Speakers That Sound Like Music

[Audio Empire]

Several weeks ago, I attended a regional Hi-Fi Show. It was held in a
medium-sized hotel near the International airport. In one of the Hotel's
several ballrooms, one of the larger area stereo salons was demonstrating,
what I found to be the real-sounding audio that I have ever heard.

The speakers, are of course, what did the trick. I think that most people who
post here will stipulate that for the most part, modern, well designed
amplifiers (with the possible exception of single-ended triode tube amps)
sound more alike than different, and what differences there are are quite
subtle.

The equipment was as follows:
Digital Front end - dCS "Puccini" CD/SACD player and "Puccini" U-Clock.
Preamp - VTL TL-7.5*Series II
Amp(s) - VTL Siegfried II Tubed power amps (800 Watts/each)
Speakers - Wilson Alexandria XLFs, Wilson 'Hammer of Thor' subwoofer.
There were other music sources as well, a new German Turntable, a computer
music server, but I'm going to stick with CD/SACD playback for this
discussion. Also I paid no attention to the oil-pipeline sized speaker cables
and interconnects that were used, because, assuming that they were of
sufficiently low impedance to carry the current required to drive the
speakers, they are a "don't care" as far as I'm concerned. They're just
"bling" and serve no useful purpose. My companion said they were MIT, and
I'll take his word for it.

I took with me several recordings that I have made over the years, and one of
them was an SACD of a big jazz band that I recorded in concert several years
ago.

This jazz concert is one of the best recordings I've ever made, and clearly
the best I've ever heard. So I figured that it would really reveal just how
good this half-million dollars worth of equipment would really sound. So I
asked Bea Manley, Luke Manly of VTL's diminutive, but charming wife, to play
a couple of cuts.

I was flabbergasted. I had sat in the audience of the hall in which this
concert would be recorded for several dress rehearsals, and while I
recognized from the outset how good the recording turned out, I'd never heard
it come anywhere close to how it sounded in the hall. This , of course, was
to be expected. the science and art of audio reproduction has a long way to
go before recorded will ever sound like live.

This came closer than anything I've ever heard. The only thing that gave away
the fact that I was listening to a reproduction of a live event and not the
event itself (from a listening perspective only, of course) were the
trumpets. For the most part, the Wilson Alexandria XLFs produced, in that
large ballroom, all the power and dynamic contrasts of the real thing. I've
NEVER heard that before. Like I said, the trumpets gave it away as merely
reproduction. They didn't sound live, just nearly so. Trumpets are pretty
nigh impossible to get right. They are usually the difference between real
and reproduced. Most instruments produce very weak harmonic above about 8KHz,
and therefore the highly attenuated harmonics of those instruments are fairly
easy for a good speaker system to reproduce. But if the harmonics are strong
(a trumpet has harmonics that are equally as strong as the fundamental all
the way up to 16 KHz or so) the small 1-2 " tweeters employed by practically
all speaker systems simply cannot produce these harmonics at the volume with
which they occur live. This tells almost any listener whether a trumpet is
reproduced or live. Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a human
of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.

The Wilson Alexandria XLFs are no exception. Over most of the spectrum, the
Wilsons are pretty much nonpareil. But they fall down when it comes to
trumpets, and a few other brass instruments. Still and all, it's the best
reproduction that I've ever heard from any stereo system, irrespective of
cost. Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. The only positive here is that I don't think that
one needs a pair of $60,000 VTL Siegfried II 800 Watt monoblocs to drive
them. They are so efficient that their minimum power requirement is but 15
Watts! I'd say that 150 Watts/channel would be more than sufficient to
achieve realistic levels of performance that would run you and probably your
neighbors out of the neighborhood!

Comments? Questions? Derisive laughter?

Audio_Empire

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 8/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

> This came closer than anything I've ever heard. The only thing that gave away
> the fact that I was listening to a reproduction of a live event and not the
> event itself (from a listening perspective only, of course) were the
> trumpets. For the most part, the Wilson Alexandria XLFs produced, in that
> large ballroom, all the power and dynamic contrasts of the real thing. I've
> NEVER heard that before. Like I said, the trumpets gave it away as merely
> reproduction. They didn't sound live, just nearly so. Trumpets are pretty
> nigh impossible to get right. They are usually the difference between real
> and reproduced. Most instruments produce very weak harmonic above about 8KHz,
> and therefore the highly attenuated harmonics of those instruments are fairly
> easy for a good speaker system to reproduce. But if the harmonics are strong
> (a trumpet has harmonics that are equally as strong as the fundamental all
> the way up to 16 KHz or so) the small 1-2 " tweeters employed by practically
> all speaker systems simply cannot produce these harmonics at the volume with
> which they occur live. This tells almost any listener whether a trumpet is
> reproduced or live. Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a human
> of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.
>

I take it you are saying that the tweeters were actually being overdriven,
and could not reproduce the peaks. Correct assumption?

Doug McDonald

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> Several weeks ago, I attended a regional Hi-Fi Show. It was held in a
> medium-sized hotel near the International airport. In one of the Hotel's
> several ballrooms, one of the larger area stereo salons was demonstrating,
> what I found to be the real-sounding audio that I have ever heard.

< snip >

> This came closer than anything I've ever heard. The only thing that gave
> away
> the fact that I was listening to a reproduction of a live event and not
> the
> event itself (from a listening perspective only, of course) were the
> trumpets. For the most part, the Wilson Alexandria XLFs produced, in that
> large ballroom, all the power and dynamic contrasts of the real thing.
> I've
> NEVER heard that before. Like I said, the trumpets gave it away as merely
> reproduction. They didn't sound live, just nearly so. Trumpets are pretty
> nigh impossible to get right. They are usually the difference between real
> and reproduced. Most instruments produce very weak harmonic above about
> 8KHz,
> and therefore the highly attenuated harmonics of those instruments are
> fairly
> easy for a good speaker system to reproduce. But if the harmonics are
> strong
> (a trumpet has harmonics that are equally as strong as the fundamental all
> the way up to 16 KHz or so) the small 1-2 " tweeters employed by
> practically
> all speaker systems simply cannot produce these harmonics at the volume
> with
> which they occur live. This tells almost any listener whether a trumpet is
> reproduced or live. Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a
> human
> of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.
>
> The Wilson Alexandria XLFs are no exception. Over most of the spectrum,
> the
> Wilsons are pretty much nonpareil. But they fall down when it comes to
> trumpets, and a few other brass instruments. Still and all, it's the best
> reproduction that I've ever heard from any stereo system, irrespective of
> cost. Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. The only positive here is that I don't think
> that
> one needs a pair of $60,000 VTL Siegfried II 800 Watt monoblocs to drive
> them. They are so efficient that their minimum power requirement is but 15
> Watts! I'd say that 150 Watts/channel would be more than sufficient to
> achieve realistic levels of performance that would run you and probably
> your
> neighbors out of the neighborhood!
>
> Comments? Questions? Derisive laughter?

Dear AE -

You probably knew you might hear from me on this. You would also be
surprised to read that I agree with your observations 100%.

Recall that my EEFs (Essential Elements of Fidelity) are Physical Size,
Power, Waveform Fidelity in the electronic domain - (freedom from distortion
and noise and flat response), and Spatial Characteristics. I, too, have
noticed many times that in a large auditorium the reproduction sounds much
more realistic because the acoustics and physical size of the playback space
match up a lot better with the original venue and sound more like the music
is being heard in a real space, because it IS being heard in a real space -
a space much more like the real thing than you smaller home listening room.

This magic is not due to anything that Dave Wilson did with the design, but
rather in spite of it. Your remark about the horns kind of shows this. I am
thinking that the problem with horn repro has less to do with the POWER of
the tweeters and more to do with the radiation pattern not matching the rest
of the system by the time the frequencies get up that high. There can be a
disconnect when the radiation pattern narrows as frequencies go up. In fact
nothing gives away the "speakery" sound as opposed to live faster than
having this megaphone effect at the high freqs. Maybe if he had chosen HORN
tweeters (ha ha) there would be less disparity in the acoustic power output,
but I think he should also put some of them on the other faces of the
speaker, especially the sides, to even out the power response throughout the
spectrum.

Summary, biggest factor was physical size, he had plenty of power, no
problem with waveform fidelity, and mitigating factor spatial
characteristics and possibly power in high frequencies.

Gary Eickmeier

PS - the others may not realize that I have a copy of your jazz recording,
just played it yesterday (again), and it IS possibly the best I have in my
collection. Thank you for that!

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:03:05 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article >):

> On 8/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> This came closer than anything I've ever heard. The only thing that gave
>> away
>> the fact that I was listening to a reproduction of a live event and not the
>> event itself (from a listening perspective only, of course) were the
>> trumpets. For the most part, the Wilson Alexandria XLFs produced, in that
>> large ballroom, all the power and dynamic contrasts of the real thing. I've
>> NEVER heard that before. Like I said, the trumpets gave it away as merely
>> reproduction. They didn't sound live, just nearly so. Trumpets are pretty
>> nigh impossible to get right. They are usually the difference between real
>> and reproduced. Most instruments produce very weak harmonic above about
>> 8KHz,
>> and therefore the highly attenuated harmonics of those instruments are
>> fairly
>> easy for a good speaker system to reproduce. But if the harmonics are strong
>> (a trumpet has harmonics that are equally as strong as the fundamental all
>> the way up to 16 KHz or so) the small 1-2 " tweeters employed by practically
>> all speaker systems simply cannot produce these harmonics at the volume with
>> which they occur live. This tells almost any listener whether a trumpet is
>> reproduced or live. Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a human
>> of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.
>>
>
> I take it you are saying that the tweeters were actually being overdriven,
> and could not reproduce the peaks. Correct assumption?
>
> Doug McDonald
>

Not really. The tweeter thing is a theory of mine. It's just that tweeters
are small out of necessity in order to be fast, but they can't move as much
air as larger drivers or as is necessary to reproduce instruments with
high-level harmonic content above 8-10 KHz, even when playing at their
absolute loudest. Most instruments can be fairly realistically reproduced,
and that is because the high-frequency harmonics that they produce are
extremely attenuated compared to their fundamentals. Few instruments have the
strong harmonic content produced by a trumpet and perhaps a few other
instruments.

I don't know if you've ever had this experience before, but I have. I'm
walking a down a city street in a busy "entertainment" district of some place
like the French Quarter in New Orleans, or the Shinjuku area of Tokyo, You
pass a door to some establishment and the door opens for someone to enter of
leave. Instantly the music gets louder as you hear it through the open door.
Something tells you immediately, "that's live music playing in there!" it's
that unambiguous. There are no ifs, hesitations, or second guesses involved.
You KNOW it's live. (You pass the next door and as it opens, you think "PA
system or jukebox") No reproduction system I've ever heard can reproduce that
sensation, and after attending a seminar on how we hear music put on by
composer, musician and audio maven Tony Webber of Cary Audio, I now see why
(I've wondered about this for years) . He showed spectragraphs of various
instruments showing the frequency distribution of about a dozen instruments.
When he got to the trumpet, I had an epiphany. Most instruments he showed,
violin, flute, oboe, etc. had harmonics reaching up to above 15 KHz, but in
most instruments the high harmonics were much less than a third the amplitude
of the highest fundamental. When he put a slide up showing the trumpet, it
had high-frequency harmonics that were as loud as the fundamental all the way
to 20 KHz! That must be at least part of the reason why live music sounds the
way it way it does. Instruments with high level, high-frequency harmonic
content (cymbals, saxes, french horns, perhaps) just aren't being reproduced
by even the best of today's speakers with the harmonic content intact. Now,
perhaps they aren't being captured properly by the best microphones we can
build either, I don't know. But the next time you hear a trumpet being played
(even if it's by a mariach band in your local Mexican restaurant ) listen to
the trumpet player for harmonic content and shear PRESENCE. No stereo system
can do that. After hearing the best and most expensive speakers on the market
(Wilson Alexandria XLFs, Magico Q5s, YG Acoustics Anat III, MBL MBL
Radialstrahler 101E Mk.II, M-L CLX,) I'm convinced that this is the final
bottleneck for getting absolute audio accuracy from hi-fi equipment. I
believe that the day we can't discern the difference between a live trumpet
and a recorded one, that's the day we'll be "there"!

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:13:56 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Several weeks ago, I attended a regional Hi-Fi Show. It was held in a
>> medium-sized hotel near the International airport. In one of the Hotel's
>> several ballrooms, one of the larger area stereo salons was demonstrating,
>> what I found to be the real-sounding audio that I have ever heard.
>
> < snip >
>
>> This came closer than anything I've ever heard. The only thing that gave
>> away
>> the fact that I was listening to a reproduction of a live event and not
>> the
>> event itself (from a listening perspective only, of course) were the
>> trumpets. For the most part, the Wilson Alexandria XLFs produced, in that
>> large ballroom, all the power and dynamic contrasts of the real thing.
>> I've
>> NEVER heard that before. Like I said, the trumpets gave it away as merely
>> reproduction. They didn't sound live, just nearly so. Trumpets are pretty
>> nigh impossible to get right. They are usually the difference between real
>> and reproduced. Most instruments produce very weak harmonic above about
>> 8KHz,
>> and therefore the highly attenuated harmonics of those instruments are
>> fairly
>> easy for a good speaker system to reproduce. But if the harmonics are
>> strong
>> (a trumpet has harmonics that are equally as strong as the fundamental all
>> the way up to 16 KHz or so) the small 1-2 " tweeters employed by
>> practically
>> all speaker systems simply cannot produce these harmonics at the volume
>> with
>> which they occur live. This tells almost any listener whether a trumpet is
>> reproduced or live. Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a
>> human
>> of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.
>>
>> The Wilson Alexandria XLFs are no exception. Over most of the spectrum,
>> the
>> Wilsons are pretty much nonpareil. But they fall down when it comes to
>> trumpets, and a few other brass instruments. Still and all, it's the best
>> reproduction that I've ever heard from any stereo system, irrespective of
>> cost. Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
>> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. The only positive here is that I don't think
>> that
>> one needs a pair of $60,000 VTL Siegfried II 800 Watt monoblocs to drive
>> them. They are so efficient that their minimum power requirement is but 15
>> Watts! I'd say that 150 Watts/channel would be more than sufficient to
>> achieve realistic levels of performance that would run you and probably
>> your
>> neighbors out of the neighborhood!
>>
>> Comments? Questions? Derisive laughter?
>
> Dear AE -
>
> You probably knew you might hear from me on this. You would also be
> surprised to read that I agree with your observations 100%.
>
> Recall that my EEFs (Essential Elements of Fidelity) are Physical Size,
> Power, Waveform Fidelity in the electronic domain - (freedom from distortion
> and noise and flat response), and Spatial Characteristics. I, too, have
> noticed many times that in a large auditorium the reproduction sounds much
> more realistic because the acoustics and physical size of the playback space
> match up a lot better with the original venue and sound more like the music
> is being heard in a real space, because it IS being heard in a real space -
> a space much more like the real thing than you smaller home listening room.
>
> This magic is not due to anything that Dave Wilson did with the design, but
> rather in spite of it. Your remark about the horns kind of shows this. I am
> thinking that the problem with horn repro has less to do with the POWER of
> the tweeters and more to do with the radiation pattern not matching the rest
> of the system by the time the frequencies get up that high. There can be a
> disconnect when the radiation pattern narrows as frequencies go up. In fact
> nothing gives away the "speakery" sound as opposed to live faster than
> having this megaphone effect at the high freqs. Maybe if he had chosen HORN
> tweeters (ha ha) there would be less disparity in the acoustic power output,
> but I think he should also put some of them on the other faces of the
> speaker, especially the sides, to even out the power response throughout the
> spectrum.
>
> Summary, biggest factor was physical size, he had plenty of power, no
> problem with waveform fidelity, and mitigating factor spatial
> characteristics and possibly power in high frequencies.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
> PS - the others may not realize that I have a copy of your jazz recording,
> just played it yesterday (again), and it IS possibly the best I have in my
> collection. Thank you for that!
>
>

Well, while those Wilson Audio speakers were definitely the "best of show"
Their longsuit seemed to be that they excelled at getting the dynamics of
live music correct. In an unfamiliar venue such as half of a hotel ballroom,
any observations that I might make about imaging and soundstage (they seemed
to do that very realistically) would be tempered by my unfamiliarity with the
room and the equipment. So I make no claims there. The sound was big and
real-sounding from a standpoint of my familiarity with the source material
and nothing else. The speakers are huge. The Alexandrias, each had two
woofers, one a 13" and the other a 15". The "Thor's Hammer" subwoofers had
two woofers as well, both 15". The three speaker systems moved a LOT of air
and the bottom descended to 10 Hz!

Thanks Gary, for the kind words about my jazz concert recording.

Audio_Empire

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:03:05 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
> (in article >):
>>On 8/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a human
>>> of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.
>>>
>> I take it you are saying that the tweeters were actually being
>> overdriven, and could not reproduce the peaks. Correct assumption?
>
> Not really. The tweeter thing is a theory of mine. It's just that tweeters
> are small out of necessity in order to be fast, but they can't move as much
> air as larger drivers or as is necessary to reproduce instruments with
> high-level harmonic content above 8-10 KHz, even when playing at their
> absolute loudest.

The quantity that determines how loud something is "volume
velocity," not simply volume or displacement, which is what
most people are really talking about when they say "moving air."

For a given diaphragm area and a fixed linear displacement,
the sound pressure generated goes as the square of the
frequency. Conversely, for a given diameter, the amount
of excursion needed to radiate a certain sound pressure
level goes as the inverse square of frequency.

Consider the following: a 10" woofer moving about 0.08"
at 50 Hz generates a sound pressure level of about 100 dB
1 meter away. That same woofer, if it COULD, at that
excursion, would be producing 192 dB SPL. It'd need in
the realm of several billion watts of power to do so.
This suggests the obvious: woofers do not good tweeters
make.

Now, take our lonely little, diminutive 1" tweeter. At
10,000 Hz (10 kHz, to reproduce that same 100 dB SPL
1 meter away, would have to move all of 0.0002". That's
a mere 200 millionths of an inch, or nearly 400 times
LESS than the woofer (at 50Hz) to produce the same sound
pressure level.

The reason is, again, that the amount of sound for a given
diameter and excursion, goes as the SQUARE of frequency
or, equivalently, the amount of excursion needed for a
given sound pressure level goes as the inverse square of
frequency.

10,000 Hz is 200 times the frequency of 50 Hz, and the
square of that is 40,000. But there's a factor of 100
difference in the emissive area between a 10" woofer and
a 1" tweeter. It therefore goes that a 1" tweeter
requires 100/40,000 times the excursion at 10 kHz that
a 10" woofer does at 50 Hz.

> Most instruments can be fairly realistically reproduced,
> and that is because the high-frequency harmonics that they produce are
> extremely attenuated compared to their fundamentals.

Except that for most tweeters, the limitation in output comes
not at the HIGH end of their range, but at the LOW end.

Once again, remember that the excursion, for a given emissive
area and sound pressure, goes as the inverse square of
frequency. In order to produce that same 100 dB SPL at, say
2 kHz that it can at 10 kHz, the tweeter has to move
(10 kHz/2kHz)^2 or 25 times as much at 2 kHz as it does at
10 kHz.

So, counter to your intuition (and, for that matter, many
peoples' intuition) producing the high frequency stuff is
EASY compared to the low frequency stuff.

"Yes, but," you or someone else might say, "it's all about
how FAST the tweeter is." Well, it turns out that while that
sounds intuitively correct, it's physically wrong. For the
same sound pressure level, the linear velocity of a given
diaphragm goes as the reciprocal of frequency, NOT directly
as frequency. That means that the same tweeter that's moving
X cm/sec at 2 kHz only has to move 1/5th that speed at 10 kHz
to produce the same sound pressure level.

In fact, we can directly calculate what those velocities
are by differentiating the excursion WRT time. Doing so
gives us an equation for peak velocity of Vpk = wX,
where w is radian frequency (2 pi times F) and x is the
excursion. At 10 kHz:

Vpk = 2 pi 10 kHz * 0.0002 in
Vpk ~= 13.2 in/sec

while at 2 kHz, and the same 100 dB sound pressure level:

Vpk = 2 pi 2 kHz * 0.0053 in
Vpk ~= 66 in/sec

"But why, then" it might be asked, "don't tweeters just keep
going up and up in frequency if they have an excursion that
goes as the inverse square of frequency and a velocity that
goes as the inverse of frequency?"

Because there are other limitations that come to play at high
frequencies. The first is physical size: as the wavelengths
get shorter at high frequencies, and as they start to approach
the size of the radiating area, you now get to the point where
one point in the diaphragm is a significant portion of a
wavelength (or, at high enough frequencies, MANY wavelengths)
distant from another part. Even assuming the radiating area
was infinitely rigid (reality is FAR from that), those path
length differences would lead to cancellations.

Second is the fact that the diaphragm is anything but rigid.
At high enough frequencies, that diaphragm is doing anything
BUT moving as a rigid piston.

Third is electrical: all loudspeaker drivers exhibit elect-
rically reactive properties whose effects come to dominate
as the frequency goes higher. Actual power can only be
produced through resistive loads: a portion of the resistive
load of ANY driver of ANY kind is the reflected resistive
portion of the acoustical radiation impedance. As the series
inductive reactance of a voice coil increases with increasing
frequency, or as the shunt capacitance of an electrostatic
system decreases with increasing frequency, the effect is
an inevitable low-pass filter effect.

> Few instruments have the strong harmonic content produced
> by a trumpet and perhaps a few other instruments.

Look first at what made it through the air from the
bell of the trumpet to the diaphragm of the microphone (look,
specifically, at the absorptive attenuation of air above 20 kHz).
Then look at what came out the the microphones that managed
to pick up what was left. These two factors alone count for an
enormous amount of very high-frequency losses in recording.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[cjt]

On 08/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
<snip> Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. <snip>

Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
does not.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Dick Pierce wrote:
> Consider the following: a 10" woofer moving about 0.08"
> at 50 Hz generates a sound pressure level of about 100 dB
> 1 meter away. That same woofer, if it COULD, at that
> excursion, would be producing 192 dB SPL. It'd need in
> the realm of several billion watts of power to do so.
> This suggests the obvious: woofers do not good tweeters
> make.

What I meant to type in the second sentence was:

"That same woofer, if it COULD, at that excursion,
would be producing 192 dB SPL at 10 kHz."

Sorry for the confusion.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. The only positive here is that I don't think that
> one needs a pair of $60,000 VTL Siegfried II 800 Watt monoblocs to drive
> them. They are so efficient that their minimum power requirement is but 15
> Watts! I'd say that 150 Watts/channel would be more than sufficient to
> achieve realistic levels of performance that would run you and probably your
> neighbors out of the neighborhood!
>
> Comments? Questions? Derisive laughter?
>
> Audio_Empire

I believe that I heard that system at a recent show as well (perhaps we
were at the same show). I can't say that I was too impressed with any
of the huge dollar offerings. Part of that probably was that they were
all played too loudly for my taste. I personally was much more
impressed with, for example, the new KEF LS5s. And I admit that the
price tags on these systems turn me off as well. I guess that I'm more
rooted in the real financial world, as well as the world of real rooms
where the system is going to be used. I've recently been on a speaker
quest and I ordered a pair of Magnepan 1.7s, and I believe that I'm
going to be very happy with them. Lots of sonic "bang for the buck"
with excellent musical values that are important to me.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:53:17 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:03:05 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
>> (in article >):
>>> On 8/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> Tweeters just can't move the volume of air that a human
>>>> of trumpet player can, and the difference cane be easily heard.
>>>>
>>> I take it you are saying that the tweeters were actually being
> >> overdriven, and could not reproduce the peaks. Correct assumption?
>>
>> Not really. The tweeter thing is a theory of mine. It's just that tweeters
>> are small out of necessity in order to be fast, but they can't move as much
>> air as larger drivers or as is necessary to reproduce instruments with
>> high-level harmonic content above 8-10 KHz, even when playing at their
>> absolute loudest.
>
> The quantity that determines how loud something is "volume
> velocity," not simply volume or displacement, which is what
> most people are really talking about when they say "moving air."
>
> For a given diaphragm area and a fixed linear displacement,
> the sound pressure generated goes as the square of the
> frequency. Conversely, for a given diameter, the amount
> of excursion needed to radiate a certain sound pressure
> level goes as the inverse square of frequency.
>
> Consider the following: a 10" woofer moving about 0.08"
> at 50 Hz generates a sound pressure level of about 100 dB
> 1 meter away. That same woofer, if it COULD, at that
> excursion, would be producing 192 dB SPL. It'd need in
> the realm of several billion watts of power to do so.
> This suggests the obvious: woofers do not good tweeters
> make.
>
> Now, take our lonely little, diminutive 1" tweeter. At
> 10,000 Hz (10 kHz, to reproduce that same 100 dB SPL
> 1 meter away, would have to move all of 0.0002". That's
> a mere 200 millionths of an inch, or nearly 400 times
> LESS than the woofer (at 50Hz) to produce the same sound
> pressure level.
>
> The reason is, again, that the amount of sound for a given
> diameter and excursion, goes as the SQUARE of frequency
> or, equivalently, the amount of excursion needed for a
> given sound pressure level goes as the inverse square of
> frequency.
>
> 10,000 Hz is 200 times the frequency of 50 Hz, and the
> square of that is 40,000. But there's a factor of 100
> difference in the emissive area between a 10" woofer and
> a 1" tweeter. It therefore goes that a 1" tweeter
> requires 100/40,000 times the excursion at 10 kHz that
> a 10" woofer does at 50 Hz.
>
> > Most instruments can be fairly realistically reproduced,
>> and that is because the high-frequency harmonics that they produce are
>> extremely attenuated compared to their fundamentals.
>
> Except that for most tweeters, the limitation in output comes
> not at the HIGH end of their range, but at the LOW end.
>
> Once again, remember that the excursion, for a given emissive
> area and sound pressure, goes as the inverse square of
> frequency. In order to produce that same 100 dB SPL at, say
> 2 kHz that it can at 10 kHz, the tweeter has to move
> (10 kHz/2kHz)^2 or 25 times as much at 2 kHz as it does at
> 10 kHz.
>
> So, counter to your intuition (and, for that matter, many
> peoples' intuition) producing the high frequency stuff is
> EASY compared to the low frequency stuff.
>
> "Yes, but," you or someone else might say, "it's all about
> how FAST the tweeter is." Well, it turns out that while that
> sounds intuitively correct, it's physically wrong. For the
> same sound pressure level, the linear velocity of a given
> diaphragm goes as the reciprocal of frequency, NOT directly
> as frequency. That means that the same tweeter that's moving
> X cm/sec at 2 kHz only has to move 1/5th that speed at 10 kHz
> to produce the same sound pressure level.
>
> In fact, we can directly calculate what those velocities
> are by differentiating the excursion WRT time. Doing so
> gives us an equation for peak velocity of Vpk = wX,
> where w is radian frequency (2 pi times F) and x is the
> excursion. At 10 kHz:
>
> Vpk = 2 pi 10 kHz * 0.0002 in
> Vpk ~= 13.2 in/sec
>
> while at 2 kHz, and the same 100 dB sound pressure level:
>
> Vpk = 2 pi 2 kHz * 0.0053 in
> Vpk ~= 66 in/sec
>
> "But why, then" it might be asked, "don't tweeters just keep
> going up and up in frequency if they have an excursion that
> goes as the inverse square of frequency and a velocity that
> goes as the inverse of frequency?"
>
> Because there are other limitations that come to play at high
> frequencies. The first is physical size: as the wavelengths
> get shorter at high frequencies, and as they start to approach
> the size of the radiating area, you now get to the point where
> one point in the diaphragm is a significant portion of a
> wavelength (or, at high enough frequencies, MANY wavelengths)
> distant from another part. Even assuming the radiating area
> was infinitely rigid (reality is FAR from that), those path
> length differences would lead to cancellations.
>
> Second is the fact that the diaphragm is anything but rigid.
> At high enough frequencies, that diaphragm is doing anything
> BUT moving as a rigid piston.
>
> Third is electrical: all loudspeaker drivers exhibit elect-
> rically reactive properties whose effects come to dominate
> as the frequency goes higher. Actual power can only be
> produced through resistive loads: a portion of the resistive
> load of ANY driver of ANY kind is the reflected resistive
> portion of the acoustical radiation impedance. As the series
> inductive reactance of a voice coil increases with increasing
> frequency, or as the shunt capacitance of an electrostatic
> system decreases with increasing frequency, the effect is
> an inevitable low-pass filter effect.
>
>> Few instruments have the strong harmonic content produced
> > by a trumpet and perhaps a few other instruments.
>
> Look first at what made it through the air from the
> bell of the trumpet to the diaphragm of the microphone (look,
> specifically, at the absorptive attenuation of air above 20 kHz).
> Then look at what came out the the microphones that managed
> to pick up what was left. These two factors alone count for an
> enormous amount of very high-frequency losses in recording.
>
>

Well, thank you for that exacting primer on how tweeters work. It was very
informative. But it would have served this discussion better to explain to us
what the mechanism is that keeps even the finest speakers from being able to
convincingly reproduce trumpets and some other instruments. Most of us know
what these instruments sound like live - even in a concert hall, or even a
band concert in the park where there is some distance between the instrument
and out ears. No speaker ever made gets it right. The fact that a $195,000.00
pair of speakers can get just about every other aspect of reproduction
correct and still not be able to come within a country mile of getting the
trumpets to sound real must have a cause, some limitation that can't be
overcome by any current transducer technology.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:53:32 -0700, cjt wrote
(in article >):

> On 08/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> <snip> Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
>> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. <snip>
>
> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
> performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
> does not.

Well, you see, the fact is, that most people who could afford speakers that
expensive (not to mention the ancillary equipment to go with them) probably
does attend live concerts as well. One does not exclude the other. There are
a large number of people in this world who have so much money, that the price
of a $195,000 dollar pair of speakers, or a half-million dollar automobile,
for that matter, is just pocket change.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:22:26 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
>> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. The only positive here is that I don't think
>> that
>> one needs a pair of $60,000 VTL Siegfried II 800 Watt monoblocs to drive
>> them. They are so efficient that their minimum power requirement is but 15
>> Watts! I'd say that 150 Watts/channel would be more than sufficient to
>> achieve realistic levels of performance that would run you and probably
>> your
>> neighbors out of the neighborhood!
>>
>> Comments? Questions? Derisive laughter?
>>
>> Audio_Empire
>
> I believe that I heard that system at a recent show as well (perhaps we
> were at the same show). I can't say that I was too impressed with any
> of the huge dollar offerings. Part of that probably was that they were
> all played too loudly for my taste. I personally was much more
> impressed with, for example, the new KEF LS5s. And I admit that the
> price tags on these systems turn me off as well. I guess that I'm more
> rooted in the real financial world, as well as the world of real rooms
> where the system is going to be used. I've recently been on a speaker
> quest and I ordered a pair of Magnepan 1.7s, and I believe that I'm
> going to be very happy with them. Lots of sonic "bang for the buck"
> with excellent musical values that are important to me.
>
>

Well, you won't be disappointed with the Magnepans. They do sound superb. The
latest incarnation of Winey's audiophile lineup (MG1.7s, MG 3.7, MG20.7) are
by far the best speakers that this company has ever made and as a former
Maggie enthusiast (MG2, Tympany ID, Tympany IIIC, MG3.2) That's saying
something. However, to my ears the latest Martin-Logan electrostatics are
better. I've had a pair of M-L Vistas since they came out, and see (hear?) no
reason to change them.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
cjt > wrote:

> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
> performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
> does not.

I used to attend live jazz concerts. Then they started to amp them up.
The sound at home became better than the sound in the hall. What really
irritated me was the hall was fairly small and didn't need any
amplification.

I've had similar experiences with musicals so I stopped going.

So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think it
is only a matter of time.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 27, 5:53*am, cjt > wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> <snip> Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
>
> > Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. <snip>
>
> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
> performances. *That would support the music, which buying the speakers
> does not.

What makes you think it's an either/or proposition? Besides you get
two very different experiences from attending concerts and listening
to stereo at home. And different individuals' situations are, well,
different. Going to concerts may not be very practical for some folks
even if they can easily afford to do so.

With that said I would certainly like to see more money donated to the
various symphonic orchestras around the USA. There is a real need
there. Attendance doesn't seem to be a major issue. Plenty of people
already going to classical concerts. Classical music is a patron art.
It can not pay for itself by the live gate alone. It doesn't even come
close.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 28, 7:03=A0am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> =A0cjt > wrote:
> > Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
> > performances. =A0That would support the music, which buying the speaker=
s
> > does not.
>
> I used to attend live jazz concerts. =A0Then they started to amp them up.
> The sound at home became better than the sound in the hall. =A0What reall=
y
> irritated me was the hall was fairly small and didn't need any
> amplification.
>
> I've had similar experiences with musicals so I stopped going.
>
> So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think it
> is only a matter of time.

I wouldn't worry so much about classical music being amplified. There
has been a wonderful movement in modern concert hall design and in the
past 10 years there have been a substantial number of new concert
halls all over the world that offer new levels of excellence in
acoustics.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> On Aug 28, 7:03 am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
>>So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think it
>>is only a matter of time.
>
> I wouldn't worry so much about classical music being amplified. There
> has been a wonderful movement in modern concert hall design and in the
> past 10 years there have been a substantial number of new concert
> halls all over the world that offer new levels of excellence in
> acoustics.

That's excellent news!

I can now take the quarter million dollars I don't
have to spend on wicked expensive speakers and
instead not have it to spend traveling to all these
new conceert halls all over the world that offer
new levels of excellence!





Oh, for the smiley challenged:

>:-(


--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 28, 9:42=A0am, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 7:03 am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
> >>So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think i=
t
> >>is only a matter of time.
>
> > I wouldn't worry so much about classical music being amplified. There
> > has been a wonderful movement in modern concert hall design and in the
> > past 10 years there have been a substantial number of new concert
> > halls all over the world that offer new levels of excellence in
> > acoustics.
>
> That's excellent news!
>
> I can now take the quarter million dollars I don't
> have to spend on wicked expensive speakers and
> instead not have it to spend traveling to all these
> new conceert halls all over the world that offer
> new levels of excellence!
>
> Oh, for the smiley challenged:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >:-(
>

Well, for those interested in live classical music it is excellent
news. Yeah it's a big world and not many of us are going to go on
world tours of concert halls but the real world effect of these new
halls is very important for classical music. As a Los Angeles resident
I have had the pleasure of going to concerts in the new Performing
Arts center at Soka University.

http://www.soka.edu/about_soka/our_campus/Soka-Performing-Arts-Center.aspx

And I will be attending concerts at two other new facilities between
now and March in the Bay Area and in Las Vegas. between these three
facilities and of course our treasured state of the art home of the
L.A. Phil, Disney Hall I have access to an unprecedented quantity of
top quality live classical concerts. And I am going to all these
concerts for far less than a quarter of a million dollars.

http://www.starkinsider.com/2012/05/sonoma-state-university-and-santa-rosa-=
symphony-partner-with-carnegie-hall.html

http://www.thesmithcenter.com/about/

The fact is the more of these state of the art concert halls we have
around the world the better it will be for the health and well being
of classical music as living art form. Trickle down economics so to
speak. It's not all that hard to figure out. It's all part of the
infrastructure needed to facilitate the existence of great classical
music. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this has helped
facilitate the amazing levels of great classical music those of us
here on the west coast have enjoyed over the past 10 years or so.

I speak of my experience here in L.A. because that is where I live.
But this phenomenon has not been limited to L.A. or the west coast. It
is happening all over the world. And it is a good thing.

And of course the real reason it does not cost me a quarter million
dollars to enjoy all this amazing live classical music is due to the
folks who donate massive amounts of money to these programs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Well, thank you for that exacting primer on how tweeters work. It was
> very
> informative. But it would have served this discussion better to explain to
> us
> what the mechanism is that keeps even the finest speakers from being able
> to
> convincingly reproduce trumpets and some other instruments.

Short answer - there are two rooms are involved and they create the sticking
point.

When you reproduce a recording of a horn or other musical instrument, you
don't reproduce the horn, you try to reproduce it and its effects of the
room it is in.

The exception would be a recording of a horn that was made in an anechoic
chamber, the recording then played in an anechoic chamber. Those can be made
to work fairly well and realistically, but of course nobody is interested in
that.

The horn does not just create a sound vector (intensity versus time) but
instead it creates a sound field (which may be represented by an infinitude
of vectors).

The speaker does not create just the sound of the horn, but it stimulates
the room to make a bunch of other sounds. So there are infinity times
infinity other variables, and fools that we are, we try to send them from
place to place using a small number of signals.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:03:38 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> cjt > wrote:
>
>> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
>> performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
>> does not.
>
> I used to attend live jazz concerts. Then they started to amp them up.
> The sound at home became better than the sound in the hall. What really
> irritated me was the hall was fairly small and didn't need any
> amplification.
>
> I've had similar experiences with musicals so I stopped going.
>
> So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think it
> is only a matter of time.
>

Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when all
you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is far
better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems. I
have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near by.
And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already has.
Bah!

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:03:41 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 28, 7:03am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> cjt > wrote:
>>> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
>>> performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
>>> does not.
>>
>> I used to attend live jazz concerts. Then they started to amp them up.
>> The sound at home became better than the sound in the hall. What really
>> irritated me was the hall was fairly small and didn't need any
>> amplification.
>>
>> I've had similar experiences with musicals so I stopped going.
>>
>> So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think it
>> is only a matter of time.
>
> I wouldn't worry so much about classical music being amplified. There
> has been a wonderful movement in modern concert hall design and in the
> past 10 years there have been a substantial number of new concert
> halls all over the world that offer new levels of excellence in
> acoustics.
>

I don't think that matters. I've been in wonderful sounding venues that
absolutely had no NEED for sound reinforcement, but used it anyway because
"it was there" (with pop and rock, with their electronic instruments it's
essential because much of what they do doesn't exist in real space).

Because most modern pop recordings that one buys are acoustically, horribly
compressed, it is assumed that what the listener wants to hear is music that
has no dynamic range and is the same level (loud) all the time. So to make
the "live" event sound more like a recording concert organizers and
performers insist on gain riding sound reinforcement.

I once attended a concert by a jazz quartet that was NOT amplified. As we
were leaving I heard some young attendee remark to his companion, "It was a
good concert, but I wished it had been louder. Why didn't they use sound
reinforcement". IOW, this youngster EXPECTED it and was disappointed that it
was not employed.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:03:38 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 27, 5:53am, cjt > wrote:
>> On 08/24/2012 10:13 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> <snip> Too bad the speakers are $195,000/pair and another $28,000 for the
>>> Hammer-of-Thor subwoofers. <snip>
>>
>> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
>> performances. =A0That would support the music, which buying the speakers
>> does not.
>
> What makes you think it's an either/or proposition? Besides you get
> two very different experiences from attending concerts and listening
> to stereo at home. And different individuals' situations are, well,
> different. Going to concerts may not be very practical for some folks
> even if they can easily afford to do so.
>
> With that said I would certainly like to see more money donated to the
> various symphonic orchestras around the USA. There is a real need
> there. Attendance doesn't seem to be a major issue. Plenty of people
> already going to classical concerts. Classical music is a patron art.
> It can not pay for itself by the live gate alone. It doesn't even come
> close.
>

Also, I've noticed that when I attend the SF Symphony and Silicon
Vallye Symphony concerts, that the audience seems to be a sea of gray
and silver hair. There seem to be fewer and fewer young people
attracted to classical music every year. That is partially the fault
of our failing educational system. They cut music appreciation out of
most grammar and high school curricula long ago with the result that
most youngsters have never been exposed to great music. This isn't a
new thing either. It's been going on since the late 1960s in US
schools. So not only were the present generation of kids deprived of
exposure to great music, so were their parents, and so were their
grandparents! who were, for the most part, all rockers. But if you go
back a previous generation or so, and you will find pop music MADE
from classical melodies ('Tonight We Love' - Rachmaninoff's Second
Piano Concerto, 'Full moon and Empty Arms' - Tchiakovsky's Piano
Concerto #1 in B minor, etc). And pop songs where the singer likens
his lament of lost love to the plight of Verde's clown, Pagliacci. If
Snoop Dog made a reference to Pagliacci in one of his rap "songs" his
listeners wouldn't even know what he was talking about. But at one
time in this country, and not that long ago either, most people were
at least familiar enough with the character to recognize the
reference.

Why this is, in my humble opinion criminally negligent on the part of
educators is because they underestimate the importance of great music
in the education of our young. When cutting curricula to the bone to
save costs, do they cut US literature or English literature from the
program? No, but they say that few people grow-up liking classical
music. Well few people grow up being Shakespeare fans either, or
Melville fans. Few are encouraged by having to read "Silas Mariner"
or "Moby Dick" to further explore the works of Georges Sand and Herman
Mellville, but a few are, and all at least know what great literature
is about. Is being exposed to Bach, Beethoven, or Tchaikovsy any less
important to one's education? I don't think so. Neither is exposure to
Reubens, Da Vinci, or Van Gough. Yet art appreciation and music
appreciation is almost unheard of in today's schools both provate and
public. but there was a time when they were just part of going to
school. And out of every class for all of the above; literature,
music, and art, there were always two or three youngsters who found
that they LIKED culture, and from them stem the future art lovers,
symphony orchestra attendees and literature afficianados. Where do
today's young music lovers come from? (it's a rhetorical question).

Sorry for the soapbox, but our endless crops of generations of unaware
youth is a personal bee in the bonnet with me.

Audio_Empire

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 28, 4:03=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:03:41 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 7:03am, Robert Peirce > wrote:
> >> In article >,
>
> >> cjt > wrote:
> >>> Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending liv=
e
> >>> performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
> >>> does not.
>
> >> I used to attend live jazz concerts. Then they started to amp them up.
> >> The sound at home became better than the sound in the hall. What reall=
y
> >> irritated me was the hall was fairly small and didn't need any
> >> amplification.
>
> >> I've had similar experiences with musicals so I stopped going.
>
> >> So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think =
it
> >> is only a matter of time.
>
> > I wouldn't worry so much about classical music being amplified. There
> > has been a wonderful movement in modern concert hall design and in the
> > past 10 years there have been a substantial number of new concert
> > halls all over the world that offer new levels of excellence in
> > acoustics.
>
> I don't think that matters. I've been in wonderful sounding venues that
> absolutely had no NEED for sound reinforcement, but used it anyway becaus=
e
> "it was there" (with pop and rock, with their electronic instruments it's
> essential because much of what they do doesn't exist in real space).

it isn't there in any of the Halls I mentioned. And there is pretty
much no chance of it being there anytime in the future.

>
> Because most modern pop recordings that one buys are acoustically, horrib=
ly
> compressed, it is assumed that what the listener wants to hear is music t=
hat
> has no dynamic range and is the same level (loud) all the time. So to mak=
e
> the "live" event sound more like a recording concert =A0organizers and
> performers insist on gain riding sound reinforcement.

How on earth is this going to affect the classical concert going
audiences?

>
> I once attended a concert by a jazz quartet that was NOT amplified. As we
> were leaving I heard some young attendee remark to his companion, "It was=
a
> good concert, but I wished it had been louder. Why didn't they use sound
> reinforcement". IOW, this youngster EXPECTED it and was disappointed that=
it
> was not employed.

Clearly it wasn't at Disney Hall. And that is part of the point. These
state of the art facilities are the perfect cure for any demands for
sound reinforcement. Not that I see many classical concert goers
making such demands.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:01:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Well, thank you for that exacting primer on how tweeters work. It was
>> very
>> informative. But it would have served this discussion better to explain to
>> us
>> what the mechanism is that keeps even the finest speakers from being able
>> to
>> convincingly reproduce trumpets and some other instruments.
>
> Short answer - there are two rooms are involved and they create the sticking
> point.

> When you reproduce a recording of a horn or other musical instrument, you
> don't reproduce the horn, you try to reproduce it and its effects of the
> room it is in.
>
> The exception would be a recording of a horn that was made in an anechoic
> chamber, the recording then played in an anechoic chamber. Those can be made
> to work fairly well and realistically, but of course nobody is interested in
> that.
>
> The horn does not just create a sound vector (intensity versus time) but
> instead it creates a sound field (which may be represented by an infinitude
> of vectors).
>
> The speaker does not create just the sound of the horn, but it stimulates
> the room to make a bunch of other sounds. So there are infinity times
> infinity other variables, and fools that we are, we try to send them from
> place to place using a small number of signals.



Sorry, I don't buy that. Were that the case, one would think that at least
some rooms would make these instruments sound more realistic than in others.
Sometimes trumpets are close-miked in a studio and room interaction on the
capture side is nil. They still don't sound like live trumpets. But live
trumpets sound like live trumpets in any venue, any room, even outdoors.
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Why this is, in my humble opinion criminally negligent on the part of
> educators is because they underestimate the importance of great music
> in the education of our young. When cutting curricula to the bone to
> save costs, do they cut US literature or English literature from the
> program? No, but they say that few people grow-up liking classical
> music.

> Audio_Empire

My daughter plays the cello. Her grade school, middle school, and now high
school all have orchestras and bands for the students to learn string
instruments or band instruments. They play classical and jazz, and are
pretty good at it. I'm talking public school system, not performing arts
schools, and they have county wide competitions for best orchestras and
bands. My daughter attends Strings Workshop every summer, a two week
resident course taught at the local college by the local symphony personnel,
including the conductor. She also plays in the Youth Orchestra at First
Methodist, under the baton of the same symphony conductor. She is always
second chair in all of these orchestras, first chair going to the
conductor's daughter, same age and quite a prodigy.

All of this is going on in central Florida, not New York or San Francisco.
The stories of our schools' demise are premature.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:53:25 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Why this is, in my humble opinion criminally negligent on the part of
>> educators is because they underestimate the importance of great music
>> in the education of our young. When cutting curricula to the bone to
>> save costs, do they cut US literature or English literature from the
>> program? No, but they say that few people grow-up liking classical
>> music.
>
>> Audio_Empire
>
> My daughter plays the cello. Her grade school, middle school, and now high
> school all have orchestras and bands for the students to learn string
> instruments or band instruments. They play classical and jazz, and are
> pretty good at it. I'm talking public school system, not performing arts
> schools, and they have county wide competitions for best orchestras and
> bands. My daughter attends Strings Workshop every summer, a two week
> resident course taught at the local college by the local symphony personnel,
> including the conductor. She also plays in the Youth Orchestra at First
> Methodist, under the baton of the same symphony conductor. She is always
> second chair in all of these orchestras, first chair going to the
> conductor's daughter, same age and quite a prodigy.
>
> All of this is going on in central Florida, not New York or San Francisco.
> The stories of our schools' demise are premature.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
>

You misunderstand my point, I think. I'm not talking about music programs
like school bands, glee clubs or orchestras, I'm talking about musical
appreciation classes, I.E. classes where ordinary kids get exposed to great
music, the same way middle school and high school english classes expose
ordinary kids to US literature and English literature, and in some cases
World literature. These classes don't teach these kids to write great
literature, or how to perform Shakespeare, but rather they are merely exposed
to the stuff. Out of every literature class, some kids come away with a
lifelong interest in literary culture. And when schools taught music
appreciation, some kids come away with a lifelong interest in great music,
and even those who don't will at least have been EXPOSED to it. Where do they
get that opportunity today? BTW, I'm a product of a high school music
appreciation class. I'm one of those who came away from that class with
lifelong love that started me on a journey of discovery that isn't finished
yet. When I was young and MOST public schools had music appreciation classes,
it was said that 10% of the US population bought classical recordings. The
last time I saw any figures on it was probably 20 years ago when it was down
to quite a bit less than 1%.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Why this is, in my humble opinion criminally negligent on the part of
> > educators is because they underestimate the importance of great music
> > in the education of our young. When cutting curricula to the bone to
> > save costs, do they cut US literature or English literature from the
> > program? No, but they say that few people grow-up liking classical
> > music.
>
> > Audio_Empire
>
> My daughter plays the cello. Her grade school, middle school, and now high
> school all have orchestras and bands for the students to learn string
> instruments or band instruments. They play classical and jazz, and are
> pretty good at it. I'm talking public school system, not performing arts
> schools, and they have county wide competitions for best orchestras and
> bands. My daughter attends Strings Workshop every summer, a two week
> resident course taught at the local college by the local symphony personnel,
> including the conductor. She also plays in the Youth Orchestra at First
> Methodist, under the baton of the same symphony conductor. She is always
> second chair in all of these orchestras, first chair going to the
> conductor's daughter, same age and quite a prodigy.
>
> All of this is going on in central Florida, not New York or San Francisco.
> The stories of our schools' demise are premature.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Gary, everyone should be very happy that your daughter is having that
experience, and you're correct: music education is still doing very
well in a variety of places in this country. But as a professional who
travels a great deal working with elementary through professional
ensembles, I can tell you that music education (both music appreciation
type of humanities classes, and public performance orientated programs)
is in a serious state of decline, on average. There is no denying it.
Programs are being slashed. It is, in my view, a tragic situation.
Everything in school curricula that teaches beauty, aesthetics, personal
reflection through timeless works of art...is being cut at alarming
rates. It's difficult to measure it, after all. Our society will (and
perhaps already is) suffer due to this. Read Howard Gardner. Those
concerned about this should write, call, email, call again your state
and local representatives. Quickly.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians"
> when all you are listening to is a set of PA speakers.

Because it's a social experience. You're there, along with many other
people and the musicians. It's all about the relationship between
performers and audience, regardless of the presence of sound
reinforcement: the musicians want to delight, and the audience want to
be delighted.

Andrew.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:45:54 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article >):

> call, email, call again your state
> and local representatives

Nice Idea. Unfortunately, no one will pay the slightest attention to you.
They'll mumble platitudes, yes. "Thank you for your concern." We share your
concerns, but.... Nothing will be done because it's a matter of money. The
world has become so greedy and revenues have lagged so far behind costs over
the last half-century, that all schools can do is cut programs, slash
budgets, and layoff teachers. These "non-essential" programs like music
appreciation go first. They can't cut athletics because they actually
bring-in money to the schools (football games, basketball games, baseball
games, track and field meets, swimming competitions, etc). But they can cut
the arts. And we raise another generation of kids who are never even
introduced to the finer things in life. No wonder symphony orchestra concert
venues and high-definition broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera at movie
theaters are a sea of gray, silver and blue hair.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:01:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Well, thank you for that exacting primer on how tweeters work. It was
>>> very
>>> informative. But it would have served this discussion better to explain
>>> to
>>> us
>>> what the mechanism is that keeps even the finest speakers from being
>>> able
>>> to
>>> convincingly reproduce trumpets and some other instruments.
>>
>> Short answer - there are two rooms are involved and they create the
>> sticking
>> point.
>
>> When you reproduce a recording of a horn or other musical instrument, you
>> don't reproduce the horn, you try to reproduce it and its effects of the
>> room it is in.
>>
>> The exception would be a recording of a horn that was made in an anechoic
>> chamber, the recording then played in an anechoic chamber. Those can be
>> made
>> to work fairly well and realistically, but of course nobody is interested
>> in
>> that.
>>
>> The horn does not just create a sound vector (intensity versus time) but
>> instead it creates a sound field (which may be represented by an
>> infinitude
>> of vectors).
>>
>> The speaker does not create just the sound of the horn, but it stimulates
>> the room to make a bunch of other sounds. So there are infinity times
>> infinity other variables, and fools that we are, we try to send them from
>> place to place using a small number of signals.

> Sorry, I don't buy that.

Doesn't matter.


> Were that the case, one would think that at least
> some rooms would make these instruments sound more realistic than in
> others.

They do exist, it is just that they are outside of your personal experience.

> Sometimes trumpets are close-miked in a studio and room interaction on the
> capture side is nil.

If you believe that you can close-mic trumpets so that there is no audible
influence from the room, then that again says something about what is inside
and outside of your personal experience. It also suggests some lack of
knowlege of mic pickup patterns.

> They still don't sound like live trumpets.

But depending on the room in which the recording is made, how the recording
is made, the room the recording is played back in, and the type and
orientation of the speakers, the degree of liveness can vary over a
tremendous range.

> But live trumpets sound like live trumpets in any venue, any room, even
> outdoors.

But the same trumpets don't sound the same in every real world context.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:41:14 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 28, 7:46pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:01:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Well, thank you for that exacting primer on how tweeters work. It was
>>>> very
>>>> informative. But it would have served this discussion better to explain to
>>>> us
>>>> what the mechanism is that keeps even the finest speakers from being able
>>>> to
>>>> convincingly reproduce trumpets and some other instruments.
>>
>>> Short answer - there are two rooms are involved and they create the
>>> sticking
>>> point.
>>> When you reproduce a recording of a horn or other musical instrument, you
>>> don't reproduce the horn, you try to reproduce it and its effects of the
>>> room it is in.
>>
>>> The exception would be a recording of a horn that was made in an anechoic
>>> chamber, the recording then played in an anechoic chamber. Those can be
>>> made
>>> to work fairly well and realistically, but of course nobody is interested
>>> in
>>> that.
>>
>>> The horn does not just create a sound vector (intensity versus time) but
>>> instead it creates a sound field (which may be represented by an infinitude
>>> of vectors).
>>
>>> The speaker does not create just the sound of the horn, but it stimulates
>>> the room to make a bunch of other sounds. So there are infinity times
>>> infinity other variables, and fools that we are, we try to send them from
>>> place to place using a small number of signals.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't buy that. Were that the case, one would think that at least
>> some rooms would make these instruments sound more realistic than in others.
>> Sometimes trumpets are close-miked in a studio and room interaction on the
>> capture side is nil. They still don't sound like live trumpets. But live
>> trumpets sound like live trumpets in any venue, any room, even outdoors.
>
> My kid used to play a small drum kit in my listening room. I've
> never heard my system (or any other) able to reproduce that sound of a
> snare drum in my room and for that...I am thankful.
>
> ScottW
>

I certainly understand that, but a drum kit - in the context of the
music using it adds quite a bit. It would be nice to be able to
reproduce those drums accurately, Not the kit playing in your
listening room (by your kid), but playing in the venue in which the
whole ensemble was recorded and bring THAT into your listening room.
Drum whacks, pistols firing, these are more things that simply cannot
be accurately reproduced by modern technology.

Like I said to the previous poster. Trumpets (and drum kits) sound
from speakers are not real sounding, because technology can't do
that...yet. Make no mistake, the previous poster's allegation that
it's the two rooms involved that make trumpets (and drums among other
musical instruments) not sound real holds no water. because these
instruments heard LIVE always sound right, no matter where they are
heard.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:00:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:01:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Well, thank you for that exacting primer on how tweeters work. It was
>>>> very
>>>> informative. But it would have served this discussion better to explain
>>>> to
>>>> us
>>>> what the mechanism is that keeps even the finest speakers from being
>>>> able
>>>> to
>>>> convincingly reproduce trumpets and some other instruments.
>>>
>>> Short answer - there are two rooms are involved and they create the
>>> sticking
>>> point.
>>
>>> When you reproduce a recording of a horn or other musical instrument, you
>>> don't reproduce the horn, you try to reproduce it and its effects of the
>>> room it is in.
>>>
>>> The exception would be a recording of a horn that was made in an anechoic
>>> chamber, the recording then played in an anechoic chamber. Those can be
>>> made
>>> to work fairly well and realistically, but of course nobody is interested
>>> in
>>> that.
>>>
>>> The horn does not just create a sound vector (intensity versus time) but
>>> instead it creates a sound field (which may be represented by an
>>> infinitude
>>> of vectors).
>>>
>>> The speaker does not create just the sound of the horn, but it stimulates
>>> the room to make a bunch of other sounds. So there are infinity times
>>> infinity other variables, and fools that we are, we try to send them from
>>> place to place using a small number of signals.
>
>> Sorry, I don't buy that.
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
>
>> Were that the case, one would think that at least
>> some rooms would make these instruments sound more realistic than in
>> others.
>
> They do exist, it is just that they are outside of your personal experience.

Complete Balderdash. I have probably heard more speaker systems than you even
know to exist, Arny.

>> Sometimes trumpets are close-miked in a studio and room interaction on the
>> capture side is nil.
>
> If you believe that you can close-mic trumpets so that there is no audible
> influence from the room, then that again says something about what is inside
> and outside of your personal experience. It also suggests some lack of
> knowlege of mic pickup patterns.

I said that the room effects were NIL, not non-existent. And I'd be willing
to pit my knowledge of microphones against yours any day of the week.

>
>> They still don't sound like live trumpets.
>
> But depending on the room in which the recording is made, how the recording
> is made, the room the recording is played back in, and the type and
> orientation of the speakers, the degree of liveness can vary over a
> tremendous range.

Yes, and without ever coming within a country mile of sounding like a real
trumpet either, again bringing into focus what lies both inside and outside
of your experience with the sound of live music vs reproduced music.

>> But live trumpets sound like live trumpets in any venue, any room, even
>> outdoors.
>
> But the same trumpets don't sound the same in every real world context.

Nobody ever intimated that they do. However that "something" that tells a
listener that he/she is hearing a live instrument vs a reproduced one is
maintained irrespective of the venue, the trumpet, or the player. This is
that quality that cannot be reproduced (yet), by even the finest transducers
in the world. If this makes no sense to you, or you still insist that I am
wrong, then it speaks volumes about your musical perceptions and explains
much.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
> all
> you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
> speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is far
> better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems. I
> have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
> because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near
> by.
> And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
> symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already has.
> Bah!

Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alleged
concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video segments.
In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is itself
not elaborate.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 30, 5:37*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
> > all
> > you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
> > speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is far
> > better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems. I
> > have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
> > because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near
> > by.
> > And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
> > symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already has.
> > Bah!
>
> Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alleged
> concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video segments.
> In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is itself
> not elaborate.

Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities,
in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 30, 5:37 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
> > all
> > you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
> > speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is
> > far
> > better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems.
> > I
> > have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
> > because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near
> > by.
> > And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
> > symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already
> > has.
> > Bah!
>
>> Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alleged
>> concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video
>> segments.
>> In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is
>> itself
>> not elaborate.

> Was this a classical concert?

No.

> If not then this is nothing new. Rock and pop concerts have suffered from
> bad sounding PAs since the
beginning of the genres.

Since open mics are part and parcel of a sound reinforcment system, it is
impossible for them to sound as good as a comparable reproduction-only
system.

However, it is possible for a large scale reproduction system to sound very
good. One benchmark is the ability to play a recording of a performance in a
way that is roughly indistinguishable from the actual performance. This can
be accomplished.

> Fans don't go to these concerts to hear better sound. They go to *see*
> the artists, who are often celebrities,
> in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.

Perhaps so. I am reminded of my favorite sport: NASCAR. If you want to watch
the race and see the most details, watch NASCAR on TV. If you want to
experience the excitement and color of NASCAR, go to the race! If you want
to watch the performance and see and hear the most details - play a
well-made AV presentation at home with a good AV system. If you want to
experience the excitement and color of the performance and the crowd: go to
the concert.

> It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
> not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.

My classical concert going expereinces involved venues such as used by
symphony orchestras in Chicago, Detroit, and NYC.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:26 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 30, 5:37am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
>>> all
>>> you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
>>> speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is far
>>> better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems. I
>>> have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
>>> because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near
>>> by.
>>> And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
>>> symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already has.
>>> Bah!
>>
>> Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alleged
>> concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video segments.
>> In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is itself
>> not elaborate.
>
> Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
> and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
> beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
> better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities,
> in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
> It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
> not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.
>

Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" symphony
concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
easily heard in the proverbial back row. Back in the 40's and 50's
night clubs would feature bands playing and the only "PA" might be the
announcer or perhaps the band singer. The musicians playing
instruments needed no such crutches. A few years ago I went with some
friends to a Brazilian nightclub in San Francisco. They had a great
brazilian jazz band playing all the familiar samba favorites from that
country, along with Bossa Nova, Lambada as well as selections that I
had never heard before. They were using this huge PA system and
playing it so loudly that patrons had to cup their hands around the
ears of those next to them and yell at the top of their lungs into
those cupped hands to make themselves heard. It looked like there was
a war going on between the band, who wanted to be heard, and the
patrons who wanted to talk. Before the current sound reinforcement
craze, people would go to night spots and listen to unamplified music
playing while they politely whispered to one another. Now the band
turns up the volume on their sound reinforcement in order to be heard
over the talk and the people talk louder in order to be heard over the
sound reinforcement. Loudness wars.

OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
performances were created in the studio where they were recorded, and
essentially only exist as an electronic waveform. For recordings, this
waveform is "cut" to some physical media and is not a performance
again until it emanates from the listener's speakers. To have this
"performance" occur as a "live concert", the studio conditions must be
reproduced. The difference between the concert and the recording is
that the middle man, the physical media, is eliminated and the output
of the "studio" electronics is fed directly into large scale speakers
designed to play loud and cover a large group of people. While not my
cup of tea, that is a legitimate reason and use for sound
reinforcement because, without it, the performance couldn't exist.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Well, while those Wilson Audio speakers were definitely the "best of show"
> Their longsuit seemed to be that they excelled at getting the dynamics of
> live music correct. In an unfamiliar venue such as half of a hotel
> ballroom,
> any observations that I might make about imaging and soundstage (they
> seemed
> to do that very realistically) would be tempered by my unfamiliarity with
> the
> room and the equipment. So I make no claims there. The sound was big and
> real-sounding from a standpoint of my familiarity with the source material
> and nothing else. The speakers are huge. The Alexandrias, each had two
> woofers, one a 13" and the other a 15". The "Thor's Hammer" subwoofers had
> two woofers as well, both 15". The three speaker systems moved a LOT of
> air
> and the bottom descended to 10 Hz!

I'm beginning to agree with your idea about the dynamics of the high freqs.
I read Dick Pierce's explanation, which was great, but again maybe neither
of you is taking power response into the equation. Maybe the speakers were
voiced with a microphone at 1 meter on axis etc etc, and so in a large room
the high freqs lose oomph and power compared to the more omnidirectional
lower freqs. Just a guess. Thinking about a typical ribbon tweeter a'la
Magnepan, how does that delicate little fellow have the kind of dynamics
required for live sound?

But what I really have to contribute to the discussion is the headphone
solution. How about finding a pair of the best electrostatic headphones (or
other highly respected transducers) and listening to the horns and
everything else through those, and seeing if something gets lost, frequency
wise or dynamics wise, by listening to speakers? No, it won't tell you
anything about stereo imaging, or bigness of the soundstage and similar, but
just to see if the horn problem resides in the tweeters or in the recording.

Jenn's remark about not being impressed with anything at the show may be due
to not having your recording at hand, which is more food for thought.

Gary Eickmeier

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I'm beginning to agree with your idea about the dynamics of the high freqs.
> I read Dick Pierce's explanation, which was great, but again maybe neither
> of you is taking power response into the equation.

I was describing total acoustic power out as a function of
frequency, emissive area and excursion within the piston
region of operation (in essence, wavelengths longer than
the dimensions of the diaphragm). That, by definition, is
power response.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 30, 8:17*pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:26 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 5:37am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
> >>> all
> >>> you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
> >>> speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is far
> >>> better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems. I
> >>> have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
> >>> because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near
> >>> by.
> >>> And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
> >>> symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already has.
> >>> Bah!
>
> >> Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alleged
> >> concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video segments.
> >> In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is itself
> >> not elaborate.
>
> > Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
> > and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
> > beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
> > better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities,
> > in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
> > It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
> > not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.
>
> Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" *symphony
> concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
> It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
> chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
> easily heard in the proverbial back row.

We must be talking about two entirely different Hollywood Bowls. The
one I know always uses sound reinforcement and is my sole exposure to
symphony orchestras that regularly play under such conditions. I think
chamber music at the bowl would hardly be heard in the front row
without sound reinforcement much less the "proverbial" back row. I
would guess the "proverbial" back row is no where near as far from the
stage as the "actual" back row at the bowl.

The Hollywood Bowl seats something like 18,000 people! I don't know
about the "proverbial" back row but the "actual" back row at the bowl
is probably close to 1,000 feet away from the stage. If not it sure
seems like it. The place is huge! this web page should give anyone an
idea of just how big the bowl really is.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hollywood-bowl

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
>>Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" symphony
>>concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
>>It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
>>chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
>>easily heard in the proverbial back row.
>
>
> We must be talking about two entirely different Hollywood Bowls. The
> one I know always uses sound reinforcement and is my sole exposure to
> symphony orchestras that regularly play under such conditions. I think
> chamber music at the bowl would hardly be heard in the front row
> without sound reinforcement much less the "proverbial" back row. I
> would guess the "proverbial" back row is no where near as far from the
> stage as the "actual" back row at the bowl.
>
> The Hollywood Bowl seats something like 18,000 people! I don't know
> about the "proverbial" back row but the "actual" back row at the bowl
> is probably close to 1,000 feet away from the stage. If not it sure
> seems like it. The place is huge! this web page should give anyone an
> idea of just how big the bowl really is.
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/hollywood-bowl

Looking at high-resolution satellite imagery of the Hollywood
bowl, the distance from the edge of the stage to the current
last row is about 320 feet. Even to the last row of what appears
to be the legacy seats is on the order of 150 feet.

Notice that the orchestra pit is NOT under the shell, thus
does not benefit from the directional reinforcement of the shell.

While it's not 1,000 feet, 320 feet is WAY far away. Best case
you're going to get from the cheel is on the order of 6 dB or
so of gain. The "natural ampitheater" better suits visual sighting
than the acoustics. Remember that the ancient Greek ampitheaters
with there legended acoustics were TINY compared to the Hollywood
Bowl. Recall that Wayne Newton is not quite THAT old to require a
large venue 2300 years ago. Also recall that "legended" is not the
same as "actual."

What's interesting is that from 150 miles in altitude, the number
of sound towers and speakers is, well, humbling.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Arny Krueger]

> OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
> performances were created in the studio where they were recorded,

Obviously only true of studio recordings.

Rock and pop groups still give regular live performances, and still
distribute recordings of those live performances.

> and essentially only exist as an electronic waveform.

The same can be said of even minimal-miced orchestral performances.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:52 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Well, while those Wilson Audio speakers were definitely the "best of show"
>> Their longsuit seemed to be that they excelled at getting the dynamics of
>> live music correct. In an unfamiliar venue such as half of a hotel
>> ballroom,
>> any observations that I might make about imaging and soundstage (they
>> seemed
>> to do that very realistically) would be tempered by my unfamiliarity with
>> the
>> room and the equipment. So I make no claims there. The sound was big and
>> real-sounding from a standpoint of my familiarity with the source material
>> and nothing else. The speakers are huge. The Alexandrias, each had two
>> woofers, one a 13" and the other a 15". The "Thor's Hammer" subwoofers had
>> two woofers as well, both 15". The three speaker systems moved a LOT of
>> air
>> and the bottom descended to 10 Hz!
>
> I'm beginning to agree with your idea about the dynamics of the high freqs.
> I read Dick Pierce's explanation, which was great, but again maybe neither
> of you is taking power response into the equation. Maybe the speakers were
> voiced with a microphone at 1 meter on axis etc etc, and so in a large room
> the high freqs lose oomph and power compared to the more omnidirectional
> lower freqs. Just a guess. Thinking about a typical ribbon tweeter a'la
> Magnepan, how does that delicate little fellow have the kind of dynamics
> required for live sound?

According to Pierce's explanation (which seemed to make sense physics and
maths-wise) it doesn't need to. But obviously, something's missing. speakers
simply cannot reproduce that sense of "aliveness" that is imparted on the
listener by live instruments. If one can walk down a street, pass a venue
where real music is being played, and be able to TELL INSTANTLY as one
passes, from a momentarily open door, that a real band is playing unamplified
music inside, then it's obvious that speakers are missing something in their
attempt to reproduce a musical waveform.
>
> But what I really have to contribute to the discussion is the headphone
> solution. How about finding a pair of the best electrostatic headphones (or
> other highly respected transducers) and listening to the horns and
> everything else through those, and seeing if something gets lost, frequency
> wise or dynamics wise, by listening to speakers? No, it won't tell you
> anything about stereo imaging, or bigness of the soundstage and similar, but
> just to see if the horn problem resides in the tweeters or in the recording.

Interesting thought. I see where you're coming from, but I've tried that too.
Headphones, even the most expensive Stax, while they sound very good, don't
produce any more of a realistic rendering of instruments like brass and
drum-kits than do speakers. So, that doesn't seem to work either.
>
> Jenn's remark about not being impressed with anything at the show may be due
> to not having your recording at hand, which is more food for thought.

Well, I can't say that. There were rooms playing some fairly impressive stuff
(with or without my jazz recording playing). I was impressed by the new
Magico S5, the MBL-101s (again, as usual), the big YG acoustics speakers, the
biggest Focal speakers (don't recall the model numbers) and the KEF "Blades".
And of course, the most jaw dropping of all, the aforementioned Wilson
Alexandria XLFs. All showed me that at least at the "cost-is-no-object" end
of the spectrum, speakers are improving. I heard cone speakers (virtually all
of the speakers mentioned were cone designs) especially, are now doing things
that 20 years ago, I would have bet money that come speakers could NEVER do.
Maybe Jenn's jaded. It does happen.

> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
>

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:43:32 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):
> On Aug 30, 8:17pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:26 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 5:37am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
>>>>> all
>>>>> you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen to
>>>>> speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) is far
>>>>> better than those of even the most elaborate of public address systems. I
>>>>> have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and left
>>>>> because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers near
>>>>> by.
>>>>> And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hits
>>>>> symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably already has.
>>>>> Bah!
>>
>>>> Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alleged
>>>> concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video
>>>> segments.
>>>> In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is
>>>> itself
>>>> not elaborate.
>>
>>> Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
>>> and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
>>> beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
>>> better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities,
>>> in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
>>> It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
>>> not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.
>>
>> Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" Â*symphony
>> concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
>> It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
>> chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
>> easily heard in the proverbial back row.
>
> We must be talking about two entirely different Hollywood Bowls. The
> one I know always uses sound reinforcement and is my sole exposure to
> symphony orchestras that regularly play under such conditions. I think
> chamber music at the bowl would hardly be heard in the front row
> without sound reinforcement much less the "proverbial" back row. I
> would guess the "proverbial" back row is no where near as far from the
> stage as the "actual" back row at the bowl.

I think we're talking about the same Hollywood Bowl LOCATION, but
we're, indeed talking about two different Hollywood Bowl performance
shells and we're talking about talking about two different times. My
experience with the 'Bowl is from the mid-1960's. They weren't using
any sound reinforcement then. They are certainly using it now, and
may have been using it for a long time. I don't know. But almost 50
years ago, they weren't using it. I was just a 16-year old kid then
but my cousin with whom I spent the summer in LA was a big music lover
and we went to the 'Bowl at least 6 times that summer and NO sound
reinforcement was used in any of the concerts I attended. Perhaps I
should have made it clear that my experience with that venue is from
the 1960's. In my defense, here, however I must say that I haven't
been there since, and I was unaware when I wroth the above, that they
had significantly changed things in the ensuing years.

> The Hollywood Bowl seats something like 18,000 people! I don't know
> about the "proverbial" back row but the "actual" back row at the bowl
> is probably close to 1,000 feet away from the stage. If not it sure
> seems like it. The place is huge! this web page should give anyone an
> idea of just how big the bowl really is.
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/hollywood-bowl

Oh yes, it is huge. And every time I went there it was SRO. But
realize that the 'Bowl was built back in 1929, when the idea of sound
reinforcement for musical events was deemed ludicrous (due to the
primitive state of amplification and loudspeaker technology then).
Also, if you look at the overhead satellite view of the 'Bowl,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Bowl

you'll notice that there are now FIVE tiers of seating that "fan out"
from the stage. Notice that the third through the fifth tier look
"different" from the first two. Now, It's been half a century since
I've been there, but it seems to me that there were only the two front
tiers of seating in those days but I recall that there was a big lawn
where the top three tiers seem to be today. People would bring picnic
baskets and blankets and spread-out on the lawn to listen to the
music. Also, the shell is totally different than it was back then.
And indeed, the article says that the shell was replaced in 2005 with
a bigger one. I can see scaffolding around the new shell that looks
like a structure for holding speakers. The original one from '29 was
smaller and apparently more acoustically efficient. With modern sound
reinforcement, I suspect that it was deemed that the new shell didn't
need to be that acoustically efficient any more. You can just turn-up
the volume 8^)

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:34:21 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Scott wrote:
>>> Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" symphony
>>> concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
>>> It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
>>> chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
>>> easily heard in the proverbial back row.
>>
>>
>> We must be talking about two entirely different Hollywood Bowls. The
>> one I know always uses sound reinforcement and is my sole exposure to
>> symphony orchestras that regularly play under such conditions. I think
>> chamber music at the bowl would hardly be heard in the front row
>> without sound reinforcement much less the "proverbial" back row. I
>> would guess the "proverbial" back row is no where near as far from the
>> stage as the "actual" back row at the bowl.
>>
>> The Hollywood Bowl seats something like 18,000 people! I don't know
>> about the "proverbial" back row but the "actual" back row at the bowl
>> is probably close to 1,000 feet away from the stage. If not it sure
>> seems like it. The place is huge! this web page should give anyone an
>> idea of just how big the bowl really is.
>>
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/hollywood-bowl
>
> Looking at high-resolution satellite imagery of the Hollywood
> bowl, the distance from the edge of the stage to the current
> last row is about 320 feet. Even to the last row of what appears
> to be the legacy seats is on the order of 150 feet.
>
> Notice that the orchestra pit is NOT under the shell, thus
> does not benefit from the directional reinforcement of the shell.
>
> While it's not 1,000 feet, 320 feet is WAY far away. Best case
> you're going to get from the cheel is on the order of 6 dB or
> so of gain. The "natural ampitheater" better suits visual sighting
> than the acoustics. Remember that the ancient Greek ampitheaters
> with there legended acoustics were TINY compared to the Hollywood
> Bowl. Recall that Wayne Newton is not quite THAT old to require a
> large venue 2300 years ago. Also recall that "legended" is not the
> same as "actual."
>
> What's interesting is that from 150 miles in altitude, the number
> of sound towers and speakers is, well, humbling.
>
>

This is not the same shell as was there when I attended Bowl concerts in the
mid-1960s. It was replaced in 2005 with the one that is shown in the
satellite pictures. When I attended, the orchestra did, indeed sit on stage
with the shell around them and it was easy to hear them (or any musicians on
stage) from anywhere in the seating area of the original seating tiers (the
first two?).

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...

> Looking at high-resolution satellite imagery of the Hollywood
> bowl, the distance from the edge of the stage to the current
> last row is about 320 feet. Even to the last row of what appears
> to be the legacy seats is on the order of 150 feet.
>
> Notice that the orchestra pit is NOT under the shell, thus
> does not benefit from the directional reinforcement of the shell.
>
> While it's not 1,000 feet, 320 feet is WAY far away. Best case
> you're going to get from the cheel is on the order of 6 dB or
> so of gain. The "natural ampitheater" better suits visual sighting
> than the acoustics. Remember that the ancient Greek ampitheaters
> with there legended acoustics were TINY compared to the Hollywood
> Bowl. Recall that Wayne Newton is not quite THAT old to require a
> large venue 2300 years ago. Also recall that "legended" is not the
> same as "actual."
>
> What's interesting is that from 150 miles in altitude, the number
> of sound towers and speakers is, well, humbling.

Received wisdom is that performance rooms with about 3,200 seats is the
extent of what can be done acoustically, with good results.

Given that there are no walls or ceiling to reflect sound, and that the
number of seats is at least 5 times greater, SR is the salvation of this
establishment.

MeadowBook Music Festival in Rochester MI is far smaller, usually 100%
acoustical for orchestral music, but has a ceiling of sorts.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 31, 9:34*am, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> >>Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" *symphony
> >>concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
> >>It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
> >>chamber music played on stage. *The acoustics of the place made them
> >>easily heard in the proverbial back row.
>
> > We must be talking about two entirely different Hollywood Bowls. The
> > one I know always uses sound reinforcement and is my sole exposure to
> > symphony orchestras that regularly play under such conditions. I think
> > chamber music at the bowl would hardly be heard in the front row
> > without sound reinforcement much less the "proverbial" back row. I
> > would guess the "proverbial" back row is no where near as far from the
> > stage as the "actual" back row at the bowl.
>
> > The Hollywood Bowl seats something like 18,000 people! I don't know
> > about the "proverbial" back row but the "actual" back row at the bowl
> > is probably close to 1,000 feet away from the stage. If not it sure
> > seems like it. The place is huge! this web page should give anyone an
> > idea of just how big the bowl really is.
>
> >http://www.answers.com/topic/hollywood-bowl
>
> Looking at high-resolution satellite imagery of the Hollywood
> bowl, the distance from the edge of the stage to the current
> last row is about 320 feet. Even to the last row of what appears
> to be the legacy seats is on the order of 150 feet.
>
> Notice that the orchestra pit is NOT under the shell, thus
> does not benefit from the directional reinforcement of the shell.
>
> While it's not 1,000 feet, 320 feet is WAY far away. Best case
> you're going to get from the cheel is on the order of 6 dB or
> so of gain. The "natural ampitheater" better suits visual sighting
> than the acoustics. Remember that the ancient Greek ampitheaters
> with there legended acoustics were TINY compared to the Hollywood
> Bowl. Recall that Wayne Newton is not quite THAT old to require a
> large venue 2300 years ago. Also recall that "legended" is not the
> same as "actual."
>
> What's interesting is that from 150 miles in altitude, the number
> of sound towers and speakers is, well, humbling.
>
> --
> +--------------------------------+
> + * * * * Dick Pierce * * * * * *|
> + Professional Audio Development |
> +--------------------------------+

Of course it's not 1,000 feet. I did not do a good job of expressing
that as obvious hyperbole. My bad.

I did on one occasion at the bowl make the hike all the way to the
back row just to see the view from there. It seemed comparable to that
of a small football stadium. Looks like by your estimates that is not
far from the truth. One of the issues they have at the bowl is being
an outdoor venue there are laws regulating how loud the P.A. system
can play. The worst I have sat was about midway back for Keb Mo and
Robert Cray. The sound was definitely not loud enough even half way
back. It wasn't disastrous but it needed more. Pretty rare for an
amplified blues concert. And the view? The *video screens* were too
small from half way back in the house. The video screens! We could
barely see the actual artists at all. Sure we could see them. (I don't
want to get busted on my hyperbole) But from that distance they could
have been anybody. That is half way back. I really don't know how they
manage to sell so many tickets to their classical season at the bowl.
But thank goodness they do.

Thanks Dick for the far more accurate estimates on the size of the
bowl and it's effects on sound.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 31, 1:56=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:43:32 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 8:17pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:26 -0700, Scott wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> >>> On Aug 30, 5:37am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>>>> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" =
when
> >>>>> all
> >>>>> you are listening to is a set of PA speakers. If I want to listen t=
o
> >>>>> speakers, I'll stay home where my listening chain (amps, speakers) =
is far
> >>>>> better than those of even the most elaborate of public address syst=
ems. I
> >>>>> have attended so-called live concerts where I've turned around and =
left
> >>>>> because I saw a bevy of microphones on stage and stacks of speakers=
near
> >>>>> by.
> >>>>> And you're right, it's only a matter of time before the PA craze hi=
ts
> >>>>> symphony orchestras too. In fact is some locals, it probably alread=
y has.
> >>>>> Bah!
>
> >>>> Good point. Someone took me to a concert of *name* artists. The alle=
ged
> >>>> concert was composed of live segements, karoke segments and video
> >>>> segments.
> >>>> In no case was the sound or video as good as my home stereo which is
> >>>> itself
> >>>> not elaborate.
>
> >>> Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
> >>> and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
> >>> beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
> >>> better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities=
,
> >>> in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
> >>> It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
> >>> not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.
>
> >> Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" =A0symphony
> >> concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
> >> It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
> >> chamber music played on stage. =A0The acoustics of the place made them
> >> easily heard in the proverbial back row.
>
> > We must be talking about two entirely different Hollywood Bowls. The
> > one I know always uses sound reinforcement and is my sole exposure to
> > symphony orchestras that regularly play under such conditions. I think
> > chamber music at the bowl would hardly be heard in the front row
> > without sound reinforcement much less the "proverbial" back row. I
> > would guess the "proverbial" back row is no where near as far from the
> > stage as the "actual" back row at the bowl.
>
> I think we're talking about the same Hollywood Bowl LOCATION, but
> we're, indeed talking about two different Hollywood Bowl performance
> shells and we're talking about talking about two different times. My
> experience with the 'Bowl is from the mid-1960's. They weren't using
> any sound reinforcement then. They =A0are certainly using it now, and
> may have been using it for a long time. I don't know. But almost 50
> years ago, they weren't using it. I was just a 16-year old kid then
> but my cousin with whom I spent the summer in LA was a big music lover
> and we went to the 'Bowl at least 6 times that summer and NO sound
> reinforcement was used in any of the concerts I attended. Perhaps I
> should have made it clear that my experience with that venue is from
> the 1960's. In my defense, here, however I must say that I haven't
> been there since, and I was unaware when I wroth the above, that they
> had significantly changed things in the ensuing years.
>
> > The Hollywood Bowl seats something like 18,000 people! I don't know
> > about the "proverbial" back row but the "actual" back row at the bowl
> > is probably close to 1,000 feet away from the stage. If not it sure
> > seems like it. The place is huge! this web page should give anyone an
> > idea of just how big the bowl really is.
>
> >http://www.answers.com/topic/hollywood-bowl
>
> Oh yes, it is huge. And every time I went there it was SRO. But
> realize that the 'Bowl was built back in 1929, when the idea of sound
> reinforcement for musical events was deemed ludicrous (due to the
> primitive state of amplification and loudspeaker technology then).
> Also, if you look at the overhead satellite view of the 'Bowl,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Bowl
>
> you'll notice that there are now FIVE tiers of seating that "fan out"
> from the stage. Notice that the third through the fifth tier look
> "different" from the first two. Now, It's been half a century since
> I've been there, but it seems to me that there were only the two front
> tiers of seating in those days but I recall that there was a big lawn
> where the top three tiers seem to be today. People would bring picnic
> baskets and blankets and spread-out on the lawn to listen to the
> music. =A0Also, the shell is totally different than it was back then.
> And indeed, the article says that the shell was replaced in 2005 with
> a bigger one. I can see scaffolding around the new shell that looks
> like a structure for holding speakers. The original one from '29 was
> smaller and apparently more acoustically efficient. With modern sound
> reinforcement, I suspect that it was deemed that the new shell didn't
> need to be that acoustically efficient any more. You can just turn-up
> the volume 8^)

Here is a terrific webpage on the history of the bowl.

http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/philpedia/history-and-architecture

On the time line they claim attendance for a concert in 1936 to be
over 26,000 so that would suggest that even back then it was as big a
"house" then as it is now.
The photos from 1945 show a vast array of microphones. Maybe just to
record the orchestra? Maybe sound reinforcement.

I have been to many non classical concerts at the bowl but I have only
been to two classical concerts and that was only because a friend of
mine was playing.

The bowl really is rich in it's history but it really is a crap venue
for any sort of concert. I only go if there is no alternative for a
must see concert. The Greek just down the road is so much better and
the John Anson Ford Theater is better still although it is really
small. It is ironic that the L.A. Phil lives in arguably the best
concert hall in the world during it's regular season and the worst
venue in the world for their summer season.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:56:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Looking at high-resolution satellite imagery of the Hollywood
>> bowl, the distance from the edge of the stage to the current
>> last row is about 320 feet. Even to the last row of what appears
>> to be the legacy seats is on the order of 150 feet.
>>
>> Notice that the orchestra pit is NOT under the shell, thus
>> does not benefit from the directional reinforcement of the shell.
>>
>> While it's not 1,000 feet, 320 feet is WAY far away. Best case
>> you're going to get from the cheel is on the order of 6 dB or
>> so of gain. The "natural ampitheater" better suits visual sighting
>> than the acoustics. Remember that the ancient Greek ampitheaters
>> with there legended acoustics were TINY compared to the Hollywood
>> Bowl. Recall that Wayne Newton is not quite THAT old to require a
>> large venue 2300 years ago. Also recall that "legended" is not the
>> same as "actual."
>>
>> What's interesting is that from 150 miles in altitude, the number
>> of sound towers and speakers is, well, humbling.
>
> Received wisdom is that performance rooms with about 3,200 seats is the
> extent of what can be done acoustically, with good results.
>
> Given that there are no walls or ceiling to reflect sound, and that the
> number of seats is at least 5 times greater, SR is the salvation of this
> establishment.

Maybe now, but that wasn't always the case. As I said in another post, the
original "shell" was completed in 1929 and was designed to fill the bowl with
sound which it did for almost forty years without SR. What happened after
that, I can't say. Since the shell was replaced in 2005 with a bigger one
obviously designed with SR in mind, I sure that it is 'salvation" now. But if
I lived in the LA area I wouldn't spend a penny to go there. Not when they
have a venue like the Disney Hall available. I understand that it's a sonic
masterpiece
>
> MeadowBook Music Festival in Rochester MI is far smaller, usually 100%
> acoustical for orchestral music, but has a ceiling of sorts.

The 'Bowl used to.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:51:19 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

>> OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
>> performances were created in the studio where they were recorded,
>
> Obviously only true of studio recordings.
>
> Rock and pop groups still give regular live performances, and still
> distribute recordings of those live performances.

Who said they didn't? And those concerts sound just like the studio
recordings except with the added audience response. They have to be that way.
The audience attends the concert to see and hear their favorite bands play
their favorite music and this music MUST sound to the live audience like it
does on the recordings the fans bought of that music.
>
>> and essentially only exist as an electronic waveform.
>
> The same can be said of even minimal-miced orchestral performances.

That's wrong. Orchestral performances can exist without microphones, without
SR and indeed without electricity. IOW, they exist as a sound-field first.
Whatever a recording engineer/producer does with microphones is completely
after the fact and irrelevant to the music making. OTOH, rock performances
don't exist at all without these things. Solid body electric guitars make
almost no sound without their amplifier/speakers. Fender Rhodes pianos (and
other electronic keyboards) make, essentially NO sound without their
amps/speakers. Rock vocalists need a microphone to do what they do and the
performance, the way the audience hears it, does not even exist outside of
the mixing console. That's why, when on tour, rock groups have to take their
mixing consoles with them. The difference here, is that instead of the "mix"
going to a recorder, it goes to SR amps and speakers. That way, the audience
hears their favorite band playing their favorite songs in a way that sounds
just like the recordings of those songs.

IOW, I don't get your point.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:33:43 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On the time line they claim attendance for a concert in 1936 to be
> over 26,000 so that would suggest that even back then it was as big a
> "house" then as it is now.
> The photos from 1945 show a vast array of microphones. Maybe just to
> record the orchestra? Maybe sound reinforcement.

Most likely broadcast.

> I have been to many non classical concerts at the bowl but I have only
> been to two classical concerts and that was only because a friend of
> mine was playing.
>
> The bowl really is rich in it's history but it really is a crap venue
> for any sort of concert. I only go if there is no alternative for a
> must see concert. The Greek just down the road is so much better and
> the John Anson Ford Theater is better still although it is really
> small. It is ironic that the L.A. Phil lives in arguably the best
> concert hall in the world during it's regular season and the worst
> venue in the world for their summer season.

It wasn't always a terrible venue. Back in the mid-sixties, the LA
Philharmonic played at the 'Bowl often during the summer. I heard three
concerts there, but I don't remember the conductor. Perhaps it was the LA
Philharmonic's young Music Director, Zubin Mehta, but perhaps not. There was
so much musical talent in LA in those days, that it could have been anybody
from Andre Previn to Miklos Rozsa. (although I suspect I would have
remembered them).

In the old shell, They sounded great even though I was in the second tier of
seats off to the left. I could still see and hear them perfectly. Same with
a string quartet I heard a few weeks later. Whatever it became, it was a
pretty good natural amphitheater with good acoustics for much of it's
history. The modern shell, erected in 2005, might require SR (and maybe not.
Once the decision was made to build-in SR facilities, whether or not a venue
actually NEEDS the SR facilities of not becomes moot. The venue is going to
use them as a matter of course).

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Well, I can't say that. There were rooms playing some fairly impressive
> stuff
> (with or without my jazz recording playing). I was impressed by the new
> Magico S5, the MBL-101s (again, as usual), the big YG acoustics speakers,
> the
> biggest Focal speakers (don't recall the model numbers) and the KEF
> "Blades".
> And of course, the most jaw dropping of all, the aforementioned Wilson
> Alexandria XLFs. All showed me that at least at the "cost-is-no-object"
> end
> of the spectrum, speakers are improving. I heard cone speakers (virtually
> all
> of the speakers mentioned were cone designs) especially, are now doing
> things
> that 20 years ago, I would have bet money that come speakers could NEVER
> do.
> Maybe Jenn's jaded. It does happen.

Preface, you guys aren't going to believe much of this, because you just
hate Bose 901s, but here is my story and I'm sticking to it.

I was just playing the Sheffield Creme de la Creme album because it contains
one cut from the Harry James Version album, Corner Pocket, which is terrific
and has some great horns in it. They sounded fine, so I nudged the gain up a
bit, and they sounded even finer. But they still didn't pierce the air over
all the other instruments like they do live, so I nudged it a little more,
then more yet - and I sat astonished at the liveness that these little
beasties can pump out. It wasn't long before the bass was thumping my chest,
the drum kit was kicking and tingling the air like no other percussion
instrument can, except maybe piano wihich is also superb on my system, and
the horns were still fine and beginning to pierce on out there.

Brought a couple of thoughts to bear on AE's question. How can my 901s do
such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch dome
tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust cap
behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs), and I have
two up front plus two for surround plus a center speaker that has two
drivers, but is also pretty good on dynamics. It harkened me back to the
early days at Pecar Electronics in Detroit, when I had one of AE's "that HAS
to be live music in there" moments, only it wasn't, it was one stupid pair
of 901s hanging from chains in front of a reflective wall and playing some
rock music like LOUD. I have in my current system those four 901s plus the
Velodyne F-1800 sub, and the main speakers are driven by Carver m1500s to
the tune of 600 watts per channel. Bose says these speakers can take any
amount of power that you want to shove in them, and I think I have just
proved it.

Second thought, so the name of the game is DYNAMICS pure and simple. Forget
my descriptions above if you are Bose Bashers and not paying attention any
more because you don't believe any of it.

OK, so, dynamics. Digital is capable of much greater dynamics than analog
ever was, but as recording engineers you know well that it is really hard to
catch all of the dynamics without overloading at some point, and the high
frequencies are the scariest part, because they will drive the needles over
the top in a heartbeat, so you give yourself a little headroom and hold the
gain down, back off a little from the instruments, raise the mikes in the
air to get a more even balance from front to back, a lot of things so that
you don't get the dread digital clipping.

Live music doesn't have that problem. It can just get louder and louder and
the dynamics are sometimes a major part of the enjoyment. They take great
pleasure in "shocking" you with a riff here and there that you weren't
expecting.

Anyway, hard to catch in a pure digital recording, but these Sheffield discs
started out life as analog recordings - very good analog, maybe tape maybe
direct to disc, but carefully made. THEN, to transfer these to CD, they
already know precisely how loud each part of each section is going to be,
and they can master a more dynamic digital track than if it was live digital
recording. If the horns are the limiting factor in setting the gain, so be
it, but they can be mastered at max levels without distorting and if your
system can handle that, there is no reason you can't have live sounding
music at home.

Crank it up.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:12:34 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Well, I can't say that. There were rooms playing some fairly impressive
>> stuff
>> (with or without my jazz recording playing). I was impressed by the new
>> Magico S5, the MBL-101s (again, as usual), the big YG acoustics speakers,
>> the
>> biggest Focal speakers (don't recall the model numbers) and the KEF
>> "Blades".
>> And of course, the most jaw dropping of all, the aforementioned Wilson
>> Alexandria XLFs. All showed me that at least at the "cost-is-no-object"
>> end
>> of the spectrum, speakers are improving. I heard cone speakers (virtually
>> all
>> of the speakers mentioned were cone designs) especially, are now doing
>> things
>> that 20 years ago, I would have bet money that come speakers could NEVER
>> do.
>> Maybe Jenn's jaded. It does happen.
>
> Preface, you guys aren't going to believe much of this, because you just
> hate Bose 901s, but here is my story and I'm sticking to it.
>
> I was just playing the Sheffield Creme de la Creme album because it contains
> one cut from the Harry James Version album, Corner Pocket, which is terrific
> and has some great horns in it. They sounded fine, so I nudged the gain up a
> bit, and they sounded even finer. But they still didn't pierce the air over
> all the other instruments like they do live, so I nudged it a little more,
> then more yet - and I sat astonished at the liveness that these little
> beasties can pump out. It wasn't long before the bass was thumping my chest,
> the drum kit was kicking and tingling the air like no other percussion
> instrument can, except maybe piano wihich is also superb on my system, and
> the horns were still fine and beginning to pierce on out there.
>
> Brought a couple of thoughts to bear on AE's question. How can my 901s do
> such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch dome
> tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust cap
> behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs), and I have
> two up front plus two for surround plus a center speaker that has two
> drivers, but is also pretty good on dynamics. It harkened me back to the
> early days at Pecar Electronics in Detroit, when I had one of AE's "that HAS
> to be live music in there" moments, only it wasn't, it was one stupid pair
> of 901s hanging from chains in front of a reflective wall and playing some
> rock music like LOUD. I have in my current system those four 901s plus the
> Velodyne F-1800 sub, and the main speakers are driven by Carver m1500s to
> the tune of 600 watts per channel. Bose says these speakers can take any
> amount of power that you want to shove in them, and I think I have just
> proved it.
>
> Second thought, so the name of the game is DYNAMICS pure and simple. Forget
> my descriptions above if you are Bose Bashers and not paying attention any
> more because you don't believe any of it.
>
> OK, so, dynamics. Digital is capable of much greater dynamics than analog
> ever was, but as recording engineers you know well that it is really hard to
> catch all of the dynamics without overloading at some point, and the high
> frequencies are the scariest part, because they will drive the needles over
> the top in a heartbeat, so you give yourself a little headroom and hold the
> gain down, back off a little from the instruments, raise the mikes in the
> air to get a more even balance from front to back, a lot of things so that
> you don't get the dread digital clipping.
>
> Live music doesn't have that problem. It can just get louder and louder and
> the dynamics are sometimes a major part of the enjoyment. They take great
> pleasure in "shocking" you with a riff here and there that you weren't
> expecting.
>
> Anyway, hard to catch in a pure digital recording, but these Sheffield discs
> started out life as analog recordings - very good analog, maybe tape maybe
> direct to disc, but carefully made. THEN, to transfer these to CD, they
> already know precisely how loud each part of each section is going to be,
> and they can master a more dynamic digital track than if it was live digital
> recording. If the horns are the limiting factor in setting the gain, so be
> it, but they can be mastered at max levels without distorting and if your
> system can handle that, there is no reason you can't have live sounding
> music at home.
>
> Crank it up.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
>

You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just don't
want to come too close to that MSB. While a pro analog tape machine can go
over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you never
want to do so in digital. Of course, that means that you can set the gain low
so that peaks never exceed -3 or so on the meters, and if an analog recording
engineer were watching over your shoulder, he might accuse you of recording
down in the "mud". Of course digital's wide dynamic range essentially means
that, especially with 24-bit or DSD, that "down in the mud" comment really
hasn't any meaning. as, even in 16-bit, the "mud" is about 30dB below the
level or magnetic tape. But the dynamic range of an actual musical
performance can exceed even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
Whether this has anything to do with reproduced music never being able to
fool you into thinking it's real, I don't know.

On the Bose 901 front. I have to admit that I haven't heard a pair of 901s
since the early 'Seventies. What I heard then, I didn't like. That
artificially boosted bass (with tape-loop control box), the lack of decent
highs (no tweeters) and the lack of image specificity, really turned me off.
I suspect that Bose has continued to develop the 901s, and for all I know
they might have improved considerably in the ensuing years. I must make a
point to give the latest ones another listen. So any comments I make about
Bose speakers are about the early generations of these speakers, not the
later models.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:45:54 -0700, Jenn wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > call, email, call again your state
> > and local representatives
>
> Nice Idea. Unfortunately, no one will pay the slightest attention to you.
> They'll mumble platitudes, yes. "Thank you for your concern." We share your
> concerns, but.... Nothing will be done because it's a matter of money. The
> world has become so greedy and revenues have lagged so far behind costs over
> the last half-century, that all schools can do is cut programs, slash
> budgets, and layoff teachers. These "non-essential" programs like music
> appreciation go first. They can't cut athletics because they actually
> bring-in money to the schools (football games, basketball games, baseball
> games, track and field meets, swimming competitions, etc). But they can cut
> the arts. And we raise another generation of kids who are never even
> introduced to the finer things in life. No wonder symphony orchestra concert
> venues and high-definition broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera at movie
> theaters are a sea of gray, silver and blue hair.

Mostly they don't pay attention, but sometimes they do, depending on the
size of the response. The "sometimes" makes it worth the effort, in my
view.

And yes, audiences are pretty blue haired, but I see encouraging signs.
For example, the LAPO is riding the youth, vigor, and excitement of
Dudamel (and a pretty young orchestra) plus the excitement of Disney
Hall and a downtown revival, to market to a younger crowd and it seems
to be working. Other ensembles (like my own) are doing performances
with multimedia aspects, inviting the audience to blog, etc. We'll see
what the long terms effect is.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:52 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
> (in article >):

> > Jenn's remark about not being impressed with anything at the show may be due
> > to not having your recording at hand, which is more food for thought.
>
> Well, I can't say that. There were rooms playing some fairly impressive stuff
> (with or without my jazz recording playing). I was impressed by the new
> Magico S5, the MBL-101s (again, as usual), the big YG acoustics speakers, the
> biggest Focal speakers (don't recall the model numbers) and the KEF "Blades".
> And of course, the most jaw dropping of all, the aforementioned Wilson
> Alexandria XLFs. All showed me that at least at the "cost-is-no-object" end
> of the spectrum, speakers are improving. I heard cone speakers (virtually all
> of the speakers mentioned were cone designs) especially, are now doing things
> that 20 years ago, I would have bet money that come speakers could NEVER do.
> Maybe Jenn's jaded. It does happen.

Oh, I wouldn't say that I'm jaded at all. I heard things that impressed
me at the shows, but they weren't the huge buck systems, which were more
often that not, playing way too loudly for my taste. The KEF Blades
were indeed wonderful, and as I mentioned, I loved the little LS5s. I'm
encouraged by what can be had for really reasonable money these days
(including in the analogue area), but I'm also concerned about where the
prices are on the upper end these days.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire > wrote:

> But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed
> even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.

Bluff. 32-bit PCM has a (theoretical) dynamic range of ~ 190
decibels, the ratio of the quietest sound anyone can hear to the blast
of a pound of TNT ten feet away, which would certainly deafen you. As
far as I'm aware it's not possible to make an analogue to digital
converter with such a range anyway: it'd need self noise of 0.25
microvolts and 1 kV full scale!

I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is.
The greatest range I've personally experienced in an audience is a
performance of _Monochrome_ by Maki Ishii, which exceeds 60dB from the
quietest drumming at the start to the crescendo. This can lead to
some practical problems with audibility in a concert hall because it
is hard to hear over people breathing and occasionally coughing.

Andrew.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...


> You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just don't
> want to come too close to that MSB. While a pro analog tape machine can go
> over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you never
> want to do so in digital. Of course, that means that you can set the gain
> low
> so that peaks never exceed -3 or so on the meters, and if an analog
> recording
> engineer were watching over your shoulder, he might accuse you of
> recording
> down in the "mud". Of course digital's wide dynamic range essentially
> means
> that, especially with 24-bit or DSD, that "down in the mud" comment really
> hasn't any meaning. as, even in 16-bit, the "mud" is about 30dB below the
> level or magnetic tape. But the dynamic range of an actual musical
> performance can exceed even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
> Whether this has anything to do with reproduced music never being able to
> fool you into thinking it's real, I don't know.

Yes - I forgot that there are higher bit systems for recording. In fact, I
have at least one of those, in the form of a Tascam DR-01. The Zoom might
also be able to go up, I forget. I wonder if some sort of compander might be
employed even in digital, so that you can record a huge dynamic range
without fear, then re-expand it upon mastering.

>
> On the Bose 901 front. I have to admit that I haven't heard a pair of 901s
> since the early 'Seventies. What I heard then, I didn't like. That
> artificially boosted bass (with tape-loop control box), the lack of decent
> highs (no tweeters) and the lack of image specificity, really turned me
> off.
> I suspect that Bose has continued to develop the 901s, and for all I know
> they might have improved considerably in the ensuing years. I must make a
> point to give the latest ones another listen. So any comments I make about
> Bose speakers are about the early generations of these speakers, not the
> later models.

Well, certainly they have improved in many ways, such as the surrounds being
more impervious to Florida humidity destroying them. The sound? Perhaps in
the dynamics a little due to refined drivers. But no, you probably would
still not get a good demo of them in any environs except my own home. Even
the company has not learned how to use them properly. I am on the Series VI
now, and the manual still has us putting the speakers a foot or two from the
walls, where mine are pulled out five feet from all walls, a la standard
audiophile practice and IAW Image Model Theory.

The "no highs" accusation because they don't have tweeters (darn it) is
simply not true. I have measured them many times on various occasions, and
they go behond 16k I know. But the beauty of them is that the basic response
does not change as you get louder - all freqs, including the highs, just
keep getting louder and more dynamic, unlike perhaps a ribbon or a Quad
ESL-63 or something.

On the imaging, this is again totally dependent on the positioning of the
speakers, and when you get it right, by accident or by listening to me,
everything comes into focus and you suddenly understand what causes the
imaging qualities that "the big boys" try to charge you the big bucks for
and seldom quite get right. My imaging does not change with frequency and
all sounds come from the same point in space where they originated in the
recording, rather than coming forward with frequency or collapsing to the
speaker grills. The speakers totally disappear and project a soundstage
behind and beside them.

In this latest adventure with them, I noticed something new again - as I
cranked them up more and more, the image layering front to back increased to
an even more realistic degree, i.e. forward sounds came a little further
forward and rearward sounds recessed more, surprisingly. Maybe because I am
hearing deeper into the recording as I turn the gain up.

I wish you could be here. I will have to tear down this system some fine day
around 5 years from now, and in our new apartment none of this will be
possible ever again. If any of you are in Florida please give me a call
863-670-0850.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:42:06 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just don't
>> want to come too close to that MSB. While a pro analog tape machine can go
>> over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you never
>> want to do so in digital. Of course, that means that you can set the gain
>> low
>> so that peaks never exceed -3 or so on the meters, and if an analog
>> recording
>> engineer were watching over your shoulder, he might accuse you of
>> recording
>> down in the "mud". Of course digital's wide dynamic range essentially
>> means
>> that, especially with 24-bit or DSD, that "down in the mud" comment really
>> hasn't any meaning. as, even in 16-bit, the "mud" is about 30dB below the
>> level or magnetic tape. But the dynamic range of an actual musical
>> performance can exceed even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
>> Whether this has anything to do with reproduced music never being able to
>> fool you into thinking it's real, I don't know.
>
> Yes - I forgot that there are higher bit systems for recording. In fact, I
> have at least one of those, in the form of a Tascam DR-01. The Zoom might
> also be able to go up, I forget. I wonder if some sort of compander might be
> employed even in digital, so that you can record a huge dynamic range
> without fear, then re-expand it upon mastering.

I don't know. signal "companding" brings along with it it's own set of
problems. I used to record using Dolby "A" and unless you put a calibration
tone before each "take" and got the calibration spot-on on playback you
could hear the artifacts. The DBX round-trip companding scheme was even more
demanding because it was a full-spectrum companding.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just don't
> want to come too close to that MSB.

This is an audiophile myth, just as surely as the idea that having extensive
unused power reserves makes power amps sound better.

Craftsmanship suggests that you don't want to clip, but actual listening
reveals that a few short overages will escape even the most critical ear.

> While a pro analog tape machine can go
> over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you never
> want to do so in digital.

That's primarily because the position of the 0 dB mark on analog tape
recorders is almost always a judgement call.

In some people's minds 0 dB was supposed to represent 1 % THD or 3% THD at
400 Hz or 1 KHz, but in reality things were never stable enough to make
those points stable, repeatible, or even necessarily audibly meaningful.

In contrast, digital FS is a stable, reliable, well-defined point. As a rule
its the same at every frequency in the audio band.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
...

> Audio Empire > wrote:

>> But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed
>> even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.

> Bluff.

True. If there actually were musical performancese that exceeded the the
range of 16 bits, then we should be able to find them on DSD or 24 bit PCM.

> I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is.

I've found some recordings of Beethoven Symphonies on the Bis label that
pushed up into the middle 80s.

> The greatest range I've personally experienced in an audience is a
> performance of _Monochrome_ by Maki Ishii, which exceeds 60dB from the
> quietest drumming at the start to the crescendo.

My CD-Rcorder coincident mic recordings at music festivals not infrequencly
push up into that range. I've done some 24 bit test recordings with
computer audio interfaces that had 110 dB dynamic range, and found that the
electronic noise floor of my setup was about 93 dB down. If I applied
phantom power to the mics, then room tone reduced that to about 70 dB.
However, allowing living breathing performers into the room pushed the noise
floor up a little more and I was back around 65 dB. If we could just
address thase annoying habits of performers such as breathing, having
beating hearts or moving their bodies!

> This can lead to
> some practical problems with audibility in a concert hall because it
> is hard to hear over people breathing and occasionally coughing.

Or just being alive, beating hearts included.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
How can my 901s do
> > such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch dome
> tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust cap
> behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs)

This is not about Bose, but rather about Mr. Eickmeiers specific,
testable technical assertion:

"the dust cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs"

Simply stated, it most assuredly does NOT.

WE may safely assume that what Mr. Eickmeier is claiming is
that the 1" dust cap of a 4" driver has the same behaviour
as a 1" purpose-designed dome tweeter. The two differ
in profound and fundamental ways. Let's just look at a few.

First, let's compare the voice coils. The voice coil and
former of a 4" driver is longer, thicker, has more wire on
it and thus is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier than the voice coil of
a purpose-built 1" dome tweeter. By "substantial" I assert,
having measure literally thousands of such beasts, it's
a minimum of 4 to 5 times heavier.

Second. the mechanical tolerances required of a 4" driver
are very different and result in the magnetic gap being
substantiall (by a factor of 2) wider than that of a typical
1" dome tweeter. The result is a substantially lower
magnetic reluctance and thus a higher flux density in the gap.

Third, the effective moving mass of the 4" driver is at a
minimum or order of magnitude (that's a factor of 10) higher
than that of a 1" dome tweeter. Why? Because the 1" dome
tweeter's moving mass is not encumbered with the moving mass
of the spider, the entire rest of that 4" diaphragm, the
surround, the lead-in wires, and so on.

Fourth, the radiating area of a 1" dome tweeter at 10-15 kHz
is pretty much a 1" diameter dome. That of a 4" driver at
those frequencies is substantially greater.

The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
unsupportable specualtion.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:54:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just don't
>> want to come too close to that MSB.
>
> This is an audiophile myth, just as surely as the idea that having extensive
> unused power reserves makes power amps sound better.

I'll tell you what you do, overmodulate PCM so that you're trying to use
more bits than you have and watch what happens!

> Craftsmanship suggests that you don't want to clip, but actual listening
> reveals that a few short overages will escape even the most critical ear.

In analog that's true. Especially on a good pro tape recorder at 15 ips.
I've had recorders (like my old Otari MX2020) where you could bang the
needles against their pins momentarily with no APPARENT audible effect
(although I'm sure you could measure it at greater than 3%, you just can't
hear it) In digital recording, that kind of laissez-faire attitude toward
100% modulation is a distinct no-no.
>
>> While a pro analog tape machine can go
>> over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you never
>> want to do so in digital.
>
> That's primarily because the position of the 0 dB mark on analog tape
> recorders is almost always a judgement call.

It shouldn't be a judgement call. There is an ANSI spec for reel-ro-reel
tape. It's supposed to be: 0 VU = +4dBu = 1.23 V AC RMS or a fluxivity of 320
nWb/m. I used to always calibrate my tape recorders to that standard. Now, it
is true that with most CONSUMER tape recorders, that spec is reduced to *10dB
= 100% modulation or "0 Vu" or 200 nWb/m of fluxivity. That. BTW, is what
Dolby B was calibrated at for reel-to-reel tape but the Dolby "A" calibration
tape was 320 nWb/m at 400 Hz, however. The original Bell Labs spec called for
this spec to be adhered to at 1KHz, but the NAB used 700 Hz and a lot of pro
recorders used 400 or 500 Hz as the reference. In reality, the difference
between 400, 500, 700, or 1KHz is negligible as any pro recorder worth it's
salt is going to be ruler flat at any of those frequencies.

> In some people's minds 0 dB was supposed to represent 1 % THD or 3% THD at
> 400 Hz or 1 KHz, but in reality things were never stable enough to make
> those points stable, repeatible, or even necessarily audibly meaningful.

0 Vu or 100% modulation is not defined by the distortion in the ANSI or NAB
spec, it is merely defined as a voltage level or more usefully, a coercivity
spec. However a rule of thumb in a properly calibrated pro analog tape
recorder is that 0 Vu = 1% distortion and +3dB = 3%. But again, that's based
on a combination of characteristics including head and tape saturation levels
at a given frequency as well as the linearity of the recorder's electronics
and the amount of distortion present in the bias signal.

I used to know a guy who recorded on an Ampex 350 transport fitted with the
latest design sintered ferrous heads from Nortronics with some custom tubed
electronics that he built using the high-end audiophile practices of the day.
He took the standard Ampex record/playback electronics and rebuilt them using
simplified circuitry with metal film resistors replacing the carbon variety
and "WonderCaps" polypropylene capacitors replacing the original paper
capacitors for the larger stuff and polystyrene caps replacing the mica and
ceramic capacitors for the smaller values. The recordings he made were the
cleanest reel-to-reel tape recordings I've ever heard. He let the needles
bang the pin so hard that they often looked like they were stuck there during
orchestral crescendi! But on playback, one never heard the slightest soupcon
of audible distortion. Amazing.

Don't know what happened to him, but he did produce a couple of records for
the Musical Heritage Society while he was doing that.

> In contrast, digital FS is a stable, reliable, well-defined point. As a rule
> its the same at every frequency in the audio band.

Yes, thank whatever gods there may be, that we don't have to sit for hours in
front of a tape recorder before a session, calibrating, first the playback
using a standard calibration tape, and then the recording bias and eq using
an oscillator to make sure that the round-trip response was flat to at least
15 KHz. And that's the drill if you WEREN'T using Dolby A or DBX!

Digital recording has put all that in the past and frankly, good riddance!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 3, 7:56*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed
> >> even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
> > Bluff.
>
> True. If there actually were musical performancese that exceeded the the
> range of 16 bits, then we should be able to find them on DSD or 24 bit PCM.
>
> > I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is.
>
> I've found some recordings of Beethoven Symphonies on the Bis label that
> pushed up into the middle 80s.
>
> > The greatest range I've personally experienced in an audience is a
> > performance of _Monochrome_ by Maki Ishii, which exceeds 60dB from the
> > quietest drumming at the start to the crescendo.
>
> My CD-Rcorder coincident mic recordings at music festivals not infrequencly
> push up into that range. *I've done some 24 bit test recordings with
> computer audio interfaces that had 110 dB dynamic range, and found that the
> electronic noise floor of my setup was about 93 dB down. If I applied
> phantom power to the mics, then room tone reduced that to about 70 dB.
> However, allowing living breathing performers into the room pushed the noise
> floor up a little more and I was back around 65 dB. *If we could just
> address thase annoying habits of performers such as breathing, having
> beating hearts or moving their bodies!
>
> > *This can lead to
> > some practical problems with audibility in a concert hall because it
> > is hard to hear over people breathing and occasionally coughing.
>
> Or just being alive, beating hearts included.

The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:59:10 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> How can my 901s do
>>> such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch
>>> dome
>> tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust
>> cap
>> behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs)
>
> This is not about Bose, but rather about Mr. Eickmeiers specific,
> testable technical assertion:
>
> "the dust cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs"
>
> Simply stated, it most assuredly does NOT.

You are right. The dust cap might be one inch or less in diameter, but
the frequency response of the driver is determined by the dynamics of
the entire driver, not just its dust-cap. If the rest of the speaker
has poor response at, say, 15 KHz, then so does the dust-cap.

> WE may safely assume that what Mr. Eickmeier is claiming is
> that the 1" dust cap of a 4" driver has the same behaviour
> as a 1" purpose-designed dome tweeter. The two differ
> in profound and fundamental ways. Let's just look at a few.

Yep.

> First, let's compare the voice coils. The voice coil and
> former of a 4" driver is longer, thicker, has more wire on
> it and thus is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier than the voice coil of
> a purpose-built 1" dome tweeter. By "substantial" I assert,
> having measured literally thousands of such beasts, it's
> a minimum of 4 to 5 times heavier.
>
> Second. the mechanical tolerances required of a 4" driver
> are very different and result in the magnetic gap being
> substantiall (by a factor of 2) wider than that of a typical
> 1" dome tweeter. The result is a substantially lower
> magnetic reluctance and thus a higher flux density in the gap.
>
> Third, the effective moving mass of the 4" driver is at a
> minimum or order of magnitude (that's a factor of 10) higher
> than that of a 1" dome tweeter. Why? Because the 1" dome
> tweeter's moving mass is not encumbered with the moving mass
> of the spider, the entire rest of that 4" diaphragm, the
> surround, the lead-in wires, and so on.
>
> Fourth, the radiating area of a 1" dome tweeter at 10-15 kHz
> is pretty much a 1" diameter dome. That of a 4" driver at
> those frequencies is substantially greater.
>
> The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
> tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
> unsupportable specualtion.

That matches my thoughts on the subject as well. I think that Gary is
comparing his dust-cover theory to "whizzer cones" a popular concept
in the late 1950's and early 1960's. I worked at that time (as a
teenager) for a large stereo shop in Washington DC. A couple of the
test instruments we had in the shop was a Ballentine Audio generator
and (as I recall) a B&K sound level meter with an attached, calibrated
microphone (equalized flat to 20KHz). I once took an Electrovoice
"Wolverine" 12" "full-range" speaker (with whizzer cone) in a Karlson
enclosure and ran a frequency response sweep on it. EV advertised
that the whizzer cone was "good" to 13K. Well, it depends upon one's
definition of good, I suppose. If Â*9 dB at 13 KHz (relative to 1K)
is "good" Then I guess it was.

You can't get around needing a purpose-built tweeter because the
design criteria for speakers with the speed, dispersion and low
distrotion required for tweeters are pretty specialized.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 7:56 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed
> >> even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
> > Bluff.
>
> True. If there actually were musical performancese that exceeded the the
> range of 16 bits, then we should be able to find them on DSD or 24 bit
> PCM.
>
> > I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is.
>
> I've found some recordings of Beethoven Symphonies on the Bis label that
> pushed up into the middle 80s.
>
> > The greatest range I've personally experienced in an audience is a
> > performance of _Monochrome_ by Maki Ishii, which exceeds 60dB from the
> > quietest drumming at the start to the crescendo.
>
> My CD-Rcorder coincident mic recordings at music festivals not
> infrequencly
> push up into that range. I've done some 24 bit test recordings with
> computer audio interfaces that had 110 dB dynamic range, and found that
> the
> electronic noise floor of my setup was about 93 dB down. If I applied
> phantom power to the mics, then room tone reduced that to about 70 dB.
> However, allowing living breathing performers into the room pushed the
> noise
> floor up a little more and I was back around 65 dB. If we could just
> address thase annoying habits of performers such as breathing, having
> beating hearts or moving their bodies!
>
> > This can lead to
> > some practical problems with audibility in a concert hall because it
> > is hard to hear over people breathing and occasionally coughing.

> Or just being alive, beating hearts included.

> The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
> noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
> itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
> real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
> the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
> listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
> 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.

Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of atmospheric
or structure-borne noise from the environment.

Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my recordings I
see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent air
in and around the ducts and vents.

Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building a
120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
song, and all seems well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:54:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just
>>> don't
>>> want to come too close to that MSB.
>>
>> This is an audiophile myth, just as surely as the idea that having
>> extensive
>> unused power reserves makes power amps sound better.

> I'll tell you what you do, overmodulate PCM so that you're trying to use
> more bits than you have and watch what happens!

You seem to labor under the false belief that I don't already know. In fact
the true statement is that not being there, you have no idea about what
happens.

>> Craftsmanship suggests that you don't want to clip, but actual listening
>> reveals that a few short overages will escape even the most critical ear.

> In analog that's true.

Also true with digital. Brick wall filters in the amplitude domain are just
like brick wall filters in the frequency domain - they can remove
significant amounts of program material and as long as it is below the
thresholds of audibility, it doesn't matter.

Thing is, there is no such thing that is as well known for the amplitude
domain as the Fletcher Munson curves are for the frequency domain. However,
people who observe such things know that the human tolerance for clipping is
greater than zero and very dependent on the circumstance.

A certain amount of lore about digital clipping was based on converters that
didn't clip cleanly. As a rule, modern ones do clip cleanly. So much for
thinking rooted in the 1980s...

> Especially on a good pro tape recorder at 15 ips.
> I've had recorders (like my old Otari MX2020) where you could bang the
> needles against their pins momentarily with no APPARENT audible effect
> (although I'm sure you could measure it at greater than 3%, you just can't
> hear it) In digital recording, that kind of laissez-faire attitude toward
> 100% modulation is a distinct no-no.

Apparently, only in the minds of people who lack experience with good modern
equipment.

>>> While a pro analog tape machine can go
>>> over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you
>>> never
>>> want to do so in digital.

>> That's primarily because the position of the 0 dB mark on analog tape
>> recorders is almost always a judgement call.

> It shouldn't be a judgement call. There is an ANSI spec for reel-ro-reel
> tape. It's supposed to be: 0 VU = +4dBu = 1.23 V AC RMS or a fluxivity of
> 320
> nWb/m.

That would be a contemporary standard whose conformance is as it is in the
judgement of the people who do the work. Legacy recordings vary for
systematic reasons, and contemporary recordings vary because people are
people.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:40:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:54:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> You've brought-up a good point. When recording digitally, you just
>>>> don't
>>>> want to come too close to that MSB.
>>>
>>> This is an audiophile myth, just as surely as the idea that having
>>> extensive
>>> unused power reserves makes power amps sound better.
>
>> I'll tell you what you do, overmodulate PCM so that you're trying to use
>> more bits than you have and watch what happens!
>
> You seem to labor under the false belief that I don't already know. In fact
> the true statement is that not being there, you have no idea about what
> happens.

Having heard the effects of overmodulating digital into clipping many years
ago, I "don't go there". Why should I?

>>> Craftsmanship suggests that you don't want to clip, but actual listening
>>> reveals that a few short overages will escape even the most critical ear.
>
>> In analog that's true.
>
> Also true with digital. Brick wall filters in the amplitude domain are just
> like brick wall filters in the frequency domain - they can remove
> significant amounts of program material and as long as it is below the
> thresholds of audibility, it doesn't matter.
>
> Thing is, there is no such thing that is as well known for the amplitude
> domain as the Fletcher Munson curves are for the frequency domain. However,
> people who observe such things know that the human tolerance for clipping is
> greater than zero and very dependent on the circumstance.
>
> A certain amount of lore about digital clipping was based on converters that
> didn't clip cleanly. As a rule, modern ones do clip cleanly. So much for
> thinking rooted in the 1980s...

Well since I never allow clipping, I wouldn't necessarily know that, now
would I?
>
>> Especially on a good pro tape recorder at 15 ips.
>> I've had recorders (like my old Otari MX2020) where you could bang the
>> needles against their pins momentarily with no APPARENT audible effect
>> (although I'm sure you could measure it at greater than 3%, you just can't
>> hear it) In digital recording, that kind of laissez-faire attitude toward
>> 100% modulation is a distinct no-no.
>
> Apparently, only in the minds of people who lack experience with good modern
> equipment.

I suspect that I have at least as much experience with "good modern
equipment" as you do.
>
>>>> While a pro analog tape machine can go
>>>> over the 0 Vu mark occasionally with little or no consequences, you
>>>> never
>>>> want to do so in digital.
>
>>> That's primarily because the position of the 0 dB mark on analog tape
>>> recorders is almost always a judgement call.
>
>> It shouldn't be a judgement call. There is an ANSI spec for reel-ro-reel
>> tape. It's supposed to be: 0 VU = +4dBu = 1.23 V AC RMS or a fluxivity of
>> 320
>> nWb/m.
>
> That would be a contemporary standard whose conformance is as it is in the
> judgement of the people who do the work. Legacy recordings vary for
> systematic reasons, and contemporary recordings vary because people are
> people.

That "contemporary standard" of 0 Vu = 1.23 VRMS as you call it was first
agreed upon by Bell Labs, CBS and NBC in 1939 originally for network use of
phone lines to carry network programming and for STLs. The coercivity spec
was agreed upon by the NAB (then the NARTB) and SMPTE in the early 1950's. As
far as the use of the coercivity spec is concerned, you can't calibrate a
tape recorder and guarantee it's round-trip frequency response (and
distortion) specs without using a standard calibration tape and every studio
in the country had them. They all conformed to the 320 nWb/m = 0 Vu because
that's the standard. If you don't calibrate your playback side first, you
can't calibrate your record side. Now, it's true that the DIN spec was a
little different, and the British used a different spec as well. But sometime
in the 1960's they converged as I recall (possibly because Willi Studer and
Nagra sold so many of their pro machines here in the USA).

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 4, 10:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

> > The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
> > noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
> > itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
> > real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
> > the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
> > listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
> > 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.
>
> Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
> contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of atmospheric
> or structure-borne noise from the environment.
>
> Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my recordings I
> see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent air
> in and around the ducts and vents.
>
> Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building a
> 120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
> range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
> stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
> range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
> customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
> song, and all seems well.

I believe the question posed was what is the dynamic range of the real
world for us as listeners. If you don't like the sound of the rooms
you are recording in I suggest finding better rooms. But that sound,
whether or not you approve of it is part of the real world and is not
noise in the same sense as you have noise in the gear itself. so if
one is actually interested in capturing everything one can hear one
does need a dynamic range of at least 120 dB. At least. If one is
interested in getting it without gross distortion one needs
substantially more headroom.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:36:09 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 4, 10:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
>>> The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
>>> noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
>>> itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
>>> real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
>>> the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
>>> listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
>>> 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.
>>
>> Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
>> contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of atmospheric
>> or structure-borne noise from the environment.
>>
>> Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my recordings I
>> see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent air
>> in and around the ducts and vents.
>>
>> Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building a
>> 120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
>> range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
>> stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
>> range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
>> customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
>> song, and all seems well.
>
> I believe the question posed was what is the dynamic range of the real
> world for us as listeners. If you don't like the sound of the rooms
> you are recording in I suggest finding better rooms. But that sound,
> whether or not you approve of it is part of the real world and is not
> noise in the same sense as you have noise in the gear itself. so if
> one is actually interested in capturing everything one can hear one
> does need a dynamic range of at least 120 dB. At least. If one is
> interested in getting it without gross distortion one needs
> substantially more headroom.

Exactly. The dynamic range that I was talking about is on the top end of the
loudness scale anyway... the noise floor being a case of "it is what it is."
But Mr. Kruger brings up a good point. The recordable dynamic range, that is
to say, the actual difference between the noise floor (whether that floor be
technology limited as with analog tape or environmentally limited like HVAC
systems and traffic outside of the venue or people noises) is generally far
short of what the technological dynamic range is for modern digital
recording. The truth is that we must set the levels high-enough for the
tripple "p" sounds to be captured in spite of the ambient noise level of the
venue yet at the same time, be able to capture the tripple "f" crescendi of
the orchestra during instrumental climaxes without distortion.

The main advantage of 24/32-bit PCM recording or DSD recording is that you
can record wide dynamic range material without the danger of overmodulating
and distortion. You just record at a lower average value. There are dynamic
limitations on both ends of the loudness scale, and having enough bits to
comfortably record everything without resorting to gain-riding is a real
luxury. Take it from somebody who spent a lot of years recording in 16-bit,
first on video tape, using a Sony F1 and a Betamax recorder, and later using
an Otari R-DAT recorder. 24-bit was a real help when it became generally
available to modest location recordists like myself.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Sep 4, 10:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
>>> The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
>>> noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
>>> itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
>>> real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
>>> the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
>>> listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
>>> 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.
>> Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
>> contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of atmospheric
>> or structure-borne noise from the environment.
>>
>> Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my recordings I
>> see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent air
>> in and around the ducts and vents.
>>
>> Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building a
>> 120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
>> range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
>> stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
>> range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
>> customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
>> song, and all seems well.
>
> I believe the question posed was what is the dynamic range of the real
> world for us as listeners. If you don't like the sound of the rooms
> you are recording in I suggest finding better rooms. But that sound,
> whether or not you approve of it is part of the real world and is not
> noise in the same sense as you have noise in the gear itself. so if
> one is actually interested in capturing everything one can hear one
> does need a dynamic range of at least 120 dB. At least.

Nope. Try to play 120dB SPL signal into your ears (not for long as permanent
damage will occur promptly) and then check your hearing threshold. It won't be
even close to 0dB for considerable time (measured in minutes). Even 60dB SPL
talk will sound badly attenuated (to the border of being intelligible).

It's called accomodiation. It occurs all the time to us. For example during
silent night ticking of wirswatch sometimes disturb me falling asleep. Yeat
during the day in the very same room I'm not even able to hear thet very same
wirs****ch. That's in a city. In my family's summer cottage, far from any
traffic, during a night if a weather is calm I could hear bark beetles feasting,
hear my own body noises, etc. Simply noise floor at my summercottage at calm
night is porbably around 20dB SPL, in my city apartment it rather does not fall
below 30dB (maybe 28dB if all windows are shut hardly and neighbours are asleep
or left for vacation) and 40dB during a day. We could hear 10 maybe 20dB below
wide band noise floor but not much more.

Populated concert hall is not going to have 20dB SPL ever. It's rather ~35dB if
audience is behaving (i.e. to coughing, no mobile phones in 'meeting mode') and
seats are in good technical order. In case of clubs, rock concerts, etc, noise
floor is (often many) tens dB higher.

Besides, real life orchestra does not play at 120dB when listened from audience
perspective (even first row). And were talking about real life performances not
all nonmusical stuff like jest engine at 20m distance. So 105dB of properly
dithered CD quality signal is plenty enough


> If one is
> interested in getting it without gross distortion one needs
> substantially more headroom.

Please support that statement with actual technical arguments.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 5, 10:27*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 10:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
> >>> The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
> >>> noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
> >>> itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
> >>> real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
> >>> the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
> >>> listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
> >>> 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.
> >> Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
> >> contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of atmospheric
> >> or structure-borne noise from the environment.
>
> >> Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my recordings I
> >> see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent air
> >> in and around the ducts and vents.
>
> >> Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building a
> >> 120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
> >> range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
> >> stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
> >> range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
> >> customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
> >> song, and all seems well.
>
> > I believe the question posed was what is the dynamic range of the real
> > world for us as listeners. If you don't like the sound of the rooms
> > you are recording in I suggest finding better rooms. But that sound,
> > whether or not you approve of it is part of the real world and is not
> > noise in the same sense as you have noise in the gear itself. so if
> > one is actually interested in capturing everything one can hear one
> > does need a dynamic range of at least 120 dB. At least.
>
> Nope. Try to play 120dB SPL signal into your ears (not for long as permanent
> damage will occur promptly) and then check your hearing threshold. It won't be
> even close to 0dB for considerable time (measured in minutes). Even 60dB SPL
> talk will sound badly attenuated (to the border of being intelligible).
>
> It's called accomodiation. It occurs all the time to us. For example during
> silent night ticking of wirswatch sometimes disturb me falling asleep. Yeat
> during the day in the very same room I'm not even able to hear thet very same
> wirs****ch. That's in a city. In my family's summer cottage, far from any
> traffic, during a night if a weather is calm I could hear bark beetles feasting,
> hear my own body noises, etc. Simply noise floor at my summercottage at calm
> night is porbably around 20dB SPL, in my city apartment it rather does not fall
> below 30dB (maybe 28dB if all windows are shut hardly and neighbours are asleep
> or left for vacation) and 40dB during a day. We could hear 10 maybe 20dB below
> wide band noise floor but not much more.

But what you describe is masking. Not accommodation. And certainly
listening to anything at 120 dB will cause temporary desensitization
if it is constant. But that affliction aside we still do hear at both
ends of that dynamic spectrum.

>
> Populated concert hall is not going to have 20dB SPL ever. It's rather ~35dB if
> audience is behaving (i.e. to coughing, no mobile phones in 'meeting mode') and
> seats are in good technical order. In case of clubs, rock concerts, etc, noise
> floor is (often many) tens dB higher.

True but that 35 dB is "signal." You are hearing it because it is
there. and if we make a recording of it we would need all of that 35
dB of signal to capture what we hear in that original acoustic event.


>
> Besides, real life orchestra does not play at 120dB when listened from audience
> perspective (even first row). And were talking about real life performances not
> all nonmusical stuff like jest engine at 20m distance. So 105dB of properly
> dithered CD quality signal is plenty enough

who said anything about an orchestra? The question was what is the
dynamic range of our hearing. I can hear plenty of things that are
louder than an orchestra.

>
> > If one is
> > interested in getting it without gross distortion one needs
> > substantially more headroom.
>
> Please support that statement with actual technical arguments.

That's easy. If you have 1 bit of signal what is the distortion as
expressed in percentages? If you have 2 bits of of signal what is the
distortion? You need headroom, plenty of it if you are worried about
getting low level signals with as little distortion as possible.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed
>> even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
>
> Bluff. 32-bit PCM has a (theoretical) dynamic range of ~ 190
> decibels, the ratio of the quietest sound anyone can hear to the blast
> of a pound of TNT ten feet away, which would certainly deafen you. As
> far as I'm aware it's not possible to make an analogue to digital
> converter with such a range anyway: it'd need self noise of 0.25
> microvolts and 1 kV full scale!
>
> I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is.
> The greatest range I've personally experienced in an audience is a
> performance of _Monochrome_ by Maki Ishii, which exceeds 60dB from the
> quietest drumming at the start to the crescendo. This can lead to
> some practical problems with audibility in a concert hall because it
> is hard to hear over people breathing and occasionally coughing.

Two things Andrew: One, I would think the 32 bit PCM would be a recording
medium only. Then you have to squeeze that into a 16 bit CD for mastering.
Two, the dynamic range problem is greater for the recording engineer than
for the audience. Mikes are usually placed much closer to the orchestra than
a good seat back in the audience. Back there, everything has mellowed out a
bit (so to speak), and the perceived dynamic range is not so bad. But up
where the mikes are, the range can be formidable. Experienced recordists
please correct me if I am wrong, but that is my impression and experience.

Gary Eickmeier

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 4, 10:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
>> > The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
>> > noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
>> > itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
>> > real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
>> > the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
>> > listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
>> > 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.
>>
>> Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
>> contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of
>> atmospheric
>> or structure-borne noise from the environment.
>>
>> Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my
>> recordings I
>> see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent
>> air
>> in and around the ducts and vents.

>> Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building
>> a
>> 120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
>> range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
>> stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
>> range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
>> customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
>> song, and all seems well.

> I believe the question posed was what is the dynamic range of the real
> world for us as listeners.

The question was answered.

> If you don't like the sound of the rooms
> you are recording in I suggest finding better rooms.

You've got me confused with the people who organize these events, and
ultimately the people who build the rooms.

The rooms I record in are purpose built for the performance of musical and
dramatic events. Some are very good, and some are not so good.

> But that sound,
> whether or not you approve of it is part of the real world and is not
> noise in the same sense as you have noise in the gear itself.

True, but withiout giving more information about the nature of those sounds,
no light is shed.

It is a prinicple of signal analysis that if you mix a large number of
unrelated noises both coherent and not, you end up with random noise. IOW a
large collection of independent artificial and natural noise sources in a
sonic context can add together to create a noise floor that can't be easily
distinguished from an electronic noise source by ear or by means of
instrumentation.

Some natural noise sources such as turbulent air are acoustic signals that
are difficult or impossible to distinguish from shaped electronic noise.
Their spectral and amplitude distribution can be very much alike. Nature
itself is not always very quiet. While it can be pretty quiet on a still day
in the middle of an isolated desert, throw in a few trees or some buildings,
and the natural noise floor creeps up. Add a lake or a stream, and even
quiet days are pretty noisy. And of course when things start building up,
the din is all you can stand and more.

I am probably among the few people with undergraduate and graduate
university training in signals and systems analysis who also records music
professionally on a routine basis, so you aren't going to find these
observations in every book or article about recording.

> so if one is actually interested in capturing everything one can hear one
> does need a dynamic range of at least 120 dB.

That idea would appear to be based on an apparent belief that there is no
such thing as threshold shifts in the human ear. In fact listening to a
sound at levels of approximately 80 dB SPL and higher sensitizes the ear in
such a way that sounds at substantially lower levels cannot be heard at the
same time, and in fact can't be heard for some time following it. The amount
of time over which the ear is desensitized can range from minutes to hours
to days to the rest of your life. If you include what we call concurrent
masking and temporal masking, this effect happens at just about any SPL that
we can hear.

Some insight to this effect can be found in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_fatigue It correctly points out that
the recovery time from auditory fatigue to to loud sounds that is not
permeanently damaging can range from minutes to days.

There is a reason why we consistently build venues with relatively poor nose
performance and tolerate performances that include numerous spurious
noises - they don't bother us because we don't perceive them.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Sep 5, 10:27 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Sep 4, 10:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>>>> The problem with all of this is considering the room tone to be a
>>>>> noise floor the same way you have noise floors in the equipment
>>>>> itself. The noise floor in real life is 0 in that all the "noise" in
>>>>> real life is actually signal not noise. I want to hear the sound of
>>>>> the room. that isn't noise that is the sound that transports me as a
>>>>> listener to that space. The true dynamic range of real life is about
>>>>> 120 dB depending on one's thresholds of pain.
>>>> Back in the real world, the primary sources of room tone in most
>>>> contemporary live recordings is HVAC noise and/or other forms of atmospheric
>>>> or structure-borne noise from the environment.
>>>> Every time I do a spectral analysis of room tone from one of my recordings I
>>>> see the LF spikes from the HVAC air movers and hiss from the turbulent air
>>>> in and around the ducts and vents.
>>>> Everybody who wants to suffer the economic slings and arrows of building a
>>>> 120 dB dynamic range recording system in order to produce 60 dB dynamic
>>>> range recordings of HVAC and traffic noise can be my guest! As things
>>>> stand, I'm usually producing recordings of them with 30 or so dB dynamic
>>>> range, and seems to produce little concern on the part of the paying
>>>> customers. A nicely done fade in and out at the beginning and end of the
>>>> song, and all seems well.
>>> I believe the question posed was what is the dynamic range of the real
>>> world for us as listeners. If you don't like the sound of the rooms
>>> you are recording in I suggest finding better rooms. But that sound,
>>> whether or not you approve of it is part of the real world and is not
>>> noise in the same sense as you have noise in the gear itself. so if
>>> one is actually interested in capturing everything one can hear one
>>> does need a dynamic range of at least 120 dB. At least.
>> Nope. Try to play 120dB SPL signal into your ears (not for long as permanent
>> damage will occur promptly) and then check your hearing threshold. It won't be
>> even close to 0dB for considerable time (measured in minutes). Even 60dB SPL
>> talk will sound badly attenuated (to the border of being intelligible).
>>
>> It's called accomodiation. It occurs all the time to us. For example during
>> silent night ticking of wirswatch sometimes disturb me falling asleep. Yeat
>> during the day in the very same room I'm not even able to hear thet very same
>> wirs****ch. That's in a city. In my family's summer cottage, far from any
>> traffic, during a night if a weather is calm I could hear bark beetles feasting,
>> hear my own body noises, etc. Simply noise floor at my summercottage at calm
>> night is porbably around 20dB SPL, in my city apartment it rather does not fall
>> below 30dB (maybe 28dB if all windows are shut hardly and neighbours are asleep
>> or left for vacation) and 40dB during a day. We could hear 10 maybe 20dB below
>> wide band noise floor but not much more.
>
> But what you describe is masking. Not accommodation. And certainly
> listening to anything at 120 dB will cause temporary desensitization
> if it is constant. But that affliction aside we still do hear at both
> ends of that dynamic spectrum.
>
>> Populated concert hall is not going to have 20dB SPL ever. It's rather ~35dB if
>> audience is behaving (i.e. to coughing, no mobile phones in 'meeting mode') and
>> seats are in good technical order. In case of clubs, rock concerts, etc, noise
>> floor is (often many) tens dB higher.
>
> True but that 35 dB is "signal." You are hearing it because it is
> there. and if we make a recording of it we would need all of that 35
> dB of signal to capture what we hear in that original acoustic event.

Nope. 20dB below that 35dB i.e. 15dB would be enough -- anything below would be
inaudible. So you have 105dB range from 15 do 120dB SPL.


>> Besides, real life orchestra does not play at 120dB when listened from audience
>> perspective (even first row). And were talking about real life performances not
>> all nonmusical stuff like jest engine at 20m distance. So 105dB of properly
>> dithered CD quality signal is plenty enough
>
> who said anything about an orchestra?

Everyone but you. In this very branch of the thread talk was about range of
musical performances.

"But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed[...]" --
Audio Empire
"I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is." --
Andrew Haley
"If there actually were musical performancese that exceeded" -- Arny Krueger

Even the very title of this thread is "Speakers That Sound Like Music" not
"Speakers That Sound Like Jackhammer, or TNT Detonation or Jet Blast".

> The question was what is the
> dynamic range of our hearing. I can hear plenty of things that are
> louder than an orchestra.

Some of them being the last thing you ever hear...
Anyways, 120dB is threshold of pain and in fact we don't perceive stronger
stimuli as louder but as more painful then simply directly stunning then
damaging more things that ears and finally deadly. But all of that is irrelevant
to music and musical performance.

>
>>> If one is
>>> interested in getting it without gross distortion one needs
>>> substantially more headroom.
>> Please support that statement with actual technical arguments.
>
> That's easy. If you have 1 bit of signal what is the distortion as
> expressed in percentages?

In could be as low as 0.00000001% in audible range as DSD shows us :)

But what that has to do to your statement of requiring substantially more than
120dB range to capture real life sound?

> If you have 2 bits of of signal what is the
> distortion?

All other things being equal close to doubly better.

But see above.

> You need headroom, plenty of it if you are worried about
> getting low level signals with as little distortion as possible.

You won't hear even 10% distorion is signals being close to actual audibility
threshold, signals below actual noise floor.

It all boils down to that 120dB contains enough (>=15dB) headroom to record
things. Aim at detectability threshold of 9dB SPL (to allow for 6dB setup error)
and still be able to record 129dB peaks.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> How can my 901s do
>> > such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch
>> > dome
>> tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust
>> cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs)
>
> This is not about Bose, but rather about Mr. Eickmeiers specific,
> testable technical assertion:
>
> "the dust cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs"
>
> Simply stated, it most assuredly does NOT.
>
> WE may safely assume that what Mr. Eickmeier is claiming is
> that the 1" dust cap of a 4" driver has the same behaviour
> as a 1" purpose-designed dome tweeter. The two differ
> in profound and fundamental ways. Let's just look at a few.
>
> First, let's compare the voice coils. The voice coil and
> former of a 4" driver is longer, thicker, has more wire on
> it and thus is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier than the voice coil of
> a purpose-built 1" dome tweeter. By "substantial" I assert,
> having measure literally thousands of such beasts, it's
> a minimum of 4 to 5 times heavier.
>
> Second. the mechanical tolerances required of a 4" driver
> are very different and result in the magnetic gap being
> substantiall (by a factor of 2) wider than that of a typical
> 1" dome tweeter. The result is a substantially lower
> magnetic reluctance and thus a higher flux density in the gap.
>
> Third, the effective moving mass of the 4" driver is at a
> minimum or order of magnitude (that's a factor of 10) higher
> than that of a 1" dome tweeter. Why? Because the 1" dome
> tweeter's moving mass is not encumbered with the moving mass
> of the spider, the entire rest of that 4" diaphragm, the
> surround, the lead-in wires, and so on.
>
> Fourth, the radiating area of a 1" dome tweeter at 10-15 kHz
> is pretty much a 1" diameter dome. That of a 4" driver at
> those frequencies is substantially greater.
>
> The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
> tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
> unsupportable specualtion.

Well then it is Amar Bose doing the "speculation" because that is what he
told me. I just assumed that it sounds reasonable because at the highest
frequencies the center of the driver is probably all that can move that
fast.

Bose may have all kinds of test equipment to look at the vibrational
behavior of a moving driver. Isn't there equipment that does vibrational
analysis?

What do you say is happening at the highest frequencies? The whole driver
moving as a solid unit? This isn't the only full range 4 inch driver out
there - what generally do they do at the highest freqs?

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 6, 4:33*am, "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> >> But the dynamic range of an actual musical performance can exceed
> >> even the the range of DSD or 24 or 32-bit PCM.
>
> > Bluff. *32-bit PCM has a (theoretical) dynamic range of ~ 190
> > decibels, the ratio of the quietest sound anyone can hear to the blast
> > of a pound of TNT ten feet away, which would certainly deafen you. *As
> > far as I'm aware it's not possible to make an analogue to digital
> > converter with such a range anyway: it'd need self noise of 0.25
> > microvolts and 1 kV full scale!
>
> > I wonder what the greatest dynamic range in the musical repertoire is.
> > The greatest range I've personally experienced in an audience is a
> > performance of _Monochrome_ by Maki Ishii, which exceeds 60dB from the
> > quietest drumming at the start to the crescendo. *This can lead to
> > some practical problems with audibility in a concert hall because it
> > is hard to hear over people breathing and occasionally coughing.
>
> Two things Andrew: One, I would think the 32 bit PCM would be a recording
> medium only. Then you have to squeeze that into a 16 bit CD for mastering..
> Two, the dynamic range problem is greater for the recording engineer than
> for the audience. Mikes are usually placed much closer to the orchestra than
> a good seat back in the audience. Back there, everything has mellowed out a
> bit (so to speak), and the perceived dynamic range is not so bad. But up
> where the mikes are, the range can be formidable. Experienced recordists
> please correct me if I am wrong, but that is my impression and experience..
>
>

In a good hall the sound does not "mellow out" in the optimum seats.
That is one of the marks of a great concert hall. Orchestras really
aren't all that loud even up close. Unless you are sitting in the row
or two in front of the brass section. In an excellent concert hall the
SPLs should be just as loud 10 to 15 rows back as they are in the
first row. Maybe ever louder.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...

> Third, the effective moving mass of the 4" driver is at a
> minimum or order of magnitude (that's a factor of 10) higher
> than that of a 1" dome tweeter. Why? Because the 1" dome
> tweeter's moving mass is not encumbered with the moving mass
> of the spider, the entire rest of that 4" diaphragm, the
> surround, the lead-in wires, and so on.

As I understand the operation of speakers, they are mass loaded over most of
their upper frequency range. The primary effect of larger mass given all
other things are equal is that efficiency is reduced. This would be
broadband efficiency, not just efficiency at high frequencies.

I think it is fair to say that if the diaphragm does not break up,and if
the voice coil does not decouple from the diaphragm, then the speaker
cone+dust cap acts like a piston driven with a magnetic motor at all
reasonable frequencies.

Secondary effects are provided by the inductance of the voice coil and the
large piston causing stronger directivity effects at higher frequencies.

> Fourth, the radiating area of a 1" dome tweeter at 10-15 kHz
> is pretty much a 1" diameter dome. That of a 4" driver at
> those frequencies is substantially greater.

> The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
> tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
> unsupportable specualtion.

Seems to me that without knowlege of break up modes and possible decoupling
from the voice coil, all relevant facts are not known.

The idea that just the dust cap (as opposed to the entire diaphragm+dust
cap ) is in play seems to presume signficiant break up of the cone/dust cap
asssembly.

I am informed that this break up mode can be controlled to a useful degree,
but I would surely defer to more experienced practitioners.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:06:37 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

>"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
>> The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
>> tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
>> unsupportable specualtion.
>
> Well then it is Amar Bose doing the "speculation" because that is what he
> told me. I just assumed that it sounds reasonable because at the highest
> frequencies the center of the driver is probably all that can move that
> fast.
>
> Bose may have all kinds of test equipment to look at the vibrational
> behavior of a moving driver. Isn't there equipment that does vibrational
> analysis?
>
> What do you say is happening at the highest frequencies? The whole driver
> moving as a solid unit? This isn't the only full range 4 inch driver out
> there - what generally do they do at the highest freqs?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>

This is one of those things, Gary, that looks like it makes sense on the face
of it, but it doesn't really (like "cartoon physics." It seems reasonable
that once Wyley Coyote has walked off the edge of the cliff, that he can
scramble back again, but we all know that real physics says that he can't.).
It looks as if a "whizzer cone" would work as well, but the fact is that it's
not just the whizzer that has to vibrate at high frequencies, it's the entire
mass of the cone. Now I'm not saying that a whizzer cone does nothing.
Without it, the 12" EV Wolverine speaker that I tested MIGHT have been much
more than 9 dB down at 13 Khz. I had no way to test whether that 12"
speaker's upper midrange/lower treble was improved by the addition of that
whizzer cone, as I had no wolverine without it to test.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>How can my 901s do
>>
>>>>such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch
>>>>dome
>>>
>>>tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust
>>>cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs)
>>
>>This is not about Bose, but rather about Mr. Eickmeiers specific,
>>testable technical assertion:
>>
>> "the dust cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs"
>>
>>Simply stated, it most assuredly does NOT.
>>
>>WE may safely assume that what Mr. Eickmeier is claiming is
>>that the 1" dust cap of a 4" driver has the same behaviour
>>as a 1" purpose-designed dome tweeter. The two differ
>>in profound and fundamental ways. Let's just look at a few.
>>
>>First, let's compare the voice coils. The voice coil and
>>former of a 4" driver is longer, thicker, has more wire on
>>it and thus is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier than the voice coil of
>>a purpose-built 1" dome tweeter. By "substantial" I assert,
>>having measure literally thousands of such beasts, it's
>>a minimum of 4 to 5 times heavier.
>>
>>Second. the mechanical tolerances required of a 4" driver
>>are very different and result in the magnetic gap being
>>substantiall (by a factor of 2) wider than that of a typical
>>1" dome tweeter. The result is a substantially lower
>>magnetic reluctance and thus a higher flux density in the gap.
>>
>>Third, the effective moving mass of the 4" driver is at a
>>minimum or order of magnitude (that's a factor of 10) higher
>>than that of a 1" dome tweeter. Why? Because the 1" dome
>>tweeter's moving mass is not encumbered with the moving mass
>>of the spider, the entire rest of that 4" diaphragm, the
>>surround, the lead-in wires, and so on.
>>
>>Fourth, the radiating area of a 1" dome tweeter at 10-15 kHz
>>is pretty much a 1" diameter dome. That of a 4" driver at
>>those frequencies is substantially greater.
>>
>>The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
>>tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
>>unsupportable specualtion.
>
>
> Well then it is Amar Bose doing the "speculation" because that is what he
> told me. I just assumed that it sounds reasonable because at the highest
> frequencies the center of the driver is probably all that can move that
> fast.


And, like many things, Bose has failed to produce any
repeatable technical data in a peer-reviewed forum that
would allow others to confirm or refute such claims.

In fact, we have no knowledge, save your anecdotal claim,
that Bose ever made such claims.

So, without that, we can only conclude that these are your
spculations, not Amar Bose's since you have presented nothing
from his had that makes such claims.

> Bose may have all kinds of test equipment to look at the vibrational
> behavior of a moving driver. Isn't there equipment that does vibrational
> analysis?

Yes, there is. It's been in reasonably common use for
3 decades and mor, so?

> What do you say is happening at the highest frequencies? The whole driver
> moving as a solid unit?

I never made such a claim, did I?

In fact, the driver is largely moving at these frequencies,
but most assuredly not as a "solid unit." The acutal detailed
motion of the come is extremely complex and difficult to
predict. The resulting integration of this complex motion
is what results in the frequency and power response of the
driver, and, without any exception, these figures for 4"
drivers are far from optimum: VERY ragged response crives,
irregualr and highly-frequency dependent radiation patterns.

> This isn't the only full range 4 inch driver out
> there

"full range" is a claim, not an irrefutable property.

> what generally do they do at the highest freqs?

Whatever they do, they do nonuniformly and, generally
badly.

Of course, you are welcome to use whatever definition
of "good" or "bad" suits your fancy, but having done
so, the conversation is shut down because of the lack
of a common agreed-upon language.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:46:20 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> How can my 901s do
>>>> such a show of dynamics? Well, most speakers have but one little 1 inch
>>>> dome
>>>> tweeter, maybe one or two midranges. I have NINE - on each box (the dust
>>>> cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs)
>>>
>>> This is not about Bose, but rather about Mr. Eickmeiers specific,
>>> testable technical assertion:
>>>
>>> "the dust cap behaves like a tweeter at the highest freqs"
>>>
>>> Simply stated, it most assuredly does NOT.
>>>
>>> WE may safely assume that what Mr. Eickmeier is claiming is
>>> that the 1" dust cap of a 4" driver has the same behaviour
>>> as a 1" purpose-designed dome tweeter. The two differ
>>> in profound and fundamental ways. Let's just look at a few.
>>>
>>> First, let's compare the voice coils. The voice coil and
>>> former of a 4" driver is longer, thicker, has more wire on
>>> it and thus is SUBSTANTIALLY heavier than the voice coil of
>>> a purpose-built 1" dome tweeter. By "substantial" I assert,
>>> having measure literally thousands of such beasts, it's
>>> a minimum of 4 to 5 times heavier.
>>>
>>> Second. the mechanical tolerances required of a 4" driver
>>> are very different and result in the magnetic gap being
>>> substantiall (by a factor of 2) wider than that of a typical
>>> 1" dome tweeter. The result is a substantially lower
>>> magnetic reluctance and thus a higher flux density in the gap.
>>>
>>> Third, the effective moving mass of the 4" driver is at a
>>> minimum or order of magnitude (that's a factor of 10) higher
>>> than that of a 1" dome tweeter. Why? Because the 1" dome
>>> tweeter's moving mass is not encumbered with the moving mass
>>> of the spider, the entire rest of that 4" diaphragm, the
>>> surround, the lead-in wires, and so on.
>>>
>>> Fourth, the radiating area of a 1" dome tweeter at 10-15 kHz
>>> is pretty much a 1" diameter dome. That of a 4" driver at
>>> those frequencies is substantially greater.
>>>
>>> The point being, the claim that "the dust cap behaves like a
>>> tweeter at the highest freqs" is unsubstantiated, technically
>>> unsupportable specualtion.
>>
>>
>> Well then it is Amar Bose doing the "speculation" because that is what he
>> told me. I just assumed that it sounds reasonable because at the highest
>> frequencies the center of the driver is probably all that can move that
>> fast.
>
>
> And, like many things, Bose has failed to produce any
> repeatable technical data in a peer-reviewed forum that
> would allow others to confirm or refute such claims.
>
> In fact, we have no knowledge, save your anecdotal claim,
> that Bose ever made such claims.
>
> So, without that, we can only conclude that these are your
> spculations, not Amar Bose's since you have presented nothing
> from his had that makes such claims.
>
>> Bose may have all kinds of test equipment to look at the vibrational
>> behavior of a moving driver. Isn't there equipment that does vibrational
>> analysis?
>
> Yes, there is. It's been in reasonably common use for
> 3 decades and mor, so?
>
>> What do you say is happening at the highest frequencies? The whole driver
>> moving as a solid unit?
>
> I never made such a claim, did I?
>
> In fact, the driver is largely moving at these frequencies,
> but most assuredly not as a "solid unit." The acutal detailed
> motion of the come is extremely complex and difficult to
> predict. The resulting integration of this complex motion
> is what results in the frequency and power response of the
> driver, and, without any exception, these figures for 4"
> drivers are far from optimum: VERY ragged response crives,
> irregualr and highly-frequency dependent radiation patterns.
>
>> This isn't the only full range 4 inch driver out
>> there
>
> "full range" is a claim, not an irrefutable property.
>
>> what generally do they do at the highest freqs?
>
> Whatever they do, they do nonuniformly and, generally
> badly.
>
> Of course, you are welcome to use whatever definition
> of "good" or "bad" suits your fancy, but having done
> so, the conversation is shut down because of the lack
> of a common agreed-upon language.
>
>

Well, the best we can say is that a 4" driver probably cannot be optimized
for high frequencies and midrange-bass frequencies at the same time. One
thing. If you go to Bose's website and open the PDF of the owner's manual,
there is a page near the back with specifications. They give distortion
figures, and maximum loudness plus the eq range of the active equalizer that
comes with the speakers, but NOWHERE in those specs do they even hint-at
frequency response. Checking the rest of the website, nowhere does it
mention, hint-at , or discuss frequency response in any way. I have to ask
myself why?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 7, 4:00*am, Barkingspyder > wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:17:56 PM UTC-7, Audio Empire wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:26 -0700, Scott wrote
>
> > (in article >):
>
> > > On Aug 30, 5:37am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >>> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
>
> > > Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
>
> > > and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
>
> > > beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
>
> > > better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities,
>
> > > in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
>
> > > It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
>
> > > not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.
>
> > Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" *symphony
>
> > concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
>
> > It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
>
> > chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
>
> > easily heard in the proverbial back row. Back in the 40's and 50's
>
> > night clubs would feature bands playing and the only "PA" might be the
>
> > announcer or perhaps the band singer. The musicians playing
>
> > instruments needed no such crutches. A few years ago I went with some
>
> > friends to a Brazilian nightclub in San Francisco. They had a great
>
> > brazilian jazz band playing all the familiar samba favorites from that
>
> > country, along with Bossa Nova, Lambada as well as selections that I
>
> > had never heard before. They were using this huge PA system and
>
> > playing it so loudly that patrons had to cup their hands around the
>
> > ears of those next to them and yell at the top of their lungs into
>
> > those cupped hands to make themselves heard. It looked like there was
>
> > a war going on between the band, who wanted to be heard, and the
>
> > patrons who wanted to talk. Before the current sound reinforcement
>
> > craze, people would go to night spots and listen to unamplified music
>
> > playing while they politely whispered to one another. Now the band
>
> > turns up the volume on their sound reinforcement in order to be heard
>
> > over the talk and the people talk louder in order to be heard over the
>
> > sound reinforcement. Loudness wars.
>
> > OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
>
> > performances were created in the studio where they were recorded, and
>
> > essentially only exist as an electronic waveform. For recordings, this
>
> > waveform is "cut" to some physical media and is not a performance
>
> > again until it emanates from the listener's speakers. To have this
>
> > "performance" occur as a "live concert", the studio conditions must be
>
> > reproduced. The difference between the concert and the recording is
>
> > that the middle man, the physical media, is eliminated and the output
>
> > of the "studio" electronics is fed directly into large scale speakers
>
> > designed to play loud and cover a large group of people. While not my
>
> > cup of tea, that is a legitimate reason and use for sound
>
> > reinforcement because, without it, the performance couldn't exist.
>
> If you've been to a classical concert at the Hollywood Bowl since 2007 you've heard sound reinforcement, it's getting better all the time and is probably why the Bowl and the new dome have been getting rave reviews. *The sound reinforcement has been going on for a long time. *Check out the following links: *http://livedesignonline.com/theatre/hollywood_bowl_refines_sound_with...and go to Wikipedia to read their brief history of the bowl and its acoustics. *I never knew that Lloyd Wright had designed not one but 2 domes for the Bowl.

have been to two of them. It may very well be better than it was
before but by the standards of live classical music in proper concert
halls without sound reinforcement the sound is still horrible. Anyone
giving the sound a rave review in that context is not to be trusted in
any matters of sound quality.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:19:12 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 7, 4:00am, Barkingspyder > wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:17:56 PM UTC-7, Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:26 -0700, Scott wrote
>>
>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 5:37am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>> Here we are in complete agreement. Why go to hear "live musicians" when
>>
>>>> Was this a classical concert? If not then this is nothing new. Rock
>>
>>>> and pop concerts have suffered from bad sounding PAs since the
>>
>>>> beginning of the genres. Fans don't go to these concerts to hear
>>
>>>> better sound. They go to *see* the artists, who are often celebrities,
>>
>>>> in the flesh perform what will hopefully be a unique live experience.
>>
>>>> It's a lot different than the live classical music experience. Well,
>>
>>>> not including concerts at The Hollywood Bowl or other such venues.
>>
>>> Well, I have yet to hear a "sound reinforcement augmented" Â*symphony
>>
>>> concert but I have seen classical chamber music concerts so augmented.
>>
>>> It's just not necessary. I've been to the Hollywood Bowl and heard
>>
>>> chamber music played on stage. The acoustics of the place made them
>>
>>> easily heard in the proverbial back row. Back in the 40's and 50's
>>
>>> night clubs would feature bands playing and the only "PA" might be the
>>
>>> announcer or perhaps the band singer. The musicians playing
>>
>>> instruments needed no such crutches. A few years ago I went with some
>>
>>> friends to a Brazilian nightclub in San Francisco. They had a great
>>
>>> brazilian jazz band playing all the familiar samba favorites from that
>>
>>> country, along with Bossa Nova, Lambada as well as selections that I
>>
>>> had never heard before. They were using this huge PA system and
>>
>>> playing it so loudly that patrons had to cup their hands around the
>>
>>> ears of those next to them and yell at the top of their lungs into
>>
>>> those cupped hands to make themselves heard. It looked like there was
>>
>>> a war going on between the band, who wanted to be heard, and the
>>
>>> patrons who wanted to talk. Before the current sound reinforcement
>>
>>> craze, people would go to night spots and listen to unamplified music
>>
>>> playing while they politely whispered to one another. Now the band
>>
>>> turns up the volume on their sound reinforcement in order to be heard
>>
>>> over the talk and the people talk louder in order to be heard over the
>>
>>> sound reinforcement. Loudness wars.
>>
>>> OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
>>
>>> performances were created in the studio where they were recorded, and
>>
>>> essentially only exist as an electronic waveform. For recordings, this
>>
>>> waveform is "cut" to some physical media and is not a performance
>>
>>> again until it emanates from the listener's speakers. To have this
>>
>>> "performance" occur as a "live concert", the studio conditions must be
>>
>>> reproduced. The difference between the concert and the recording is
>>
>>> that the middle man, the physical media, is eliminated and the output
>>
>>> of the "studio" electronics is fed directly into large scale speakers
>>
>>> designed to play loud and cover a large group of people. While not my
>>
>>> cup of tea, that is a legitimate reason and use for sound
>>
>>> reinforcement because, without it, the performance couldn't exist.
>>
>> If you've been to a classical concert at the Hollywood Bowl since 2007
>> you've heard sound reinforcement, it's getting better all the time and is
>> probably why the Bowl and the new dome have been getting rave reviews. The
>> sound reinforcement has been going on for a long time. Check out the
>> following links:
>> http://livedesignonline.com/theatre/hollywood_bowl_refines_sound_with...and
>> go to Wikipedia to read their brief history of the bowl and its acoustics.
>> I never knew that Lloyd Wright had designed not one but 2 domes for the
>> Bowl.
>
> have been to two of them. It may very well be better than it was
> before but by the standards of live classical music in proper concert
> halls without sound reinforcement the sound is still horrible. Anyone
> giving the sound a rave review in that context is not to be trusted in
> any matters of sound quality.
>

Well, when I was last there in the sixties, I thought that the Frank
LLoyd Wright shell and the 'Bowl was excellent acoustically.

Frankly, I would not attend a 'Bowl concert where I knew SR was being
employed. I'd rather listen to a broadcast of the concert over my
stereo system, then to go to a live one where I'm forced to listen to
PA speakers. I know that my speakers are much better than any PA
speakers, and frankly, if I'm going to have to listen to speakers, I'd
just as soon listen to my own in the comfort of my own living room.
In my humble opinion, SR is not what the live music experience is all
about!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:51:19 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>> OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
>>> performances were created in the studio where they were recorded,
>>
>> Obviously only true of studio recordings.

>> Rock and pop groups still give regular live performances, and still
>> distribute recordings of those live performances.

> Who said they didn't? And those concerts sound just like the studio
> recordings except with the added audience response.

????

When a musical group plays for an audience, the presence of the audience
generally affects the playing. Musicans say this often.

The presence of an audience in a room changes its acoustics, often quite
dramatically.

There is really no way to duplicate what the audience hears in a recording.

> They have to be that way.

Not in this universe.

> The audience attends the concert to see and hear their favorite bands play
> their favorite music and this music MUST sound to the live audience like
> it
> does on the recordings the fans bought of that music.

Mission impossible!

>>> and essentially only exist as an electronic waveform.

>> The same can be said of even minimal-miced orchestral performances.

> That's wrong. Orchestral performances can exist without microphones,
> without
> SR and indeed without electricity.

You've missed the point. The acoustical performance does indeed exist as a
sound field, but that is not the same sound as exists on any recording of
it.

Therefore, the difference between recordings of popular recordings that you
claim does not exist, since both only exist as electronic waveforms.


> Whatever a recording engineer/producer does with microphones is completely
> after the fact and irrelevant to the music making.

This of course depends on whether or not the musicans are using monitor
speakers or earphones.

> OTOH, rock performances don't exist at all without these things.

Ignores the existence of rock recordings and performances that are
"unplugged".

> Solid body electric guitars make almost no sound without their
> amplifier/speakers.

Instead of treating electronic instruments like they are alien objects,
consider the amplifier/speakers to be like the sounding board of a piano.
That is indeed their purpose and function. This can be independent of
whether or not the performance is being recorded or not.

> Fender Rhodes pianos (and
> other electronic keyboards) make, essentially NO sound without their
> amps/speakers.

Again, a mountain seems to being made over a small molehill related to the
construction of the instrument.

> Rock vocalists need a microphone to do what they do and the
> performance, the way the audience hears it, does not even exist outside of
> the mixing console.

In fact many rock musicans have robust voices and can perform unplugged.
OYOH, I've been at a number of nominally classical performances where the
vocalists used amplification.

> That's why, when on tour, rock groups have to take their mixing consoles
> with them.

In fact there are any number of rock and other popular music groups that
play small venues and have no centralized mixing facility at all. Jazz and
folk singing groups come to mind.

> The difference here, is that instead of the "mix"
> going to a recorder, it goes to SR amps and speakers. That way, the
> audience
> hears their favorite band playing their favorite songs in a way that
> sounds
> just like the recordings of those songs.

The degree to which groups are concerned that they sound just like their
recordings varies greatly. Most of the groups I've worked with are more
interested in just sounding good.

> IOW, I don't get your point.

That appears to be due to a lot of false information and biased
interpretation of correct information.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

> Well, the best we can say is that a 4" driver probably cannot be optimized
> for high frequencies and midrange-bass frequencies at the same time. One
> thing. If you go to Bose's website and open the PDF of the owner's manual,
> there is a page near the back with specifications. They give distortion
> figures, and maximum loudness plus the eq range of the active equalizer
> that
> comes with the speakers, but NOWHERE in those specs do they even hint-at
> frequency response. Checking the rest of the website, nowhere does it
> mention, hint-at , or discuss frequency response in any way. I have to ask
> myself why?

I think I can handle that.

Bose 901s do not have a simple "frequency response." They are an active
equalized, direct/reflecting speaker whose response depends on the room they
are in, the equalizer settings, and your distance from them to a certain
extent.

Do you remember back in the early years when Bose was on a singular mission
to downplay specs as the way to compare hi fi equipment. The reason is that
companies were listing a specsmanship war on measurements that had nothing
to do with audibility. They knew from double blind testing that most of
these specs were inaudible and so refused to publish specs on their
electronics. I haven't looked in lately on whether they have specs for their
pro line of speakers, such as the tall thin towers with sub that almost all
of the DJs have now.

So how do you measure a 901. I just do it in my listening position, moving
the microphone around as the pink noise plays, but I almost always adjust
things by ear anyway. That's all that matters.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 10:04:59 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Well, the best we can say is that a 4" driver probably cannot be optimized
>> for high frequencies and midrange-bass frequencies at the same time. One
>> thing. If you go to Bose's website and open the PDF of the owner's manual,
>> there is a page near the back with specifications. They give distortion
>> figures, and maximum loudness plus the eq range of the active equalizer
>> that
>> comes with the speakers, but NOWHERE in those specs do they even hint-at
>> frequency response. Checking the rest of the website, nowhere does it
>> mention, hint-at , or discuss frequency response in any way. I have to ask
>> myself why?
>
> I think I can handle that.
>
> Bose 901s do not have a simple "frequency response." They are an active
> equalized, direct/reflecting speaker whose response depends on the room they
> are in, the equalizer settings, and your distance from them to a certain
> extent.

They could still spec' the thing in an "optimum room" or at least give the
limits in an optimum room. that CAN be measured, you know.
>
> Do you remember back in the early years when Bose was on a singular mission
> to downplay specs as the way to compare hi fi equipment. The reason is that
> companies were listing a specsmanship war on measurements that had nothing
> to do with audibility. They knew from double blind testing that most of
> these specs were inaudible and so refused to publish specs on their
> electronics. I haven't looked in lately on whether they have specs for their
> pro line of speakers, such as the tall thin towers with sub that almost all
> of the DJs have now.
>
> So how do you measure a 901. I just do it in my listening position, moving
> the microphone around as the pink noise plays, but I almost always adjust
> things by ear anyway. That's all that matters.

I agree, but some baseline is necessary in my humble opinion and I've always
thought that Bose 901s NEEDED a tweeter (and this is just by listening with
my ears, I've never actually measured a pair. OTOH, they certainly are
inexpensive to buy new. $1300 for a pair of speaker systems is a pretty good
price these days.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:40:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:51:19 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> OTOH, you are correct about rock and some other forms of pop. These
>>>> performances were created in the studio where they were recorded,
>>>
>>> Obviously only true of studio recordings.
>
>>> Rock and pop groups still give regular live performances, and still
>>> distribute recordings of those live performances.
>
>> Who said they didn't? And those concerts sound just like the studio
>> recordings except with the added audience response.
>
> ????
>
> When a musical group plays for an audience, the presence of the audience
> generally affects the playing. Musicans say this often.
>
> The presence of an audience in a room changes its acoustics, often quite
> dramatically.
>
> There is really no way to duplicate what the audience hears in a recording.
>
>> They have to be that way.
>
> Not in this universe.
>
>> The audience attends the concert to see and hear their favorite bands play
>> their favorite music and this music MUST sound to the live audience like
>> it
>> does on the recordings the fans bought of that music.
>
> Mission impossible!

Methinks you're picking nits again. Of course, each live performance is
different, but it's close enough to the recording to get an instant response
of recognition from the audience. They don't often change the style and
substance of the performance so that it sounds different from the recording
on purpose. Generally, it's the same songs played the same way. The fact that
it's SLIGHTLY different each time they play it is neither here nor there.
>
>>>> and essentially only exist as an electronic waveform.
>
>>> The same can be said of even minimal-miced orchestral performances.
>
>> That's wrong. Orchestral performances can exist without microphones,
>> without
>> SR and indeed without electricity.
>
> You've missed the point. The acoustical performance does indeed exist as a
> sound field, but that is not the same sound as exists on any recording of
> it.
>
> Therefore, the difference between recordings of popular recordings that you
> claim does not exist, since both only exist as electronic waveforms.

I'm still missing your point, or you're missing mine, whatever. My point is
simply that without SR, most pop performances simply cannot exist. Just as in
the studio, where the pop performance is assembled into a whole entity for
the first time, any concert by those same musicians must have the studio with
them in order to assemble the sounds of a bunch of electronic instruments
(electric solid-body guitars, electronic keyboards, etc.) into a mix that can
be played over the PA system in order to "realize" the performance for a
large crowd.

Heck, many pop singers have the accompanying back-up musicians recorded in
New York or Nashville, and the vocal tracks laid down in Los Angeles (or
vice-versa) Those recorded performances absolutely don't exist outside of the
mixing console.
>
>
>> Whatever a recording engineer/producer does with microphones is completely
>> after the fact and irrelevant to the music making.
>
> This of course depends on whether or not the musicans are using monitor
> speakers or earphones.
>
>> OTOH, rock performances don't exist at all without these things.
>
> Ignores the existence of rock recordings and performances that are
> "unplugged".

Yes, it does ignore "unplugged" performances, because I'm not talking about
those.
>
>> Solid body electric guitars make almost no sound without their
>> amplifier/speakers.
>
> Instead of treating electronic instruments like they are alien objects,
> consider the amplifier/speakers to be like the sounding board of a piano.
> That is indeed their purpose and function. This can be independent of
> whether or not the performance is being recorded or not.

It's the whole point here. Without a source of electricity, the performances
don't exist.
>
>> Fender Rhodes pianos (and
>> other electronic keyboards) make, essentially NO sound without their
>> amps/speakers.
>
> Again, a mountain seems to being made over a small molehill related to the
> construction of the instrument.

Not a molehill just the plain facts. most rock performances can't exist
without electricity. Indeed, many don't exist without electronic flangers,
wah-wah boxes, fuzz boxes, vocorders, artificial reverb and many other
electronic "effects" that have to accompany the group when they are on the
road. I'm not attempting to denigrate this musical forms, just point out that
they need SR merely to produce a performance, where a symphony orchestra or
other purely acoustical ensemble (such as a jazz "big-band") does not.
>
>> Rock vocalists need a microphone to do what they do and the
>> performance, the way the audience hears it, does not even exist outside of
>> the mixing console.
>
> In fact many rock musicans have robust voices and can perform unplugged.
> OYOH, I've been at a number of nominally classical performances where the
> vocalists used amplification.

But they don't need it to produce their "signature sound" the way many rock
vocalists do. I'm talking about the difference here between NEEDING SR to
produce a performance and USING SR to make a and existing performance more
audible to a large group of people. It's a totally different philosophy of
sound reenforcement.
>
>> That's why, when on tour, rock groups have to take their mixing consoles
>> with them.
>
> In fact there are any number of rock and other popular music groups that
> play small venues and have no centralized mixing facility at all. Jazz and
> folk singing groups come to mind.

Don't you think I know that? Don't you think EVERYBODY knows that? Why even
bring up exceptions to the discussion at hand? There are exceptions to be
cited for everything. This isn't a debate between pop and classical (at least
it isn't from my point of view), this is a debate about musical performances
that require REQUIRE SR to produce vs musical performances that only need SR
to amplify. Folk and jazz generally fall in the latter category along with
symphony orchestra concerts.

>> The difference here, is that instead of the "mix"
>> going to a recorder, it goes to SR amps and speakers. That way, the
>> audience
>> hears their favorite band playing their favorite songs in a way that
>> sounds
>> just like the recordings of those songs.
>
> The degree to which groups are concerned that they sound just like their
> recordings varies greatly. Most of the groups I've worked with are more
> interested in just sounding good.
>
>> IOW, I don't get your point.
>
> That appears to be due to a lot of false information and biased
> interpretation of correct information.

If that is true, then this false information, nit-picking the argument and
basic obfuscation as a ploy to win arguments seems to be coming from other
than myself. Someone in this discussion has missed their calling. They should
have been a politician!

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Scott > wrote:>

> have been to two of them. It may very well be better than it was
> before but by the standards of live classical music in proper concert
> halls without sound reinforcement the sound is still horrible. Anyone
> giving the sound a rave review in that context is not to be trusted in
> any matters of sound quality.

It IS much better than before, but it does sound amplified. I doubt
that, anyone would say that it's as natural as unamplified. It REALLY
is better from the players' perspective. Day and night.

I'm in agreement with you about amplification and classical music.
Venues like the HB have to be taken for what they are: a nice summer
evening out with well-performed music, a picnic, etc. It's not for
outstanding classical sound.

For day-to-day listening, the only electronic manipulation that works
(in my view, where it is needed) is the MeyerSound Constellation system,
with which I'm very familiar.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com