[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 a 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