied, it won't be applied by Bose because they aren't in that business. You can say the same thing about the research IBM has funded at the T.J. Watson center. Their competitors have always taken advantage of it long before IBM themselves ever did, but that's not to say there is anything wrong with that. In my brief recording career, I made at least one live recording that sounded pretty much as if I was standing at the mic position. Current multi-ch SACD recordings can give a strong of sense of actually being in the hall and hearing a live performance. It's all fake. Nothing wrong with that, at least not if the fake is a good one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... It's also important to point out that Bose marketed a line of wretchedly bad speakers (with highly inflated "list" prices) that gave Bose dealers an opportunity to sell Bose products at a "discount". The Bose speakers are designed to sound very good with short listening tests. They sound brighter and boomier than the competition, because that's what sells speakers: brief listening comparisons. Bose looked at how people shop for and buy speakers and then designed speakers to perform well under those circumstances. That is a sort of marketing genius. The most-damning thing one can say about Dr Bose and his company is that they did absolutely nothing whatsoever to advance the art of sound reproduction. Merchandising is another matter -- Bose mastered The Big Lie long before Apple. Actually, Bose has done a lot of research into speaker design and radiation patterns, and there are a bunch of papers in the JAES that were funded by Bose. Mind you, Bose doesn't use this research to make good sounding speakers, because they aren't in the business of making good sounding speakers. But you cannot fault Bose for not helping to advance the state of the science even if not the technology. If you get into how Bose does things you can often figure out what they had in mind when they created the product and generally they do a good job of creating what they want to create. Above we see several examples of that. As you point out, what they want to create is very often something that people think they want long enough so Bose can capture their money and the people keep the product. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Ok, let me spell it out for you, again. There are people like Georges Cabasse who have spent their lives searching - and finding - ways to improve loudspeaker designs. And there have been others like Dr. Bose who have dedicated lots of time and effort to find reasons why it can't be done. Just because Bose makes some of the worst-sounding speakers in the world doesn't mean that they don't also fund some serious fundamental research into speaker design that is useful and worthwhile. I understand that this is something like McDonalds funding research at the Cordon Bleu, but it happens. Put a Bose speaker next to one from Cabasse (KEF, Rogers...), switch forth and back, and you'll find that both have proven their respective theories quite convincingly... ;-) That clear now? Fine. I guarantee if you take a random audience of college students and give them that comparison, with a total listening time of less than five minutes, that they will pick the Bose. They will always pick the brighter and boomier speaker. Once the listening test starts getting extended to 15 or 20 minutes the results change dramatically. But people don't do extended listening before buying speakers, sad to say. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Diesat 83
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Very illuminating, but it doesn't help explain why Bose speakers just sound so bloody awful. "Bose speakers" aren't just one thing. IME their best efforts can be found in Bose branded OEM audio systems in certain automobiles. Having has to suffer a few such setups on extended journeys. if that's their best effort, give me earplugs. Boom-tss, boom-tsss for hours on end. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on a mountaintop. Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have time for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that virtually everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or aesthetically incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live music". I worked for a radio station that did a lot of live in-studio concert work and we had a pair of the original Electro-Voice Sentry speakers as studio monitors. For a check mix system we had a pair of 901s which were marked "****terizer" in the patchbay. You could press a button on the console marked SOUNDS LIKE **** in order to switch from the main monitors to the 901s. This was back in the days when the Sentry and the 901 were swanky new modern products. It was fascinating doing it, too... the midrange got very saggy, the real bottom end dropped out but what was most interesting was that the imaging became very diffuse. All signs of accurate image totally went away to be replaced with this vague and "phasey" kind of sound. It was actually very interesting and useful as a check mix.... if the vocals in the mix weren't high enough they would almost disappear into the mix because there was really no stable center image. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Diesat 83
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for acoustic music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room. The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways to /ruin/ the illusion of reality. That's what all the golden ears say... ;-) It is not the only thing they have wrong! For someone who claims to spend every weekend making recordings of performences which he has the chance to compare with the live performance, you surprise me by saying that. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Don Pearce wrote:
Yes, it helps a little. But even dBx doesn't come close to the dynamic range possible with digital. But that word is the problem - possible. Find me a recording that uses it, and has the right acoustic to sound live through a set of speakers. Check out the Ondekoza track that I submitted to the first RAP CD set. The actual issued recording was severely compressed; the producer claimed nobody could actually listen to the thing because it had such a full dynamic range. But the version I sent to the RAP CD was untouched. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Frank Stearns wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss? A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music. And this research resulted in what commercial product that truly sounded like live music? The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on a mountaintop. Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have time for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that virtually everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or aesthetically incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live music". Here's the weird thing -- the 901s do work, sort of, but in a very limited sense, and they're something of a one-trick pony. The "success" comes in swamping the crappy repro room with still MORE time distortions than what's already there. It's such a smeared mess with 85% of the sound bounced off the back and side walls that, er, well, you obliquely get the illusion of live (er, that concert hall is a smeared mess of reflections, right? So this kinda sorta should work, kinda sorta...) But it's like a heavily-salted Big Mac that tastes "good" -- for the moment. But you'd tire of that quickly, and it'll never taste like salmon or waffles, no matter what you do. An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears level with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you really hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more direct sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much of the crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers bouncing a bunch of sound around. YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio 85% may be bouncing, but the first wave front sounds louder to the brain by some amount. My favorite way to listen to them. Not more than 10 feet away, preferably less. The room must be treated to lessen the reflections. Eye level. Anything above series II sounds worse. Stop the thread. Greg |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Frank Stearns wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss? A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music. And this research resulted in what commercial product that truly sounded like live music? The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on a mountaintop. Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have time for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that virtually everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or aesthetically incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live music". Here's the weird thing -- the 901s do work, sort of, but in a very limited sense, and they're something of a one-trick pony. The "success" comes in swamping the crappy repro room with still MORE time distortions than what's already there. It's such a smeared mess with 85% of the sound bounced off the back and side walls that, er, well, you obliquely get the illusion of live (er, that concert hall is a smeared mess of reflections, right? So this kinda sorta should work, kinda sorta...) But it's like a heavily-salted Big Mac that tastes "good" -- for the moment. But you'd tire of that quickly, and it'll never taste like salmon or waffles, no matter what you do. An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears level with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you really hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more direct sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much of the crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers bouncing a bunch of sound around. YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio I know years ago, some guy used to sell monitors using a basic 4 driver box with similar equalizer to the Bose. I don't think they sold well. Greg |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message nacquisition... In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for acoustic music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room. The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways to /ruin/ the illusion of reality. This is true also. But do not judge these tools just because DG has abused them so badly. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on a mountaintop. Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have time for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that virtually everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or aesthetically incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live music". I worked for a radio station that did a lot of live in-studio concert work and we had a pair of the original Electro-Voice Sentry speakers as studio monitors. For a check mix system we had a pair of 901s which were marked "****terizer" in the patchbay. You could press a button on the console marked SOUNDS LIKE **** in order to switch from the main monitors to the 901s. This was back in the days when the Sentry and the 901 were swanky new modern products. It was fascinating doing it, too... the midrange got very saggy, the real bottom end dropped out but what was most interesting was that the imaging became very diffuse. All signs of accurate image totally went away to be replaced with this vague and "phasey" kind of sound. It was actually very interesting and useful as a check mix.... if the vocals in the mix weren't high enough they would almost disappear into the mix because there was really no stable center image. --scott An example of collossal ignorance. Imaging is as much a result of speaker placement as radiation pattern. With a mostly reflecting type speaker, you first of all don't put it in a deadened studio environment, second of all the placement errors would be magnified. It takes all 8 real and virtual images to make up the 901 frontal sound stage. These idiots probably had them a foot from the walls. I went into one of the high end stores that sold 901s and were about to discontinue them - for the usual reason that they were a lot less expensive than the competition and were embarrassing them in direct comparison. I asked if they were still hooked in to the patch panel, and they said yes, so they let me switch away. It was hard to tell them from two particular close competitors, the Ohm F and the Magneplanars, I forget which model. I also remember well in the early days of the Series I going into Pecar Electronics in Detroit and seeing them placed right on top of some Electrovoice Patricians. The salesmen had fun fooling people into thinking the 901s were the Pats. Another time when I was entering the store I heard what was unmistakably some live rock group playing away in the next room, louder than any speakers could go. It was just a pair of 901s hanging from chains all by themselves in front of a wood panel wall. In the early days around 1979 I was living in Springfield Massachussetts and there was an audio dealer nearby that used to play any and all of their OTHER equipment using the 901s to make it sound better. One time I remember in particular it was the brand new Advent Dolby cassette deck. I bought one. I may have seen but one of the travelling road shows that demo'd the 901s but I remember it was sensational with slides of the musicians and got us really jazzed about hi fi and music in general. But the biggest tribute to the 901s is all of the other manufacturers that named their new whatever with 901 in the number somewhere, just to catch the cache that this magic name had with the public. I can't remember and didn't write them all down, but it probably wouldn't be that hard to search. Gary Eickmeier |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Ralf R. Radermacher" wrote in message ... Gary Eickmeier wrote: A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music. During those same twelve years, others have come a long way in making their speakers sound a lot more like live music. Those who are willing find ways, all others find reasons. And many good solutions start with understanding the reasons, rather than trial and error. Not suggesting that applies to Bose of course :-) Trevor. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Frank Stearns wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" writes: 4. Spatial characteristics. This is the biggie that the Bose research introduced. If you make a plan view drawing of your speakers and room, you can draw the reflected sound as virtual images on the other side of the walls. You can also make an image model drawing of a live band in the hall. We get the spatial more correct by trying to make the repro model as much like the live model as possible. Sorry, but no!!! You've bought into Bose marketing (I remember those funky zig-zag flared arrow diagrams from 1960s Bose literature). You're never going to match a domestic living room to a concert hall. You can only do that by putting your speakers in your own concert hall (at 1:1 scale to the original venue). But then make sure you close mic and record anechoically, and put a speaker on your private stage matching the position of each microphone! It took me a long time as well to understand the difference between the spatial and the temporal. You have the classic confusion between the two. This confusion is shown by your reference to the room sizes not being the same. Reflection times would be the temporal, not the spatial. Let me illustrate the difference with a simple example. A friend buys a new home theater in a box surround sound kit. He knows nothing about how to set it up, and ignorantly places all of the speaker in a row on top os his big screen up front. No matter what he plays, he says it just doesn't work. He can hear the reverberation in the music recordings and the surround sound pings and rain and explosions in the movies, but it just doesn't sound right. You go over and show him how to place the surround speakers to the rear and sides and the front speakers with a certain separation and spacing from the walls. What you have changed is the spatial characteristic of his reproduction. The temporal remains untouched, and is as containded in the recordings. This difference is very important to understand in talking about sound reproduction and sound fields. Spatial is the incident angles from which the sound arrives at the listener. Temporal is the timings of the reflections, which we will talk some more about below. What you really want to do is control various timing and reflection issues in your reproduction room such that they work _with_ (and not against) the spatial cues recorded from the original venue. There are some deep, esoteric theories and some big bucks in getting control rooms to do just this. I built a very modest version of one of these that worked very well, and am about to build another. It's not easy, that's for sure, but the rewards are rich. LEDE is exactly backwards from what should be done. They are mistakenly subtracting the early reflected sound from the frontal soundstage but letting some of the later reflections from the back of the room come through. Perhaps this is important for recording engineers to be able to hear what the mikes are picking up, kind of like putting on headphones, but it is not realistic sound in the image modeling sense. Oh yes it does!!! If you haven't experienced a "before and after" experiment, you'd be amazed how much damage a 10 mS delay off a sidewall can do. And here's Bose, tail-twisting the HELL out of that critical 5-20 mS range. What you are talking about is well within the fusion time of our hearing mechanism, and is not heard as "smearing" or echo of any sort. We would be in big trouble is it were, both in concert halls and in any home listening situation. As I said, in LEDE they try to get the reflections even later than that. Then there is the room placement issue. If you mis-place a highly reflecting speaker like the 901s or the Maggies or the MBLs, you can get a "clustering" of acoustic images from the too-close walls that may sound like "smearing" to your uneducated ears. But get it right and you can eliminate the deleterious effects of the (still strong) reflections and make them work for you - and in fact those reflections are exactly what gives the impression of spaciaousness and depth of image that audiophiles prize so much but don't realize what causes it. You can easily hear these effects by moving speakers around. Start out with them 1/4 of the room width in from the side walls and out from the front wall. That is how I have my 901s. In my 20 x 30 dedicated room I have them 5 ft out and 5 ft from the side walls, forming a lattice, or matrix, of 8 evenly spaced direct and virtual images by using the walls as part of the speaker system. Imaging is perfectly even all across the front wall, not just from speaker to speaker. NOW, if I were to move them closer to the front wall, I would be effectively moving their reflections closer to me and reducing depth of image. If I moved them wider apart in a mistaken attempt to get wider imaging, I would be moving the side wall reflections closer together, diminishing the width of the total soundstage and defeating the purpose. This would also cause a clustering of acoustic sources near the corners, causing a hole in the middle and an apparent "smearing" or widening of central images. This is the effect of mis-placement that got them in so much trouble with CU, because the owners manual is wrong about speaker positioning and the magazine heard the effect of speakers too close to the reflecting surfaces. It's a whole deal. Sorry to be long winded. Gary Eickmeier |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Frank Stearns wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes: The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways to /ruin/ the illusion of reality. You are sometimes correct, but as I said, WHEN DONE PROPERLY. What part of that is not clear? (And by "done properly" I don't simply mean arithmetic precision of some sort, but an overall aesthetic awareness. Too many engineers don't really have that, even though they might be brilliant in a purely engineering setting.) The very simple idea is to offer up subconscious cues to the listener such that when in a crap listening environment, there is a better (though not guaranteed) chance to overcome a murky local environment -- at least in terms of the ultimate goal, which is conveying *music*. Frank Mobile Audio I'm sure William understands all that. We certainly would not mike a solo singer only with the stereo mikes and not spot her with her own mike. It is the construction of an illusion. Live, she would sound very distinct and clear. Reproduced without the spot mike on her, she would sound like she was in a well. Might be different for opera, but I would bet even there they are going to want to put a mike on all of the singers and speakers. Gary Eickmeier |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... It's also important to point out that Bose marketed a line of wretchedly bad speakers (with highly inflated "list" prices) that gave Bose dealers an opportunity to sell Bose products at a "discount". The Bose speakers are designed to sound very good with short listening tests. They sound brighter and boomier than the competition, because that's what sells speakers: brief listening comparisons. Bose looked at how people shop for and buy speakers and then designed speakers to perform well under those circumstances. That is a sort of marketing genius. The most-damning thing one can say about Dr Bose and his company is that they did absolutely nothing whatsoever to advance the art of sound reproduction. Merchandising is another matter -- Bose mastered The Big Lie long before Apple. Actually, Bose has done a lot of research into speaker design and radiation patterns, and there are a bunch of papers in the JAES that were funded by Bose. Mind you, Bose doesn't use this research to make good sounding speakers, because they aren't in the business of making good sounding speakers. But you cannot fault Bose for not helping to advance the state of the science even if not the technology. If you get into how Bose does things you can often figure out what they had in mind when they created the product and generally they do a good job of creating what they want to create. Above we see several examples of that. As you point out, what they want to create is very often something that people think they want long enough so Bose can capture their money and the people keep the product. Methinks Mr. Dorsey doesn't know much about the Bose pro division and all of the sound reinforcement and DJ equipment and the Modeler program that can place speakers in a virtual room and play what they would sound like in any position of the listener in that room. The wonderful L1 speakers and their successors and now the Panarray line which I don't know that much about yet, but I am not in that business. Once upon a time I attended a stage magic show, and rather than pay a live orchestra they just had a stack of Bose 802s on each side of the stage that sounded so good I couldn't believe it wasn't live. But of course these stories are legend all over the world with the Bose pro line. The automotive stuff, I am not so sure. Sounds a little too heavy on the bass from what I have heard. Maybe it is because at speed it needs it (because of road noise). Gary Eickmeier |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Ron C" wrote in message ... [IMHO] even "live music" doesn't sound like (our memory of) the "live music" in that our memories are colored by the live experience. Everything from lighting to room temperature, head movements to others shifting in their seats, and so on... colors our experience. The reality of a "live music" experience is thus an even more complicated problem. But the old test of putting a single performer behind a curtain with a microphone and speaker at the same position, and swapping between the two pretty much eliminates everything but the microphone and speaker (I think we can safely ignore the electronics these days) Naturally for anything other than a solo instrument, the problems of capturing the sound are usually as great, or greater than any speaker limitations. And it needs careful comparison rather than the carnival show technique once favoured for selling gramophones. :-) Trevor. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ion... An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears level with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you really hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more direct sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much of the crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers bouncing a bunch of sound around. Nah they still sound wrong, just like the 801's. The variable interraction of all those drivers wrt frequency and listening position can never be equalised properly. Trevor. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"geoff" wrote in message ... Listen to something for 30 years and become normalised to it. Everything else sounds wrong. Bingo, and it doesn't take anything like 30 years. But fortunately you can retrain your brain *IF* you want. If you've convinced yourself you already have perfection, you won't. Trevor. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "geoff" wrote in message ... William, you seem to forget that the 'illusion of reality' is not a criterion that is important for most listeners, including serious musical listeners. I guess all the work that been expended over the past 70 years on achieving that goal has been a waste of time. I'm a serious listener, and it is important to be. Not everybody listens exclusively to live orchestral or chamber music. Much other music is 'produced', and a 'closest to live' analogy is not relevant. geoff |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Very illuminating, but it doesn't help explain why Bose speakers just sound so bloody awful. "Bose speakers" aren't just one thing. IME their best efforts can be found in Bose branded OEM audio systems in certain automobiles. Perhaps, but still bested by many other audio specialists in other cars. Trevor. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"Trevor" wrote in message ... "Frank Stearns" wrote in message ion... An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears level with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you really hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more direct sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much of the crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers bouncing a bunch of sound around. Nah they still sound wrong, just like the 801's. The variable interraction of all those drivers wrt frequency and listening position can never be equalised properly. If the 901s (etc) are so fab, just imagine what they would sound like with non-crapmeister drivers in hem ! geoff |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"geoff" wrote in message ... William, you seem to forget that the 'illusion of reality' is not a criteria that is important for most listeners, including serious musical listeners. How many have you surveyed? Trevor. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"geoff" wrote in message ... If the 901s (etc) are so fab, just imagine what they would sound like with non-crapmeister drivers in hem ! The cost Vs benefit ratio of 9 drivers becomes even worse :-( Trevor. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"geoff" wrote in message ... Not everybody listens exclusively to live orchestral or chamber music. Much other music is 'produced', and a 'closest to live' analogy is not relevant. Actually "close to live" becomes far easier for electronic instruments and miked vocals recorded live. Use the same speakers and the only real variable is the room. Make the listening room dead and add room simulation from the original and you're pretty close. Trevor. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Diesat 83
Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... Not everybody listens exclusively to live orchestral or chamber music. Much other music is 'produced', and a 'closest to live' analogy is not relevant. Actually "close to live" becomes far easier for electronic instruments and miked vocals recorded live. Use the same speakers and the only real variable is the room. Make the listening room dead and add room simulation from the original and you're pretty close. I don't know about others in here, but if I'm recording "pop" music, I aim for a result that conforms to (a) the artistes requirements and (b) the normal sound for that style of music. So, for example, 80s style is close mic'd and has lots of bass, while 60s style has less bass and a reasonable amount of (Echo chamber simulation) reverb. For 70s stuff, I'll pull out the Watkins Copycat plugin, and so on. For classical and other acoustic sources, I try to get the sound as close as possible to what I hear in the room when it's played back. One community choir I heard a while ago were using sound reinforcement, and they sounded like a badly recorded CD even when they were singing live. A shame, really, because apart from that, they were actually quite good. :-/ -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
"geoff" wrote in message
... Not everybody listens exclusively to live orchestral or chamber music. Much other music is 'produced', and a 'closest to live' analogy is not relevant. Correct. But high-accuracy speakers are still desirable, even if only to assure that the home listener hears what the studio producer intended. By the way, my experience has been that even teenage bimbas dragged in off the street tend to prefer speakers with flat response. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Methinks Mr. Dorsey doesn't know much about the Bose pro division and all of the sound reinforcement and DJ equipment and the Modeler program that can place speakers in a virtual room and play what they would sound like in any position of the listener in that room. The wonderful L1 speakers and their successors and now the Panarray line which I don't know that much about yet, but I am not in that business. The Modeler is okay, it's a little bit behind the technology compared with EASE but it's respectable and it works. You'll notice, though, that Bose really isn't selling into the pro audio market. They make some installed sound stuff, they make the Panarray, but they really haven't been able to sell into that market. You won't see them at pro audio trade shows, you won't see them at concerts or installs. Once upon a time I attended a stage magic show, and rather than pay a live orchestra they just had a stack of Bose 802s on each side of the stage that sounded so good I couldn't believe it wasn't live. But of course these stories are legend all over the world with the Bose pro line. The 802 is an oddity; it's the only non-horn-loaded PA speaker that you will find in the MI market. This is actually a good thing; there is a market for that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music. During those same twelve years, others have come a long way in making their speakers sound a lot more like live music. Those who are willing find ways, all others find reasons. Ralf Any competent _philosopher_ could have offered a mutlitude of proper reasons for the faiure of repro to match source. twelve years and how much money? Hey' it gets your name into the register. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times: Amar G. Bose, Acoustic Engineer and Inventor, Dies at 83
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on a mountaintop. It was sold by demonstrating it, both in the high end stores and in travelling road shows where it was explained and demonstrated. Audiphiles have a demonstrated ability to fall for presentations, especially if the accompanying language sounds technically impressive while also being sufficiently obfuscatory. The recording and reproduction process is not intended to make it sound like you are sitting at the mike position. Speak for yourself and for the recordings you make. Some of us do target a bullseye that is the source in the setting, to the best we can capture that. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cyril M. Harris acoustical engineer pioneer dies | Pro Audio | |||
The Art of Bose Bashing and Amar's Supposed Descent into Mediocrity | General | |||
Inventor of Leslie speaker dies | Pro Audio | |||
Inventor of Leslie speaker dies | Pro Audio | |||
The Art of Bose Bashing and Amar's Supposed Descent into Mediocrity | Marketplace |