Archive through July 05, 2005
|
Bronze Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 25 Registered: Jun-05 | The Vienna Accoustics Struass |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 520 Registered: May-05 | These SDAT SB639 D, will someone place a picture of it hear for all to see without a link lets see them..... |
|
Bronze Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 26 Registered: Jun-05 | It really takes aspeaker that comftably play at 30 htz to play a grand piano with all its glory. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2054 Registered: Aug-04 | To answer your last question Jan - I have said it before: the B&W 602's. Yeah, that's right, the ones with the dimpled flowports you're so fond of. Since I've had them, piano's have never sounded so "in the room' but they maybe get a little help from the Krakatoa sub since they are crossed over at 80 hz! The same applies to many other instruments also, but the Yamaha grand in Monty Alexander's SACD "My America" just sings. |
|
Bronze Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 29 Registered: Jun-05 | Yeah the 602s have impressive scale for a bookshelf,so owns them? |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 522 Registered: May-05 | Yeah I listen, I might as well sick the ear plugs in the ear defenders on and play a 20Hz sine wave very loud on the JBL 4645 THX professional until the widow cracks, or the roof tiles start giving away and dropping off one by one....... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3291 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Since most speakers will allow a reasonable amount of distinction between speaker model A and speaker model B, or between a guitar played with distortion, overdrive and wah-wah pedal and a guitart that is not played with distortion, etc., don't you think that still leaves a wide swath of components to wade through? Yes, it does. I am just trying to argue that we can, in principle, distinguish between speakers even if we have never heard the real sound they reproduce. I suggest that some recent posts are a concerted attempt to terminate the discussion on this thread. The confrontation is contrived; there was no reason for it. Is there another explanation? Andy, I wondered, too. Never heard of them. From Google:- http://www.sdatgroup.com/ http://shop.store.yahoo.com/buyessex/mixsonicusa.html I cannot find that precise model, however. I am now quite undecided whether the posters were serious, or this is part of the ruse. "Anonymous" is a problem in trying to decide whether people are in earnest. "Unregistered" is another one. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 533 Registered: May-05 | The home cinema range was a joke, if I tested them out with Apollo 13 dts THX laserdisc they will be resting in a shallow 2xW 4xL 2xH.....RIP.... And like "John Allen president of HPS -4000" said if you can pick it up it's too small.... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4297 Registered: May-04 | "I am just trying to argue that we can, in principle, distinguish between speakers even if we have never heard the real sound they reproduce." Then you have speaker A and speaker B and you can distinguish between those two speakers. Nobody will argue that, John. But what are you using as a basis for your decision? And of what relevance is it to what music sounds like? The teenagers driving by in their cars that rattle windows and scare cats think they picked the better speaker; but what they own has nothing to do with music. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 549 Registered: May-05 | A&B testing is a very good idea and I know what your saying about that issue, haven't done that in awhile though there are practical ways to analyse the sound with the use of electronic equipment, to monitor the frequency response and range RTA and graphs on paper if this will help to the individuals requiring this type of information. But I like to do a crude experiment, buy recording my own sounds of smashing a glass bottle against a wall, alone with taking notes of the "Real Event" then mixing it down on the pc and playing it back over the JBL control 5 studio monitors. Question is do, I really what to play it again "Sam" and at the same sensitivity, god knows what the neighbours will think? To them it will sound like some one is smashing glass bottles in there studio flat aty close to +90dbA weighting, Jan it's a question of science? |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 171 Registered: May-05 | Andy - Hallo There!!! I have to admit - That's a great idea!!! The only problem I see is if your recording stuff isn't very accurate. I think I'll go to a shooting range and record people shooting, then blare it in my apartment, along with some screaming. This will be the ultimate test of how accurate my gear is. If you don't hear from me for a while, I've been locked up. At least I'll know my stereo is very accurate though. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 550 Registered: May-05 | Good one Stu, that didn't cross my mind and I have to say that will be a challenging recording, though in the UK gun regulations are very tight, due to some incidents, firearms or weaponry sounds will be very loud and sudden the techniques to record all that with accurate detail without getting the popping sound from it. And there are firing ranges dame, I cant spell the word, tank ranges KABOOM, to get permission from the "home office", or the "ministry of defence" and the word from "Bovington" to go there and record tanks and firing of weapons, will be grand.... http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/home.html |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 23 Registered: Jun-05 | I have always used my own personal live recordings for speaker evaluation - not exclusively, but as part of the process. I will use live music that I have recorded from my listening position. I know very well the differences in sound between the different mic capsules used (w/ my Nakamichi mics) as well as the different sounds from a set of binaural microphones. While it is never a perfect representation of the original, the better speakers can give me the feeling of being there when the music was recorded - from the position of the instruments on stage to the drunk jack@ss blathering to my right. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Cousin_itPost Number: 11 Registered: May-05 | I use live recordings too. I usually bring along a MiniDisc to check my performances with bands that I play with around town, but they ended up working as good references when checking speakers. I know what the music sounded like going down, and I'm very familiar with the rooms the recordings were made in (from both player and audience perspective). |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 552 Registered: May-05 | Does any one or you guys Ziggy, Cousin, use DAT Digital Audio Tape, as I have heard some production recording mixers using this for dialogue capture and other sounds as well and yes, Mini-Disc, is a good medium though if I can pick any of these up for a reasonable price second-hand though, along with dame good Mic, I'll get a new sound card for the crummy pc I'm using load up the Cubase VST 320 5.1 and do some mixing firstly for fan and experience of work hours, I haven't used the Cubase in over a year now, and yes the version I have is out of date I do buy a magazine called "Sound on Sound" July issue which I have and haven't read it though yet, oh well when I get the time. Because I'm always talking to you guys.... |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 24 Registered: Jun-05 | I use DAT for recording (an old Sony TCD-D7) and playback at home (Tascam DA-20). However, for auditioning speakers in a store, I transfer to CD via a digital connection into an Echo MIA sound card, and resample from 16-bit/48kHz to 16/44.1 with CoolEdit Pro 2.1. |
|
Bronze Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 58 Registered: Jun-05 | John A its true about the SDAT SB-639d it really is Quite amazing beleive me i buy more speakers than socks.A incredible bargain buy any measures. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 512 Registered: Mar-05 | How about this. When you guys go out to audition speakers how many times do you listen to them? Once for a long time, a few times with different speakers, or come back to that store and go to others stores?? If you went to a stereo shop and listened to a "better" pair of speakers than you owned at home they would sound really good. If you stayed at the store and spent a few hours going around and listened to different speakers, I bet you that your choice setup would change in the few hours that you were auditioning. One thing that I look for when I go dream shopping, that is when I cannot afford the $40,000 price tag on the two channel setup but I listen and audition anyway, is neutrality and defined space. By defined space I mean that when I turn the volume up I expect the music to go from a small space to a large space, not large to begin with and just get louder. These attributes I have only heard on high end setups. Maybe one day. I just know that I would like to have a 1st order speaker setup like these : http://www.meadowlarkaudio.com/bh2.htm, Mcintosh amp, pre, tuner, and rega p5 table . Ahh a man can dream can't he. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 556 Registered: May-05 | No, I had millions with interest on the capital in the bank yes, but as to your hard earns of over 5 years to blow $40.000 wow I can buy a second hand "Cinemeccanica" "victory" V 35mm projector "Dolby" CP-65 maybe an old dts model that on two pairs of loudspeakers. I understand that the development and the use of a "CAD" Computer aided design, program to design all this and is that a real tree I have stuck in the corners of the room? Musical instruments can cost up to a few million "stradavious" violins, wow .... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3297 Registered: Dec-03 | Tawaun, Thanks! joseph, For my part, I recently bought a pair of speakers I had wished to own for about 25 years. I bought them second hand. They have kept their resale price, but inflation and other things brought them just into "Affordable" and out of "Hopeless". You might find the components you mention become affordable if you are willing to go this route! Jan would endorse your short-list, I think! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4310 Registered: May-04 | I really can't add anything to your question, joseph, since every speaker I've owned over the last thirty years has been a speaker I've also been selling. So I got to audition them many, many times with many different combinations of equipment. Until recently every shop I worked at allowed the salespeople to borrow equipment to listen to at home. This gave a much clearer idea of what the component sounded like when I could hear it with my equipment just as it would you if you borrowed a product for a weekend. The last shop I worked for, however, had a different approach to how the salespeople learned about the equipment. Though we sold reasonably high end product the shop was geared toward home theater. The product would go out on the shelf and the box and owner's manual would immediately be placed in the warehouse across town. No one was allowed to borrow anything. No file cabinet with manuals for reference. The salespeople had to figure out the operation of the product by working the controls blind. Try that with a top of the line Sony ES receiver with 96 multiple function buttons on the remote. Even when a client wanted to know how a product worked, the salespeople were dumb to most of the operations. This is yet another welcome deviation in the selling of audio brought about by home theater. Next time you go shopping ask the salesperson if you could see the owner's manual. If they tell you it's not possible, you might want to reconsider where you want to shop. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4311 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - I'm quite confused about your concept of "defined space". If I understand correctly, you are expecting the soundstage to grow in size dimensionally as the volume increases. I find this rather counter-intuitive as the musicians do not change position as they play louder or more quietly. I have long considered the ability of a system to remain stable in all aspects of reproduction regardless of volume the more desirable quality of a system. Can you tell me more about how your concept applies to your experiences both with audio and live music? Also, not quite certain what you mean here: " If you stayed at the store and spent a few hours going around and listened to different speakers, I bet you that your choice setup would change in the few hours that you were auditioning." Are you talking about speakers only or the entire system? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4312 Registered: May-04 | Ashley - You've a tree inside your house? |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 615 Registered: Sep-04 | Joseph, Yes you would have to dream since Meadowlark have gone bust recently I believe! Andy, Checking that breaking glass sounds like breaking glass is all well and good but it doesn't show you how musical the system or compenent is. Accuracy is a fine aim to have in the design of any compnent but in the end it has to be tested against a musical event (be it a recording, live studio, whatever) in order to ensure that the musical message isn't lost, which happens all too often. It's a question of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 213 Registered: Dec-03 | " No one was allowed to borrow anything. No file cabinet with manuals for reference. The salespeople had to figure out the operation of the product by working the controls blind." This is what happens when MBAs, not Audio people, take over. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 515 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, as to the first part of your question, what I mean with defined space is say for example you listen to an orchestral piece. When the music is small, that is when only one or two instruments are being played at a low level, I want the sound to come from a smaller "area" than if all of the instruments are going full bore. When the width of a soundstage does not change with the intensity of content, in my opinion, it is not as beleivable. The "changing space" has been my personal experince listening to the high end setups and really pulls me in, more so that multichannel recordings. As to the second part of the question, speakers only. If I stay long enough in a store, it seems that my ears stop listening to differences in speakers and start listening to differences in the way I hear the music. Is it pleasing, does it pull me in, do I feel sleepy(which for me is a good thing), do I get lost, and most importantly, does the store disappear. When I auditioned those Bohlenders, I was listening to monitor audio towers for a long time before I heard the bohlenders. The towers sounded great especially because I have JBL's at home(sorry Andy) and they were quite a jump from my stuff. When I listened to the BG's next, at first I was not impressed, they sounded flat. What I realized is that the monitors sounded better than my JBL's because they had more midrange definition and clean high end not as bright as the jbl's. When I started to sit back and listen to the Bohlenders, the "flatness" I had heard was actually a more neutral sound than the monitors, this I was not used to and caught me off guard at first. The more I listened, the more I loved them. I did not go in that store intent on buying something, I came out intent on having those speakers. So my point is that when a speaker may catch our attention for whatever details pull us in, it may not be the details that are best pulling us in and only to a trained ear like yours Jan or maybe Art's would a good neutral speaker actually "stand out" as it were. Ashley lives in a tree house, with a three matched jbl's. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4313 Registered: May-04 | It is a hard sell, but for decades the advice many audio salespeople have given is buy the product that impresses you the least. For the most part, you will tire of being "impressed" constantly. And soon you will begin to notice what the impressive qualities are hiding or masking. That "clarity" in the midrange will become a hump in the response curve which will make all instruments sound the same and all vocalists will become tenors. It is a function of how audio products are typically sold that leads many manufacturers down this path. And it is by no means restricted to the lower priced products. Salespeople and reviewers rave endlessly about speakers which cost as much as a small car and which have 12dB shifts in their response curves. So what are they hearing? Some other quality or the sound of the cash register? It is by far an easier sell to have a speaker jump off the shelf. It is by far a more difficult process to draw the listener into the music rather than how different the new speakers sound from what the buyer already owns. This process is repeated with televisions as they are most often designed to be the brightest with the most saturated reds and yellows. As home theater has become more and more dominant in the industry, the desire for the unimpressive speaker has diminished further. Who wants those multiple thermonuclear explosions in Gamma-Gamma 7 to be unimpressive? It falls down the list of oft used phrases with my clients, but "buy what doesn't impress" you is still in the top ten. You will more often than not find the music is what's important and not the hifi if you follow that advice. This then leads to another direction this can take; what sells and what do you buy. With the hundreds of speaker manufacturers, each producing multiple designs, in the market right now, each sounding at least somewhat unlike the next, the consumer has tremendous amounts of choices in the sound they desire. (I believe I recently counted 36 speaker models in the PSB line. Why would you need this many models if they are all acurate?) Does this proliferation of designs indicate it is easier to make a good speaker or easier to make a bad speaker? Or just that it is easier to sell a bad speaker? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 215 Registered: Dec-03 | "Salespeople and reviewers rave endlessly about speakers which cost as much as a small car and which have 12dB shifts in their response curves. So what are they hearing? Some other quality or the sound of the cash register?" It's very frustrating to someone like me who strives to create a quality product at a bargain price to be "outshouted" by an inferior product selling for 3 times as much. To add insult to injury the reviewers even post the FR graph with the obvious flaw glaring from the mid-range yet continue to rave about how great it is. It's a reality I've accepted but I don't have to like it. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3303 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with these last posts, and also see more clearly why Jan returns to questions such as "Do you listen?" and "What is it you wish your system to do?". These must be a constant puzzle to an intelligent, professional, audio sales person who wishes to help the customer. Then I also think I can understand the baleful eye Jan casts at home theater and surround sound. The adverse reaction to Jan's questions, occasionally, may be signs of people wishing to defend pre-conceived but confused ideas, and who get angry at about there being not simple, single solution to vague and undefined desires, different parts of which can be contradict each other. Perhaps it just has to be said clearly that you cannot have accurate rendition of music and "multiple thermonuclear explosions in Gamma-Gamma 7" in the same system - "Sorry; that's just how it is". If another sales guy, from a competing dealer promises, falsely, you can have both, I don't know what you do. Yes, it is these MBAs, Timn8er. For them, all that matters is to show a short-term profit, regardless of the long-term satisfaction of the customer with his or her purchase. The modern business strategy seems to be that when sales fall because enough people have come to know that the product or dealership is rubbish, you just change the name, and carry on as before. When we add in the trend to planned obsolescence, built-in consumer dissatisfaction, and false promises about technical progress, we have a recipe for waste, corruption, and environmental damage, it seems to me. Also, no-one is happy! Sorry, end of rant. No, maybe I should "come out" and answer the question in the title of the thread. Do you listen? "Yes". If someone says "No; not interested", I should be inclined to respond with "Well you bl_ody well should. You owe it to yourself. It will sort your ideas out, for a start - and if you are not bothered with music, what do you want speakers for, in the first place......?" Fortunately I do not have to work in HiFi/AV sales! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4316 Registered: May-04 | Forunately! Though that's the impression so many people have of high end audio "salons", isn't it? I can't begin to count the number of customers (not clients) who said they didn't have time for questions, just turn on some speakers. Whether they bought from me or not (which they usually didn't), I am certain they got the sound they deserved. It mattered not since most people do not sit down to listen to music and use it as wallpaper only. I'm still interested in the question; "what are they hearing?" These speakers sell; and often sell in great quantities. Even in the audiophile community where you would assume a speaker should require a slightly higher pedigree and a slightly more stringent dedication to fidelity. Obviously there is more to a speaker than just flat frequency response. Any speaker which measures flat in an anechoic chamber can still be on a roller coaster in terms of frequency response once it is placed in the average undamped listening room. So frequency response by itself plays only a small portion of what makes a speaker sellable. What, therefore, is it that makes a speaker sell? No need to bring up products like Bose or Polk. We know why they sell and I've never encountered a customer who listened to live music in the last fifty years who owned Bose. There's another thread running now which asks "what's your favorite speaker?" There doesn't appear to be much consensus as to how speakers should sound. I wouldn't have expected there to be much in the first place. I don't want to step on anyone else's thread; so maybe I should ask the question of what makes a speaker desirable? Earlier in this thread a response was given which stated; "I listen for accuracy, coloration, bass response and an overall sound that is pleasing to me." I would think the first two adjectives are mutually exclusive though inevitable to some extent in a high end speaker. Bass response remains probably the single most difficult quality of a speaker to predict what will be perceived as "good bass response". So what then is "an overall sound that is pleasing to me"? We've discussed emotions and buying what makes one smile. Is this "pleasing" quality the nebulous intangible that accounts for the multitude of speaker designs on the market? Or is it something else entirely? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2074 Registered: Aug-04 | Listening to various speakers in audio stores where I live is really a useless exercise. Not one has what I would call a decent room set up for that purpose. I was fortunate to purchase my speakers with the promise of a full refund if I wasn't pleased them. So, "what an overall sound that is pleasing to me" is best descibed by saying my speakers, in concert with my amplification and source, provide an overall sound that is pleasing to me. I could use that wonderful audio terminology like accuracy, decent bass response, excellent imaging, clear, crisp highs and a wonderful midrange, to best descibe what I listened for in my decision process, but really, it was the dimpled flowports that swung me. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4320 Registered: May-04 | And well they should! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3308 Registered: Dec-03 | Fidelity; that's the thing. Thanks for the tip, Jan. I cross "HiFi salesman" off my list, then. Still not sure what to do when I grow up. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3309 Registered: Dec-03 | By the way, another thread, relevant to this one, with recycled "Old Dog" points from me:- What Defines a "Reference" Loudspeaker? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4326 Registered: May-04 | Good points you make in the post on that thread, John. I saw that article and blew it off as just so much more advertising from another speaker company that wants to sell "reference monitor" speakers that aren't. I came across an article quite a long time ago from the BBC folks (I think) with a title something like "The makings of a monitor loudspeaker". It was more interesting because it discussed what the authors felt was needed both in concrete terms and in the abstract to make a monitor quality speaker. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4327 Registered: May-04 | John - Have you considered growing up to be a good speaker? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3312 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Jan. I do a bit of that. Modesty forbids etc. Just listening to Madonna. Intro by Geldof, plus beautiful young Ethiopian lady. Moving, actually. I conclude that every act, from whereever in the world, has to work in the word "F---ing". Just to grab attention, I guess. Not sure I am ready for that. Still. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2078 Registered: Aug-04 | "I conclude that every act, from whereever in the world, has to work in the word "F---ing". Just to grab attention" Imagine how the word "the" feels now that it has lost first place. F---ing people f---ing never f---ing fail to f---ing cease me when f---ing using the "F" word for every f---ing second f---ing word in a f---ing sentence! But then, what good is decency today? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2079 Registered: Aug-04 | Sorry for going off topic - John brought up an item that 'gets my blood going" Thanks John, I needed that. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3314 Registered: Dec-03 | It wasn't all of them, MR. It's not an issue, really. Last two bands in London were clean as far as I could determine. They didn't need to shock: The Who and Pink Floyd.... Extraordinary. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2080 Registered: Aug-04 | It's not just the bands/artists on Live8, (even though you concluded "every act from wherever) John - it seems it's almost everyone everywhere. "They didn't need to shock: The Who and Pink Floyd...." They've been there - done that LOL! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 133 Registered: May-05 | Hello again all and Jan too, "What do I listen for in a speaker?" It seems we kinda come full circle because I'm not sure how I describe it, it's like obscenity, I know it when I hear it. But, the answer goes back to your original question, Jan. I try to find speakers that recreate what my memory tells me is the music that I've heard before. Does a piano sound like a piano, now I can't tell the difference between a Yamaha grand and someone else's grand ALTHOUGH if I were to sit and listen to them for awhile, I probably could. The problem would be taking that sound and "remembering" it long enough to find the "right" recollection of that sound in my speakers. Since we really don't "hear" all that well and we're limited by our ears' sensitivity and our mind's processing of the sound, I listen to see if the speaker interprets what I believe is the correct expression of voice, instrument and tonal quality. That's why speaker A may sound better to me than speaker B while you see entirely differently. Now, I'm not out listening to $5000 or $10,000 speakers every day and I'm limited by what I've listened to in the past, I believe my old A-L Stonehenge IIs were pretty dang accurate. Yet, they've needed new cones for 10 years so they sit in the closet. Recone them and I may find they're not to my liking anymore or not nearly as accurate as I recall. After all, they blew their cones playing loud, rock music for way too many years. Anyway, I weighed in again, not so much with a new concept, but rather, an extension and explanation of my prior comments. Thanks for keeping the string interesting, guys. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4338 Registered: May-04 | David - I'm not discounting your experience or opinion, but most speakers of reasonable quality can recreate the sound of a piano to be recognizable as a piano. Or not! This falls into the middle of what Rick and John had brought to the discussion. John's concept of "speakers which allow you to hear differences and those that do not" gives virtually every speaker over $1.50 the power to recreate a piano to sound reasonably like a piano. On the other hand, Rick's desire to understand why so many speakers fail at identifying what a piano really sounds like presents the other side of the coin. And that does bring us back full circle to the original question; do you listen to live music? Which really amounts to how discriminating are you or, more to the point, how do you discriminate between the speaker that simply lets you identify a piano and the speaker that excels at recreating not only a piano but distinct pianos. Sound too snobbish for most of you? Consider that many musicians use speakers and electronics that we on this forum would recommend replacing. I've been to the home of a symphony conductor who had a Pioneer rack system; and have sold low priced equipment to musicians who found everything they needed to hear. Is there a disconnect between what audiophiles listen for and what musicians listen for? If so, why? Do any of you have friends who are musicians who listen to your system? If so, what's their reaction? Shouldn't these be the people who do know what a Yamaha piano sounds like vs. a Steinway? These are people who are constantly around the sound of instruments. These are people who make the decisions as to which instrument that will choose to play. Wouldn't you think they would insist on the best equipment to play back what they hear? Certainly some musicians do have excellent systems. And just as certainly, the pay scale of most musicians doesn't allow the extravagance of high end audio. So then the question becomes what makes the difference between components which we consider "sufficiently good"? Yes, obviously our budget is the final determinant. But, what within that budget is going to make you say "that sounds like a piano"? What expectations are you looking to fulfill as you go out to improve your system? And how do you decide you have met those expectations or have reached the highest level of realization your budget will allow? |
|
Bronze Member Username: SubiedriverPost Number: 24 Registered: Apr-05 | One of our friends is a professional cellist, Ph.D. from Juilliard, performs with orchestras and is a professor of music at a college in NY. Her home stereo is a boombox. As for my setup -- Audio Refinement with B&W speakers -- she does not seem terribly interested. Another relative is a professional jazz pianist and recording engineer in NYC who makes his living with music. Not sure what he's got in his apartment in Manhattan but at the weekend house he's got some old Japanese stuff and a pair of no name speakers, also about 20+ years old by the looks of them. Last fall he asked my mother-in-law if he could take away an old pair of Radio Shack speakers from her basement sewing room. My impression is that a lot of pro musicians don't give a darn about hi-fi. Or maybe they just think it's ridiculous to spend huge amounts of money on it. Not to mention the time. |
|
Bronze Member Username: KaramPost Number: 69 Registered: May-05 | Just on that note i have, well my dad has 20+ yr old speakers and amp. The company was NEC, yes they used to make speakers he got them then at £100 pounds a speaker and amp was 3-400 pounds in those days that was top of the range. They were so old the woofers sponge bit needed replacing so that was done a few years back. but what i am tying to say is that, he got the speakers because he wanted something that could replicate the real thing, but i know that u can't the get exact same audio as the real thing. those speaker are still to my ear better than any other i have herd. the system was called the authentic series the model number of the amp is : A820E the model number of the speakers is : S637E if any body has herd of them let me know. even if you do a search of them on google u dont get anything. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 135 Registered: May-05 | Jan, It's OK, I know you're not discounting my experience or opinion. I've got 50 years experience BUT not much with high end hi fi. That said, I've still got a bunch of opinions. My point was I cannot hear the difference between a Steinway, a Yamaha or a Baldwin, from memory. I'm certain that some people can and I am certain you're right that they select their instruments because of their unique sound and the mood or type of music that they will be playing. Yes, you're correct that a cheap speaker can reproduce something that I can identify as a piano. BUT, can it reproduce the sound I recall as the piano I heard at their concert or the voice that I heard at that concert, club or someone's audiophile system. It's always going to be about comparing it to some standard and my only point is that you are going to compare to your standard and I will compare to mine. "But, what within that budget is going to make you say "that sounds like a piano"? What expectations are you looking to fulfill as you go out to improve your system? And how do you decide you have met those expectations or have reached the highest level of realization your budget will allow?" Now, that's a question I like better. I felt like my old Denon 5 channel AVR receiver had outlived its usefulness as a 5 channel receiver. I liked Denon so I bought another Denon - not a bunch more watts per channel but a much better receiver. I might have been able to get a Marantz, HK, Yamaha or something similar for the price. BUT, once I got it home and hooked it up, it made, literally, 100% improvement in the sounds emanating from the system. Yes, it still sounded like a piano, but it was a cleaner, louder piano. (I still don't know if it's Yamaha, Steinway or Baldwin BUT I'm guessing it was a Steinway since the 1st album was Mozart.) Well, once I offered up my speakers for critique, I was "encouraged" by the fine members of this forum to look for something better. I could have spent double what I spent but after some looking, the improvement with what I purchased was probably another 100% from where I was. So, now I have what I feel is a very clear, clean, sound. I hear the piano better, it sounds more like what I relate to a piano recital. It's a more real sound. BUT, here's the rub, as they say across the water. I've only compared 10-15 speakers and only with 2 receiver/amps (and frankly I didn't ask what amp they were using in the shop at the time). So again, I'm buying what I bought because I've obtained an improvement in my system sound - based upon what I hear. Jan, you've probably heard 100s more components and speakers than I have. I cannot come close to your experience or knowledge of audio and that's OK. I could have listened to 100s more and I don't know if I could have done more for the same amount of money. This just brings me back to my original point. I got overload listening to 10-15 sets of speakers. Can I tell you exactly how they rendered piano compared to what I bought. NOT A CHANCE. BUT, I can tell you that what I bought is a better for me than what I listened to. Does that make sense? (Especially after I've rambled on now for awhile) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4352 Registered: May-04 | Thanks for the response, Dave. It's too late to say much tonight. I'll sleep on this and give some feedback in the morning. Glad to hear you are enjoying your new components. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4353 Registered: May-04 | Dave - Can you put into words what qualities you listened for when you where auditioning speakers? You've said the system is now very clear and clean. Are those your primary needs in a speaker/system? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4354 Registered: May-04 | Frank - Anything interesting happen in the shop over the weekend that relates to this thread? |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 75 Registered: Apr-05 | Timn8ter, ever think that maybe it's not ruler flat frequency response that makes a speaker "great"? Maybe, just maybe it's something else. Kinda like the low fat and no fat diet craze, yeah? Seems everyone in America is doing low carbs, low fat or no fat yet we are all getting fatter by the minute. Maybe it's not fat making us fat and maybe it's not flat response that makes a speaker great. 12db peaks and dips are minimal compared to what your room is doing to the sound. Maybe it's something else making one speaker sound better to our ears than another. Food for thought. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 76 Registered: Apr-05 | Hubert, musicians are very keenly aware of what sounds like the instrument they play when they listen to audio systems. They couldn't care less about cost. There is a reason musicians might prefer the sound of a factory car stereo or a boom box to a pair of B&W's, but it has nothing to do with not caring about sound nor the cost of the playback system. It has everything to do with the music....not the sound of the recording being played back. There is a difference. Does that make any sense? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 231 Registered: Dec-03 | "Timn8ter, ever think that maybe it's not ruler flat frequency response that makes a speaker "great"?" Perhaps you should take the time to ask about my design philosophies and my understanding of psycho-acoustics. A 12db+ swing in the mid-range is unacceptable. It may sound interesting or exciting at first but will become irritating after lived with for an extended period. I don't recall using the term "ruler flat". |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3328 Registered: Dec-03 | David, "It's always going to be about comparing it to some standard and my only point is that you are going to compare to your standard and I will compare to mine. " Jan and I, and others, have had serious disagreements on this: my view is that, if the standard is the original sound, then there is only one. It seems nice and tolerant to say "each to his own opinion" and that is correct in most circumstances. However, I think it is more important to realise that all humans have much the same sorts of hearing apparatus, including ears and brains, and are likely to agree on what most closely matches a single, original source of sound. If, that is, we are listening. We bring our different associations and preconception to everything we perceive, that is true, but, whatever we bring, we can still compare reproduced sound with the real thing. My view is that a "better" speaker will give always give a more faithful rendition of real sound; give a more convincing virtual piano, if you will. I also think that what is "more convincing" is subjective, but we can listen carefully, think, and compare. If we do, we are likely to agree. To this extent I am in favour of the idea of "Absolute" sound fidelity. Though we can never know it, we can all hear departures from accurate sound reproduction, can agree about them, and try to get rid of them. And agree about when we have been successful. So I am not a "relativist". Jan is, I think. He is right to be hostile to "absolutist" views and opinions. My view is that "relativism" is not the only alternative, and is equally harmful. This sort of discussion turns a lot of people off, I know. But it seems essential, to me, to be clear about what we mean. And it seems to me that Jan's original question leads this way. "What I happen to like best" is no good; otherwise we could just agree there is no real difference between speakers, and we might as well just revise our expectations and save a lot of money. Also, there would be nothing to discuss; no point in trying to communicate about our experiences. That is a very dangerous position. It is also wrong. That is my opinion. Best get back to specifics. I just wanted to say all that. |
|
Unregistered guest | This thread is most interesting. The choice of components is so personal. Why and how do you listen to music? To relax, excite, change your mood. I go to as many live performances as I can. High School choral group, musicals and of course the Band ( I'm A booster). College productions, professional anything. I love symphony, ballet. I love the energy! The emotional release. I wasn't given the gift to create that but I was given the gift of appreciation. When I am at home it's just me and the music. That's intimate. I don't expect a duplication of a "live" experence, I want to be part of a new one. That means it's part fantasy. I require absolute quiet in back. I want to hear so intensely that I can feel: vocal cords, strings,drums etc. vibrate. Wind and horn too. The sound should be warm (Onkio) but not too warm(Sansui)Maybe effortless (Macintosh). See this isn't real, possible yes, real no. Speakers ..listen to music you know,several kinds, for while on each. When you hear everything you want to hear and nothing don't you have found your speakers. Some of them anyway. Does this make sence to anyone or do I need sleep? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 232 Registered: Dec-03 | It makes sense in that you're just as crazy as the rest of us. It is an intimate, personal experience When you listen to the music and it creates an emotional response, you've arrived. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4358 Registered: May-04 | M - Since your post was made at 3:28 AM I would say you probably do need some sleep. But that has never stopped most of us on the forum from producing some of our finest thoughts. P.B. - "Maybe it's something else making one speaker sound better to our ears than another." Yes, sir, that is where this thread is headed at this point. What is it that makes a speaker "sound better to our ears than another"? You've discerned the problem, do you have any solutions? In regard to your comment on 12dB peaks and troughs, they are almost entirely restricted to the lower frequencies where the room dimensions influence what happens when we try to put a forty foot peak to peak waveform in a fifteen foot long/wide room with eight foot ceilings. The room treatments will influence the sound in other regions but none will do damage as severly as what occurs in the area beneath about 250Hz. None the less, people put speakers into their room and get sound that in some cases has little to do with what they heard in the shop. Or, worse yet, in my opinion, little to do with the actual sound of an instrument. And these listeners are quite happy with their purchases. Discounting the latter group as merely poor speaker design and less than critical listening and concentrating on the former as the most common occurence, what are these people hearing? I have said repeatedly on the forum I never heard the same speaker sound identical to itself from one customer's room to the next. Given that the room plays such a significant role in what we ultimately hear in our homes, I was often amazed and a bit amused at what people accepted as the sound they had heard when they bought the speakers. That is where I am a relativist, John. I think prefer the title "pragmatist" in most cases. I pick and choose where I feel idealism should apply. I cannot change or even influence what anyone prefers in sound quality; so I might as well accept that they have their reasons for liking what they like. Strict "fundamentalism" is a dangerous matter as you and I have discussed. So is the relativism which leads to @narchy. But you and I occupy somewhat different positions on the matter of @narchy. (Here's a diversion which was provided to me by John A. and should be of interest to at least a few of the respondents on this thread. http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) P.B., the response I received most often from musicians, particularly classically trained musicians, was as you said. As long as they could identify the instrument they play, that was what mattered to them the most. They seemed to be interested in music from the standpoint of a cello, a violin, a French Horn, etc. player and not too much else. They have virtually no concept of imaging or soundstage as we who sit in the audience perceive it. This isn't to say they have no concept of what audiophiles consider good sound; but they have a very different perspective on the whole affair. New to the forum is Margie, who makes some interesting points. "When I am at home it's just me and the music. That's intimate. I don't expect a duplication of a "live" experence, I want to be part of a new one. That means it's part fantasy. I require absolute quiet in back. I want to hear so intensely that I can feel: vocal cords, strings,drums etc. vibrate. Wind and horn too." I can understand how Margie listens at home but wonder then how she listens at a performance. Are not the same things important to her when listening to a symphony, an opera or the band playing Sousa marches? What is the difference, Margie, between one experience and the other? "See this isn't real, possible yes, real no." I wonder also, Margie; have you ever experienced sound from an audio system that came close enough to fool you into thinking it was real? If so, what made it that convincing? That is what we're after in this thread. Any ideas? "The sound should be warm (Onkio) but not too warm(Sansui)Maybe effortless (Macintosh)." Here I think Margie might get some argument from the various forum members. I understand she was describing her own preferences; but probably David, with some hearing loss, would have a slightly different impression of the relative warmth, or lack of warmth, in a system. And certainly there are those who prefer to have their ears peeled back whenever they listen to "their music". "Effortless" is a quality I am most often struck with when I walk into a room where a live instrument or an exceptional system is playing. That is a quality which brings the experience of live vs. reproduced closer to one another. It is certainly a quality I have tried to achieve in my systems. It goes back to "buy what least impresses you." The alternative to this feeling is listener fatigue which for me can set in very quickly. But, walk into a large consumer electronics showroom and, aside from the fact twenty sources are screaming at you all at once, you will be immediately struck by how much effort appears to be extended to produce such bad sound. "Effortless" would appear to be one of the first qualites of sound that we have identified which, I would say, we can all agree on when we hear it. This goes beyond the differences in speakers and addresses the entire system as a holisitic entity. Anyone disagree that effortless should be put on the list of desirable qualities? |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 618 Registered: Sep-04 | Jan I spent the weekend in Holland so not much happened that had a bearing on this thread. That said, My Dutch host was having a party and used his second system comprising Bose multi-CD player, 70s Sony receiver and home made (pentagonal!) speakers connected using bellwire. It sounded magic... Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4362 Registered: May-04 | There you have it. "Magic" should also be added to the list of desirable qualities. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 138 Registered: May-05 | Jan, John, Margie, Tmn8tor and others, WOW, you can't sleep on this site or it takes awhile to catch up. How to describe the difference in sound in the new vs. the old? The BA rears I had were fairly efficient, i.e., you didn't have to turn up the power much to drive them but I had no idea how "muddy" they were in the midrange and "tinny" sounding in the treble until I had the new speakers to compare them. Piano could be identified as piano but it wasn't like any "live" acoustic piano that I had heard, whether it be Steinway, Baldwin, Yamaha or another. The Rock Solids were better but "not quite right." The piano sounded more like a piano but you could distinguish it from real quite easily. Tne new speakers are just better in this regard. They present a much closer representation to "my reference" of the original piano. In this respect I somewhat agree with John in that the "live sound" is the standard I am comparing to BUT this is where John and I disagree, I guess. I cannot tell you whether I am remembering the "live sound" from a piano concerto on CD, the "live sound" from that piano concert I attended 3 years ago or 6 months ago. It's the "live sound" I associate with a real piano. That was the point I was making originally, quite poorly I guess. Yes, I use live music to assist me in determining if the sound coming from the components and speakers "sounds real" BUT I simply cannot remember where that "standard" was derived from - was it a specific recollection or a collection of recollections? I dunno. John, that's why you'll have your own standard and I will have my own. I probably haven't heard the same performances you have, I haven't taken measuring equipment to these performances to "objectively" measure the sound and then gone home with the intent to reproduce it. So, at the end of the day, all I have is my "recollection standard" for that piano, violin, oboe, flute, clarinet, acoustic or electric guitar, etc. So, that's the standard by which I measure the accuracy of the speakers and equipment I listen to and, I think this is important, my "experience" in hearing varying equipment and speakers is much more limited than Jans and yours. SO, I am further limited by my "reference points" for "clean" and "clear" sound. I haven't heard B & W Nautilaus speakers playing through 5 monoblock amps attached to each one rendering a SACD CD on a $2000 SACD player. It's may be the most real reproduction I ever hear and it might change my reference point as to what is "real" at this point BUT I've never heard it. (Now, if any of you have read this far, you're probably as confused as I am, by now. LOL) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3336 Registered: Dec-03 | "probably David, with some hearing loss, would have a slightly different impression of the relative warmth, or lack of warmth, in a system" But he has the same hearing loss with the reference! This is the point of my long ramble. Does "some hearing loss" make EVERYTHING sound "warm", or "cold"....? We are not just listening to systems, we are listening to sounds. The "Magic" is in the music. The system should deliver that, not get in the way, nor attempt to add magic of its own. Nor attempt to correct for our sensory deficiences - how can it know what these might be......?! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 139 Registered: May-05 | Jan, I'm double dipping here, BUT I wanted to address your "Can you put into words what qualities you listened for when you where auditioning speakers?" question. I selected two CDs that I knew very well and which were from live performances. So, in John's favor, I was trying to use "the live music" that I had actually witnessed as the reference. (However, I must confess it's my memory of that music that determines what I consider to be accuracte reproduction and not any objective reproduction thereof.) Then, I listened to speakers for about 2-3 minutes each, doing some A/B comparisons while narrowing down the group from the original 15-20, deselecting those that were just clearly "bad" or no better than what I had previously. Then, I listened to the last 7 speakers for about 5-10 minutes each. I had 7 very different sounding speakers, the BA VR 2s and VR 50s and 60s, a Phase Technology speaker and a couple of Klipsch, one floorstander and one bookshelf. (I was looking for bookshelves only BUT I wanted to see the difference between what should have been a fuller base sound from the floorstanders, especially the $1200/pair VR2s, although I did listen to every pair with a subwoofer since I would be using one at home.) The two CDs were quite different, one classical symphony and one R & B with acoustic guitar, bass, drums and male voice. I was trying to get a feel for whether the speakers were clear in the treble, which I tried to determine by listening to flute and upper ranges of acoustic guitar. Did it reproduce the sound accurately? I did the same thing with the midrange and base, using instruments and voice as my reference. Then, I came home and did the same thing with my new speakers and equipment. So, it wasn't a fair A/B because of the room dynamics, the different equipment, etc. BUT, my lovely wife was not in favor of buying 2 or 3 sets of speakers, bringing them home and taking back the losers with a restocking fee to boot. So, I don't know how you do a proper comparison AND THAT'S WHY I SAY IT COMES DOWN TO MY OWN "REFERENCE" POINT!!!! I've now spent a considerable amount of time and space Jan, BUT I am not certain I've addressed exactly what it is you're asking but I'm trying here. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4364 Registered: May-04 | You've done quite well, David. Your point concerning the overall memory we use when recalling the sound of an instrument, the smell of a flower, the taste of your mother's best pie, etc, is an amalgam of all the experiences we have had. It is difficult to sort out what is real and what is memory only, particularly as time passes. Unless we have a photographic or phonographic recording of the actual event, that memory is the best we can rely on. But, far better in this instance, in my opinion, to have the interfusion of memories than to have nothing but imagination. Frank - Sorry, I didn't mean to be flip with my reply. It would seem the system you have spent the weekend with would possibly be a system you would suggest upgrading should a client tell you that's what they listen to. That makes me wonder if this doesn't have more to do with the discussion at hand than you first assumed. Listening to a system very removed from the "audiophile approved" components should have set you to thinking about what you were hearing. Where then did the magic come from? John - "The 'Magic' is in the music. The system should deliver that, not get in the way, nor attempt to add magic of its own." Well, of course, the magic is the music. And that is what we are trying to capture, elusive though it might be. But can't you give a bit more of an idea how the magic gets from there to here? You have experienced systems that rob the music of all magic and systems which elevate the magic to the utmost. What's the difference in what the two systems are doing? |
|
Unregistered guest | David "recollection standard" well put. John "The "Magic is in the music. The system should deliver that, not get in the way, nor attempt to add magic of it's own..." exactly.( except for the times when I like a little extra ...something, warmth or intensity. Which is why one system has never been quite enough." Jan " Are not the same things important to her when listening to a symphany, an opera or the band playing ...." No, not really. The musician in the High School Band off key may add charm. Not at the symphany. Music is like food. I like a varity. Of course a base level of quality reproduction "recollection standard" but Shrimp Scampy would loose it's "magic" without occational hot dogs and beans....do you agree? Yes, I have heard systems that sounded so real as to be fooled. Probably a balance of the parts. Back to John's " the system should deliver that( magic or music), not get in the way..." Effortless Sorry to have muckied up your thread... |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 233 Registered: Dec-03 | You just keep plugging away at this, eh Jan? One thought that occurred to me is, in systems that have delivered an exceptional experience, there is an absence of noise. Noise from the recording, noise from the source, pre-amp, amp all the way to the output. Let's not forget the noise from the room which can be in the form of reflections, traffic, aircraft or even the HVAC system. The noise can drown out the subtleties and the ambience that give the music it's "magic". |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2086 Registered: Aug-04 | What we don't know doesn't hurt us. Whether we can recall how a live/original event sounds or how various instruments and particular vocals sound, the speakers we eventually bring home and keep are usually the ones that please our ears the most for whatever reasons our individual likes, emotions, their properties, the waf's, and so forth may be. Then we hear something better! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4365 Registered: May-04 | T8 - Well, the thread seems to be giving people an opportunity to think a bit and express their opinion without calling anyone rude names. That's a start in the right direction. I hate to be so dense, but what does "an exceptional experience" amount to? Margie - You certainly didn't muck up the thread. If you don't mind answering another question; do you have different expectations for live events vs. recorded music? Do you feel you've tailored your system around those expectations for the recorded sound? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 236 Registered: Dec-03 | "I hate to be so dense, but what does "an exceptional experience" amount to?" I think maybe you're jus' playin'. I was at a presentation given by Winston Ma, the owner of First Impression Music. He was playing a selection from one of his productions that included forest sounds with birds. The birds appeared be all over the room. It was a two-channel system. I call that exceptional. http://www.fimpression.com |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 237 Registered: Dec-03 | BTW, if you visit the link I just posted, click on the album cover on the start page. It will link to a sample called "The Sixth Dalai's Love Song". If you can, don't just play it on your PC system (unless you have a good one). Play it on a "regular" stereo. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4366 Registered: May-04 | I'll have to work on the song since my computer's speakers are deciding to be obstinate. John A. and I have had a running discussion for almost a year about the ability of an exceptional two channel system to provide more than "a look through the window" at what is in front of you. With the acquisition of the Quads and the PrimaLuna, he seems to be hearing sounds from locations he never expected from his two channel set up. Am I correct, John? While our roles are fixed for the moment, let me play the brick for a bit longer. While the experience you describe should come as an exception/revelation to the expectations of a listener who believes stereo can only place sounds in front of his position, surely you understand how the "trick" was accomplished. (Not counting fastidious standards of preparation.) While I would enjoy hearing the demonstration I'm not sure what exactly it proves in terms of a speaker reproducing music. I have to believe the song of any bird will be more restricted in bandwidth than most musical instruments and far less complex in its patterns. Was the demonstration then carried forward to a musical conclusion? |
|
Unregistered guest | Tim I agree. The system that can provide "an exceptional experence" must have an absence of noise, almost a vacuum(as in tube  ) . That allows the notes to ripple, linger, build as entended. It's the blank canvas the sound is laid on. also thanks for the link.....very nice! Jan Yes, I have different expectations for live and recorded sound. Live, you get a performance...and you get..what you get. The artist may be haveing a bad day or didn't perform pieces you might have prefered. You might get lucky and it was the performance of a life time...and you are front row center! Whatever, you are a witness to the creation. Recorded is different. The creation is done. Now it's the artist gift to me. And I want to hear it as they intended. Now it's mine. I can have it low volume in the back ground while other things are going on or turn down the lights, turn up the volume and be alone with the artist. I choose. Their particapation is done. It's like a painting. There is the original oil all the way to a photo printed in a newspaper. I want as close to the oil as I can get. My system. Well, I have a Son that has been tinkering with Stereo components for years. He buys used, fixes or not and resells. But not before we've had a chance to connect everything with everything else and play. As a result I have "auditioned" a lot of varity, mostly old, but some great sounding components. Mfg. seem to have personalities ( for lack of a better word). Some, I've grown very fond of. I want them all. I can't really afford to go buy retail the pieces I would most like to have, so my system seems to evolve. Some pieces are mine for good but not others. The "Mac" sound is of course my favorite. NOW This feels like so much blather, How about you? What do you want to hear? Got any " exceptional experences" you would like to share? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4367 Registered: May-04 | " ... the speakers we eventually bring home and keep are usually the ones that please our ears the most for whatever reasons our individual likes, emotions, their properties, the waf's, and so forth may be." Rantz, I understand the reasons for selecting a speaker or amplifier are a mix of complex reactions and justifications. I was hoping to get a little deeper into what makes a system "please our ears". The discussion has drifted to speakers as if they are the only entity in a system that makes any difference to the reproduction of music. Personally, I would prefer to discuss the idea of a holistic system even if speakers are the most obvious manifestation of sound quality. I think most of us on the thread have experienced the quality shift between better components in front of the speakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4368 Registered: May-04 | "What do you want to hear? Got any " exceptional experences" you would like to share?" With twenty five years of selling audio and working in audio I've lots of exceptional moments. Some quite good and some quite bad. I found out early into selling audio that what I considered important wasn't going to be what most of my clients would deem necessary. My tastes are far from what I consider the mainstream. For one thing I own amplifiers that are over forty years old and speakers that are thirty years old. A manufacturer I was speaking with recently said, "We wouldn't make much money if we appealed to people like you all the time." However, that is precisely the point I would make. I prefer to do business with the manufacturer who builds equipment for people like me. I have little use for planned obsolescence. I cannot understand having thirty six models of speakers in a single manufacturer's line. I'm going to withold some of my comments regarding my personal likes and dislikes for a while longer. I will say one of the most exceptional moments I've had was the first time I was demonstrating a system and I suddenly realized I could "see" the players so vividly I could have walked between them. You have to realize that audio salespeople have their set of music cues established so they are prepared as best as possible to demonstrate the equipment. Since hearing even the best music ten times a day for months and months can ruin any desire to hear the same thing yet again, most salespeople pay less than full attention to the music and instead focus on the customer's reactions. This particular time I happened to listen as if I were the customer and I heard sound that I had never experienced in an audio system. That was an exceptional moment. Returning to the difficulties of reproducing a piano; the first time I heard a piano that made me sit up and take notice of its realism was an exceptional moment. As was the first time I heard and felt bass response that was more than just a thump. The first time I saw bass response move items in the room was an exceptional experience. Every time I hear the opening of "Fanfare for a Common Man" come from my speakers that are the size of a shoebox and the sound knocks my head back; that is an exceptional experience. When the walls of my listening room are pushed out of the way to make room for the players I find myself experiencing an exceptional moment. Every time I hear the art that comes from exceptional talent and exceptional recording skills I find an exceptional moment. Any time I am caught up in the music and not my system is a moment that I find worth the effort. But enough about me; let's talk about you! If the thread continues for a while there will be plenty of input that I'll make about my own tastes. Right now we have "effortless" as a quality we desire in a system. I'm not certain how to describe the idea of "noise-less" in a simple term other than it is part of effortlessness. As the reviewers say, the sound comes from a black space. I'll let someone else decide what the best way to describe "free of noise" should be. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2090 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan, The context of the phrase was in what followed: "The we hear something better." I didn't want to rehash what has already been said. What I was was getting at was no matter what we listen for in order to choose our speakers/system or what ever, we may be totally satisfied with our decision until that awful day when we hear something better - then all bets are of. Do we try all the tweaks or do we get our wallets out again. Like our friend Rick - he did both LOL! I am listening to a pure DSD Telarc surround recording of Monty Alexander/Ray Brown/Russell Malone (that's the title also) having fun with jazz as I am typing this. They were in the room with me - I kid you not - now their music is floating in from that other room - they are still in there. This is what I listen for and when it happens like this - I am there, totally. Or here! A piano, a bass, and an acoustic guitar - that's it and it is so real. I don't know how I can get any deeper into what makes my system please my ears - superlatives aside! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3340 Registered: Dec-03 | ..."he seems to be hearing sounds from locations he never expected from his two channel set up. Am I correct, John? " Yes. Completely. I'd heard it before from a BBC stereo test LP, and also a Denon stereo check CD, on the tracks allowing you to check speaker phase. But I had not noticed it, before, in "real" programme material. I agree with Timn8ter about noise. To some extent "noise" is subjective too - it is sound "out of place". How about the "window" analogy? As follows:- Imagine a glass wall through which you are looking at a landscape. Would we all agree we would like the glass to be clean? Isn't low-fi is a bit like frosted glass, which lets light through, but stops you seeing things clearly? Would anyone want to try to enhance the sunset with coloured glass? Or compensate for its unusual colour distribution with, say, a blue tint? Do we not wish for a sound system what we wish for the window - that it is transparent. Which is to say that it is a medium which is, itself, invisible, and can be used without it demanding our attention? And, out there, all the time, is the real landscape. Just imagine taking the window away, to see if it made any difference to what you see. Isn't this a useful way of thinking about what we want sound systems to do for us? Either you can see the effect of the window, or you can't. One person might not, at first, notice a subtle effect of the window, but could have it drawn to his or her attention. Then any two people would most likely agree, eventually. Would different people be entitled to prefer different sorts of "transparent"? Does the question even make any sense? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3342 Registered: Dec-03 | I am always aware that posting in reply to something four or more posts back seems rude to the subsequent posters. I am often one of them, and know the feeling. In this case of my last post "12:18 am", I was responding to Jan, "11:18 pm: " and had not seen the others. Sorry! [Can I just vote for "Fanfare for the Common Man" by Aaron Copland, before it disappears.......? Wonderful!] |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2092 Registered: Aug-04 | As to your previous post John, I agree, but with a 360 degree view. LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3343 Registered: Dec-03 | I take MR's point about the speakers we prefer etc. But, look; to extend the window analogy - without being able to see the landscape directly, can we form an opinion about different sorts of windows? Yes, we can, but it will be difficult to separate fact from opinion about how, and to what extent, the various windows might be getting in the way. If you allow direct access to the reference, then, at one fell swoop, everyone can see what the windows were doing, and separate out the artifacts from the direct experience. The best window is the one that interferes least with the view. The best speaker is the one that interferes least with the music. No? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3344 Registered: Dec-03 | [LOL, MR! OK - "Old Dogs" was all about whether a clear 180 degrees is best to view a landscape, avoiding all that glare from behind. Talk about extending analogies. This is going a bit far, dontcha think...?] |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2094 Registered: Aug-04 | Not at all John - I have never seen so many extended analogies as in this forum. And 180 degrees being better to view a landscape is okay if you wear a neck brace. [grin] |
|
bumblebee Unregistered guest | "The best speaker is the one that interferes least with the music. No?" YES |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 239 Registered: Dec-03 | Two channels can be handled in such a manner as to trick our ears into believing the sound is coming from another location. This is accomplished through a combination of treble reduction and phasing. Playing the two channels at various degrees of phasing can create the illusion of depth, motion and even fool you into beliveing the sound is behind you. This is how "surround" headphones work. The art of psycho-acoustics is facsinating. I've had the unpleasant experience of phasing occuring that wasn't intentional. It was literally nauseating. Yes John, it wasn't just bird songs. The birds were part of the overall composition which was a small trio with a cello lead. You felt as if you were in the middle of an evergreen oasis with a babbling brook, the sounds of nature and beautiful music combining into a chorus. For "noise-less" I like the "sound from a black space" description. BTW, I think Monty is an wonderful performer. I have a German pressing of his "Solo" album and an SACD of "Monty Meets Sly and Robbie". Awesome! And his rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic is a song we should turn up to 11 today! |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 77 Registered: Apr-05 | Timn8ter, well alrighty then. Tell me about your design theories and your understanding of psycho-acoustics. A 12 db swing is very common in low frequency response in 99% of rooms on planet earth. 20 db swings are not unheard of. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 140 Registered: May-05 | John, You had me for a moment with the window analogy. Then, I realized that the problem with the analogy is that you were making my point for me. You look through the window, "yes" you want it clean and "yes" you want it NOT to interfere with your experience of watching the sunset and you don't want it to colour or alter the experience. However, that analogy is only true for a live performance. Now, after you've watched the sunset, you go home and download your digital pictures of the sunset and pull them up on your computer. Now, you have a representation of the sunset BUT it's not the same thing. Your memory tells you it's lacking in depth, breadth, clarity and I don't know what else. That's what we listen to with our systems, it's the representation of the sunset. I think Jan's original question was trying to get us here and your analogy helps me understand why it isn't quite as simple as you laid it out. That said, we then go out and buy components that try to allow us to see/hear what we recall of that sunset, concert, musical performance, NO? I keep repeating myself but it's always going to be memorex and not real. But, dang it, I want the best memorex that I can afford, that most reminds me of that sunset. (That's why I keep buying more pixilated, digital cameras and that's why I buy "better" components and speakers.) I just wish I could find audio nirvana, I know it's out there, I just haven't found it, yet. I'd love to hear some of these systems you folks have heard and I'd love to be in the room with you to have you explain how I get from where I am now to where you are now. (My sunsets are great but the dang camera needs to be upgraded so my pictures are better!!!, I guess. LOL) |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2096 Registered: Aug-04 | Yes Timn8ter, Monty is my latest discovery - wonderful talent! Now, I must think about Jan's last question. Sorry for the deviation Jan! It was (amended): Got any "exceptional experiences" you would like to share?" None that I'd like to share LOL! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 141 Registered: May-05 | OK, I double dipping again BUT I've got to brag about Spokane a little, since I put it down for its complete lack of decent hi-fi. Speaking of sunsets, I just got back from "the lake." In Spokane, "the lake" is actually any one of about 75 lakes within a 2 hour drive. So, a little over an hour ago, I was watching the sun go down. It was an incredible sunset while watching the night sky begin to fill with fireworks. HAPPY 4TH ALL! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2097 Registered: Aug-04 | Yes of course, happy 4th y'all. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 626 Registered: Sep-04 | As to the analogy, don't forget there are a LOT of people who will look at the sunset via green/yellow/rose tinted sunglasses. They're looking at the world this way because they prefer to do so, and - MOST importantly - it's not any less real for them. What's this 4th business? Celebrating the revolution again are you?! Revolting... Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 240 Registered: Dec-03 | "Timn8ter, ever think that maybe it's not ruler flat frequency response that makes a speaker "great"? Maybe, just maybe it's something else. Kinda like the low fat and no fat diet craze, yeah? Seems everyone in America is doing low carbs, low fat or no fat yet we are all getting fatter by the minute. Maybe it's not fat making us fat and maybe it's not flat response that makes a speaker great. 12db peaks and dips are minimal compared to what your room is doing to the sound. Maybe it's something else making one speaker sound better to our ears than another. Food for thought." My post was in response to the following comments by Jan. He was referring to a "response curve" which is generally accepted as being an anechoic or quasi-anechoic measurement, not in room. "That "clarity" in the midrange will become a hump in the response curve which will make all instruments sound the same and all vocalists will become tenors." Many people mistake a forward mid-range as clarity until they live with the speaker for a while. Also, notice that the reference was to measured mid-range response, not in-room bass response. "Salespeople and reviewers rave endlessly about speakers which cost as much as a small car and which have 12dB shifts in their response curves. So what are they hearing? Some other quality or the sound of the cash register?" A 12db shift in the frequency response is not acceptable to me as a designer. In the world of speaker design by committee and finance officers apparently it is acceptable if the Marketing department feels they can craft an appropriate "pitch". "Timn8ter, well alrighty then. Tell me about your design theories and your understanding of psycho-acoustics. A 12 db swing is very common in low frequency response in 99% of rooms on planet earth. 20 db swings are not unheard of." Once again the previous comments were about measured frequency response, the mid-range in particular, not in-room bass response. As a designer it's not my responsibility to try and guess what everyone's room is going to do to the sound of my speakers. My responsibility is (or should be) to get the best sound quality out of a design which is generally aimed at a particular target group. I understand the benefit of taking advantage of the Fletcher-Munson curve and too many companies take this too far. Bumping the bass and treble (sort of like punching the Loudness button) can sound fun and interesting but it's not in agreement with any sort of accuracy. Our hearing becomes much less sensitive in the lower frequency ranges. This is why we can get away with using sub/satellite systems. Yes, a 12db in-room bass response is actually pretty good. This is not an excuse for a designer to ignore smooth bass response. Peaky bass may be exciting in the store but at home it will eventually give you a headache. I continue to argue with those that insist on getting the maximum bass response from a design as possible, whereas I will tune an enclosure higher (sacrifice some extension) in order to get more natural sounding bass. I believe better bass can be perceived as more bass. As far as my methodology, I decide on a target group and price range then select the drivers I believe will meet that goal. I may make changes to my original selection rather than forcing one driver to work with another. Then the real work begins, crossover design. My goal there is to have as smooth a transition as possible between the two drivers without squashing the life out of them. No where in the crossover region is a variance of more than +/- 3db going to be acceptable and less variance than that is desired. I will accept a peak or dip above the mid-range region if it means better response in the mids. I'm also not opposed to using a bit of the "BBC" curve. A neutral mid-range with a slight rise at the lower and upper regions can work well in some cases, as long as it's not overdone. Personally, I enjoy a slight rise in the treble response as this lends "air" to the music. When I have what I believe to be a good design I live with it for a while. I don't rely on measurements alone but how the speaker sounds. Then I take the prototype around to other professionals in the audio business to get their critique. I may go back and do some tweaks to correct something they have pointed out or I may decide that they are acceptable compromises. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 241 Registered: Dec-03 | "What's this 4th business? Celebrating the revolution again are you?! Revolting..." Hey now, the Rules of Conquest specify that the victor defines the terminology. So it's "independence" not "revolution". ;-) |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 142 Registered: May-05 | Frank, It wasn't much of a revolution, really. Occupying armies will always have a difficult time fighting a guerilla war against a smaller guerilla force. Geez, one would think we might learn from that example in the last 200 plus years, right? (History minor, I'm afraid.) As for the rose colored glasses, absolutely. Some people will come and listen to my new speakers and find them absolutely lifeless. They'll listen to the BAs which I found to have a "tinny" treble and find it to their liking. To each his or her own, I guess. But, Jan started this whole string to suck us into a discussion on whether there's an objective standard against which we measure out equipment, although we had a couple of fun bends in the road along the way. I believe the answer is "yes" and "no". The problem being that to me, I measure the speakers against an objective standard, but it's my own objective standard of whether it reproduces music, voice, tonal qualities and sound as I deem it to be accurate. I doubt that you and I will agree on whether 10 speakers do this well in any particular objective order. Add Jan to the mix and the order will change some more, I suspect. Add John and Margie and more disagreement and so on. (YES JOHN I HAVE SOME UPPER LEVEL HEARING LOSS so you start with an unfair advantage, hearing advantage anyway.) LOL |
|
Unregistered guest | Sorry if I seem rude but four or more responses can pop up between the time I start a response and the time its posted. If I do something wrong please just tell me. I'm new and slow but I really am enjoying this discussion. "The window" is good. It was helping me find words to discribe sound but there was something missing. David, you got it. The window is live the photo is, I think, what we are talking about. If that's true I think I want "more that real" in a sound system. Not altered exactly but... For example. I like voices (I may be alone here). In a real setting or live performance the rest of the person is with their voice. This is good. But when I'm listening to a recording the rest of the person isn't there. I like that voice to purr in my ear. Much more intimate! Thanks Jan. The experence of "seeing" what's not there while listening is indeed exceptional! I've had that experence and I think it one of the big goals for a system. The ability to produce that level of sound. "Intimacy" is the word that I am hung up on. I have seen it used to discribe sound but there must be better or more precise discriptions. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4374 Registered: May-04 | "I believe better bass can be perceived as more bass." In my experience, you are appealing to a small group of listeners with that approach. Less bass extension is not, in my opinion, the issue since most music seldom pushes the limits of a respectable 51/2" driver. The music that does push the limit on a regular basis will also push the limit of a 12" driver in a typical room. It is more often the amount of bass response that people use to judge quality of bass response. I commented once to Ghia/Sm that hearing McIntosh bass for the first time would open her ears to a bass response probably unlike any she had heard from an audio system. While Mac has more than sufficient quantity of bass response, it is the quality of bass response which I find most appealing about McIntosh and about tube amplifiers. As I've stated my tastes in audio are quite different from most of my client's idea of what sounds good. But bass that I felt was flabby and dry in overtones was considered more desirable than the sound of a natural beginning and end to the note. A speaker that follows the line of the bass is less often purchased than a speaker which defines bass by the volume. None the less, I think you're on the right track in regard to design; but I think you'll suffer in terms of sales. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 244 Registered: Dec-03 | Yeah, I know what you mean (sigh). I'm hopeful I can strike a balance. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3346 Registered: Dec-03 | I thought what we, over here, call "The War of American Independence" is called "The Revolutionary War" in US. So it is the other way around, Timn8ter....?! Anyway, congratulations! David, Thanks. The window is still a good analogy because it is a medium through which you can see the real thing. But I take your point about the digital photo! But it comes to the same thing - if you can't see the original landscape as a reference, people will argue about who gets more out of the picture, who can see more in it, their emotional responses, and so. They can argue forever and might make some progress, or might all end up not speaking to each other. But - rig up a projector and a window-sized screen, and project the digital image onto it. Take a good look. The best picture is the one that most closely resembles what you see when you roll up the screen, and behind it is the original. Most people will then easily agree what the best picture is. If someone is in doubt, all you have to do is draw their attention to the differences between a less-good picture and the real landscape; these differences being undetectable, or less detectable, in a better picture. Sorry, again, for what someone called, once, "Philosophy 101". But - this I idea of "what is real for me" seems to me to be dangerous with a capital "D". We have individual freedom, democracy etc., just because we should trust no-one to tell us they perceive things "better" than we do. But there is a real world! So we are each responsible for making up our own minds about it, understanding that we can communicate our experiences, and learn from each other where we might be mistaken. I am fairly sure the founding fathers would have agreed with that! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4375 Registered: May-04 | From John: "Do we not wish for a sound system what we wish for the window - that it is transparent. Which is to say that it is a medium which is, itself, invisible, and can be used without it demanding our attention? And, out there, all the time, is the real landscape. Just imagine taking the window away, to see if it made any difference to what you see. Isn't this a useful way of thinking about what we want sound systems to do for us? Either you can see the effect of the window, or you can't." ************ From David: "Now, after you've watched the sunset, you go home and download your digital pictures of the sunset and pull them up on your computer. Now, you have a representation of the sunset BUT it's not the same thing. Your memory tells you it's lacking in depth, breadth, clarity and I don't know what else. That's what we listen to with our systems, it's the representation of the sunset." and "(That's why I keep buying more pixilated, digital cameras and that's why I buy "better" components and speakers.) My sunsets are great but the dang camera needs to be upgraded so my pictures are better!!!" **************** This seems to approach the idea of the thread in a different way. Phono and photos have been companions in the terminolgy depeartment for years because they both represent our attempt to capture a moment in our "recollection standard" library. Part of the argument made by enthusiasts for both has been the simple idea of what are you trying to recreate; reality or your concept of reality. I'm sure you have all been struck by a real sunset and by a photographic representation of a sunset. And the latter couldn't have much in common with the former. To experience both is to experience two separate emotional states. Now a truly magnificient sunset will not require anything other than your presence. On the other hand a truly magnificient photo of a sunset will probably require a reasonable amount of maniplulation. A Kodachrome sunset is the first deviation from reality. The film will heighten the color saturation and contrast. Polarizing filters will remove some haze that, while present in the original, would actually detract from the photo. Filters to push the color spectrum in one or more directions will be employed to give even more of an impression of a memorable sunset. Of course the lens and the exposure will affect the end result. When all is said and done, the photo may be impressive in ways the actual event couldn't achieve. That is the representation that Margie apparently prefers in her system. "For example. I like voices (I may be alone here). In a real setting or live performance the rest of the person is with their voice. This is good. But when I'm listening to a recording the rest of the person isn't there. I like that voice to purr in my ear. Much more intimate!" I think Rantz would also fall into this category of listener. They seem to share the concept which says a recording can only be a reproduction and that reproduction is the listener's to do with as they please. That's their choice. Can we argue with that decision in any way? David makes the point his system is like his digital camera as he tries to constantly increase the number of pixels to gain more resolution. The question might become; how much resolution is enough? As with audio, the argument is made in photography that analog and digital are two separate camps and they are distinct in their abilites to represent the original subject. More to the point for our discussion would be; when are there enough pixels to make the reproduction acceptable as an honest facsimile to the original? If David takes a picture of a sunset with a 3 megapixel camera and then uses an 8 megapixel camera to take a similar photograph, which is considered sufficient to capture the event? How much detail is needed to bring us to the realization this is a reproduction of a sunset? If this audio system lets us realize a piano was captured in the original event, how much more is needed to make the representation of that piano enjoyable? If you say as much as possible, what are the implcations to the filtered photo of the sunset or the system which colors and filters the sound of the piano? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 245 Registered: Dec-03 | Some people want a Professional SLR and others are happy with a snapshot. Heh, heh. Ya gotta love analogies. Then the Pro bites his tongue and nods his head while the person holding the snapshot raves about what a great picture it is. :-) Oo, how far can I take this? Nah, I'll stop now. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4377 Registered: May-04 | Thanks, T8. I suspect John will bring some resolution (yuk,yuk) to the subject also. And as far as music systems go, we're mostly shooting with 35mm's while the pros are using 4X5 Rangefinders. Where does that leave us? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 143 Registered: May-05 | From John, "But - this I idea of "what is real for me" seems to me to be dangerous with a capital "D". . . But there is a real world! So we are each responsible for making up our own minds about it, understanding that we can communicate our experiences, and learn from each other where we might be mistaken." EXACTLY!!! That's why I enjoy the site. There is a real world, full of sights, sounds, smells, textures and feelings, all coloured by our individual experiences. We do learn from each other, HECK, in this string I've picked up some wonderful insights from you, Jan and Tmn8tor and others about how I might better learn to listen and what I'm hearing from my system. But, I'm limited by my budget, time, my system, MOSTLY BY MY LOVELY WIFE, in what I can bring home, afford, do to my room, do with my room, etc., in order to reproduce that real world sound. Then, I have to ask myself, "what is that 'real world' that I am reproducing." Is it "live" music - coloured by the equipment, microphones and instruments used to amplify the sounds and voices OR is it the recording engineer's music as modeled through his recording equipment, microphones, the sound stage, the instruments and pick ups. Then, how do my perceptions colour all of the above? OUCH this hurts my brain. So, what is the "real world" that is my standard? Heck, what did Jan say about 100 posts ago, this is starting to sound familiar again. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4378 Registered: May-04 | General opinion has been divided into a minimum of two camps for decades. In the US they used to be called the East Coast and the West Coast sound. The West Coast companies were into big sound and accuracy was not much more than a word in the dictionary. The overall "sound" of companies like JBL, Altec, ElectroVoice and Cerwin Vega in speakers and Phase Linear and Crown in electronics became a favorite of the rockers where live recordings were only meant to fulfil a recording contract and more often than not sounded horrible on the recording. Imaging and soundstaging along with other audiophile qualities were hard to find on most of these recordings and what was there was most often created in the post production phase. It was difficult to find what was real because little of what came out of these systems had a basis in reality similar to classical or jazz. The instruments were meant to be amplified in performance and the recording was put together from bits of music strung together where the musicians may not have even seen one another while performing in the studio. The East coast companies had speakers such as Acoustic Research, Advent, KHL, and EPI and electronics companies such as McIntosh and Citation and they were the "classical music" speakers. Their frequency response was flatter as a rule than a JBL or a Crown and their bass response was day to the Phase Linear's night. They tried to get the sound of the instruments to be accurately reproduced since there was a live reference that could be heard. The companies as a group promoted the idea that if a piano can sound like a piano, what is put together in a studio will still sound like the artist/engineer's intent. So the short answer to your question, David, is the sound you want to have can either be as accurate as possible or you can somewhat ignore accuracy and have music shaped by the system. Obviously the real answer is much longer than that simplistic response and that is what we are trying to work out here. And I think you were trying to decide where you were in relation to the two camps. |
|
bumblebee Unregistered guest | "How many of you listen to live music on a regular basis? If you do, do you use the sound of live music as a reference to make an audio purchase? If so, how?" Not regularly. I would love to use live music as a reference but what i'm playing is actually a disc or tape w/ data on it. If my "hi-fi" gears give me an orchestra-like experience while using a crappy recording then something is really wrong w/ my gears. The "hi-fi" should be replaced by some other adjective. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics