Archive through July 14, 2005
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4428 Registered: May-04 | You were applauding the performance on the disc or the performance of Mrs. A.? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4429 Registered: May-04 | As we approach 300 posts on this thread I would like to congratulate the people who have given this thread the highest number of posts in the "Speakers" category. You have far surpassed the average number of posts in this category and made intelligent comments at almost every step. As those who have visited another thread on this category can attest to, the dialog here has been respectful and continues to move forward. That alone is an accomplishment on eCoustics. All too often these threads which ask for an opinion degenerate into shout fests and name calling. You have all risen above the average. Thank you for a great thread. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 292 Registered: Dec-03 | Could be a life lesson there. Freedom is a wonderful thing but it requires discipline. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2128 Registered: Aug-04 | If you haven't wanted to get up and dance, does your system make your toes tap and your head nod? No - only the music can make my toes tap unless I drop a speaker on them or something. And head nodding is usually the response to my wife. Do you want to stand up and conduct? Yes, but I've forgotten where I left my air-baton. Does your system move the music forward or does it occur one note at a time? Yes - unless I press the reverse button and depends if it's a solo or ensemble. Does one note play into the next? sometimes - sometimes not Can you tell where the music is headed before it gets there? Yes - by the arrows on the speaker wire Is this part of what makes your system lifelike? No - only when I cross-dress the B&W's does my system seem lifelike Does your system sweep you away? Actually yes - once, but luckilly, my wife found me when she went through the trash. Have you ever burst into applause when the song is finished? Again yes - but never again. It wasn't until I convinced the shrink to listen to the recording, I was free to go home If any of those things are happening in your system, what's going on? Well, I hope they're not. I really hated that shrink. Have you heard a system that doesn't/can't do this? I can't see what you are doing so I can't answer that. What's the difference? I thought Who was the difference. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4432 Registered: May-04 | And a bit of intelligence. Once again; thanks to you all. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 664 Registered: May-05 |  One question Jan, surely, what if it was record out doors, then surly you must set-up the loudspeakers outside for the correct effect of life likeness, surly... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 665 Registered: May-05 | And if you start talking during the playback of the recording, then there must be something wrong with it, if you get my meaning.... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 666 Registered: May-05 |  Also Jan, what do you think of the HPS-4000 series.... wow 666 posts that's a good omen! http://www.hps4000.com/index.html http://www.hps4000.com/pages/theatres_.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4433 Registered: May-04 | Ashley - If a recording was made of an outdoor performance, you would hear it as an outdoor performance when your speakers are set to their normal position. Would you prefer to set them up one hundred feet apart and listen to the music while sitting on your lawn? You may if you wish. I've yet to run across a recorded outdoor performance that wasn't recorded with the intent of capturing the space the performers existed in while performing. That means the perspective is from the stage not the listener 150' away. Please, if anyone has a recording made from another perspective, congratulations; you needn't spend time telling me about it. Let me live on in my delusional world. Your second point would require I cough and unwrap candy while listening. Not a very valid point, I'm afraid. Your third post, unfortunately, has nothing to do with this thread. We are discussing what qualities make a system lifelike, Ashley. We aren't discussing whether any one system is lifelike. Nor are we discussing theater systems and their ability to project across the space of a cinema. If you are looking for that opinion, I would suggest you begin another thread. But, I'm sure you are aware I don't often give an opinion on specific equipment. There are plenty of other members who will be happy to give their opinion, I'm sure. Could I ask that you refrain from running pictures and animation on the thread. It slows down the loading procedure for those who do not have high speed connections and adds nothing to the discussion. We all know what an outdoor ampitheater looks like. We do not know or have any idea who the other fellow is. Nor do we need to know who is he or what he looks like. Thanks. Congratulations on your numbers. A good omen indeed. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 575 Registered: Mar-05 | "cough and unwrap candy" lmao! |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 671 Registered: May-05 | The chap in the picture is.... "John Allen president of HPS-4000.... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3378 Registered: Dec-03 | He is not me, and vice versa. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 578 Registered: Mar-05 | looks like you though |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 674 Registered: May-05 |  Wow that E.T. score, all most took my head off with that timpani, KABOOM 117db C weighting track 2 time 23 seconds WOW go for it John Williams... So this is not you John A? Are you sure, would you like to trade places with this chap.... |
|
Unregistered guest | "If a recording was made of an outdoor performance, you would hear it as an outdoor performance..." also ..Jan, a long way back you made a comment about an effect from speakers that dropped the walls or opened up the room to a size much larger than the actual dimentions. I can' t quote you exactly but it is another characteristic I'm not sure how to discribe. I've said "full" but I was referring more to notes or specific sounds, now I'm thinking more dispersion. Open, airy... ? |
|
New member Username: WhatareyoudoingPost Number: 2 Registered: Jul-05 | This is interesting audio technology yes this is really educational... Openness to the sound yes I agree with you. |
|
New member Username: WhatareyoudoingPost Number: 3 Registered: Jul-05 | Oh that's that dude John Allan, he does all that opera stuff, fantastic stuff you guys have to listen to him on some windows media stuff, or read some of the topics... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 677 Registered: May-05 | Hallo there Whatareyoudoing? Strange name, yes that is in deed John Allan president of HPS-4000 though I have never heard this remarkable sound system, as we don't have any HPS-4000 cinemas in the UK that I know about, there are however some international ones, and quite a lot in the USA... |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2131 Registered: Aug-04 | If in my previous post my attempt at humour failed (the lateness being my only excuse) and misunderstanding occured I do apologise. It was meant only to be light hearted - not poke fun at the author's questions. Anyhow, Mr Vigne asked: "I don't doubt your word, but what then, since low powered tubes almost always have this quality, is it that makes your system communicate the intent of the music?" In my opinion, our system is designed to handle the high res formats particularly well and is presently configured primarily for this purpose. So to answer Jan's question, I believe it is its ability for it to reproduce fine detail, to handle quite passages delicately, not to be intimidated by sudden loud sections, to portray sound accurately and musically in an open and often expansive soundstage. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4434 Registered: May-04 | "You have far surpassed the average number of posts in this category and made intelligent comments at almost every step." Yes, at almost every step. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4435 Registered: May-04 | Margie - To speak of dispersion is to talk about what is strictly defined as a technical property of a speaker. Here's a definition. "Dispersion - Also 'Dispersion Angle.' The angle of effective coverage for sound radiated from a loudspeaker, defined as the included angle bounded by the points at which the loudspeaker's SPL level drops six decibels from its on-axis response. Loudspeaker specifications will provide two components, horizontal dispersional angle, and vertical dispersion angle." If I can simplify that I would want you to think of sitting directly in front of your speaker (just one for now). At this position you are directly "on axis" to (in front of) the high frequency driver, the tweeter. This on axis position puts you at 0°. As you move to either side (off axis) the sound from the high frequency speaker (driver) will diminish in volume. By the time you get to 90° off axis, the sound from the tweeter might be noticeably lower in volume than it was on axis(0°). As you continue to move further off from the 0° axis the sound from the tweeter will continue to drop in volume. The same effect can often be heard when you stand up as compared to sitting down. This relative difference in volume from one side across to the other side, or standing vs. sitting, will be the result of dispersion. Or more correctly, the difference you hear as you move off axis is caused by lack of dispersion. The broader the (angle of) dispersion, the wider the "sweet spot" where the speakers do not roll off the high frequencies. Too much dispersion can, however, cause problems in a typical room environment. I hope that helps explain dispersion. What I was generally referring to when I mentioned the soundfield appearing larger than the dimensions of the room would be commonly called the "soundstage" of the system. I think the easiest way to think about soundstage is to think about trying to recreate the stage the performers were on when the recording was made. When we discuss the "see what's not there" or "hear what's not there" we are talking about the "images" of performers the system creates and the soundstage those images appear on. So in a jazz combo we can envision the clarinet player to be in this spot on the stage based on the image we see/hear of the clarinet. The drummer's image occupies a different position on our envisioned stage just as it would in reality. So it goes for each performer. If the recording was done in a live recording situation we will have the sound of the space the stage was within. It may be a nightclub or a proscenium stage or a recording studio. In a live recording the performers all occupied a position within the larger space and upon the stage. We would like to hear the sound of that space to provide more of a lifelike quality to the recording. If the recording was done in a studio, the musicians may not be arranged within the studio space as they would be at a live performance. They may not even be playing together and the individual parts may be strung together after everyone has left. If that's the case, our recording's "soundstage" is made up of individual images which are layered into place by the engineer. The sound of the actual space the performers occupied will be generated by the effects the engineer introduces after the fact. The comment was made earlier about electronic music sounding live. Since there is no "stage" the electronic music exists on, it can only be pieced together to create the impression of a stage. In this case, people still refer to the "images" existing in a "soundstage". By manipulating the volume levels, the balance between channels (called panning) and the relative phase of the signals, the engineer can give the impression of a sound which starts off behind the front right speaker and travels far behind the center line of the speakers only to end up in front of and to the outside of the left speaker. Of course the signal never left the engineer's mixing board; but the envisioned space the image travels through would still be called the soundstage. If you are actually listening to a symphony orchestra, the sound of the violins occupies a different space onstage than the tympani. When you hear a recording of that performance, you want that difference in space to be obvious also. When the "soundstage" of the instruments extends wide enough and deep enough, the images of the violins and the tympani can sound as if they are comming from beyond the walls of the room with the rest of the orchestra placed appropriately between then on the stage. This is desirable if that is the effect the recording engineer desired. If this happens on all recordings, you may have problems with your system. For the most part, the soundstage full of images exists between, and slightly in front of and behind, the two front speakers. The new multichannel recordings (which are similar in effect to the old quad recordings of the 1970's) can place you in the center of the stage with performers/instruments around you; or the system can place you in the center of the audience with the sound of the performance space around you. Which is best depends on the recording and your taste. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4436 Registered: May-04 | Rantz - The question now is; what is it that makes your system communicate the intent of the music? Your answer would appear to be related to the ability of your system to deal with the high resolution music formats such as SACD. It can handle small details and wide dynamics and place the performers on a wide and deep soundstage. If that is what "communicates the intent of the music" in Rantz's high resolution system, does anyone have an explanation why John would have the connection to the music on the "useless" mono car radio? Or why Frank's weekend system would have "more life and more sheer pleasure" than his rig at home? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, Rantz, but your answer implies that when you are not playing the high resolution music formats your system will probably sound less than lifelike. Does anyone see what I'm after here? T8 has given us an example of what makes the music "without life". Margie has begun to describe what lifelike qualities happen in her system. But we need to refine this and congeal it into a word or phase such as "effortless". We need a word or phrase that you can carry into a store and tell the salesperson very unambiguously you want a system that is "effortless", that "has a black background of silence", which "lets you envison what is (not) there" and allows you to ... ? What makes it sound as if it has life? What makes it life "like". Get rid of the soundstage and the imaging for now, even get rid of the small details a useless mono radio would discard and get to the function of communicating the music. Nothing more. Nothing less. On a high resolution system or an AM radio. What makes it happen? What is happening? I agree this is difficult. Putting into words what we hear and feel is not the easiest of tasks. But you've done well getting the first three qualities. This is just the next step. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2132 Registered: Aug-04 | "I don't mean to put words in your mouth, Rantz, but your answer implies that when you are not playing the high resolution music formats your system will probably sound less than lifelike." No - not really. Since I've had our system set up with all components as it is right now, we have only been listening to, both criticallly & for relaxation, the high rez formats, so I cannot honestly appraise our standard resolution music right now. However, based on our previous set-up I'd say slightly less detail, maybe less dynamic, but still very engaging with well recorded discs. Lifelike - dead silent background etc - yes, those attributes are/have been evident, but . . . "what is it that makes your system communicate the intent of the music? " "the intent of the music" Now couldn't that be up to individual interpretation. As far as I know, music can't have an intent - only its composers and/or recording engineers. I don't mean to seem glib here, I don't fully follow that sentence. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4438 Registered: May-04 | Possibly I'm asking for a distinction which I've made too much over and people have not realized they were hearing. When I listen to a system to decide its quality, one of the first things I'm aware of are the mechanics of the system. Mechanics in the sense of "that sounds mechanical and robs the music of its life" or "that does not sound like a mechanical reproduction and the music has a natural, lifelike ebb and flow to the music". I would almost say the music bounces along in the latter instance and lays like a wet dishrag in the former. The notes and sounds are all there in both systems but the intent of the music is very different between the two. In one I am listening to the music and in the other I am hearing the system. I have several pieces of music which I'll regularly use to help me quickly decide which end of the spectrum the system falls on or how far in one direction or the other the system leans. In general, the simpler the music the more I can tell in less time. I know exactly what I'm listening for and it will usually not take more than a minute to decide if the system has the quality I'm after. The thing here is I know what I'm after and I know how I hear it and I know when I don't hear it. I don't mean to sound coy or superior but, though I could explain what I'm hearing, this is something that once you hear it you will know what I'm talking about. It comes in degrees in most systems and some systems have tremendous amounts of this quality. Some systems have very little and therefore have very little in the way of communication. I'm going to assume Margie and John have heard it. I think Rantz has heard it but not to the same extent that Frank has heard it. David apparently has heard it on his older system and is now missing some of this quality. I would suspect T8 has heard it and knows when he's not hearing it even if he can't put a name to it right now. I know that sounds very confusing and as if I'm trying to pull something over on all of you. But I think once you begin to listen for this quality, you will always hear it and it can define what is good and bad in an audio system. Maybe you've all been fortunate enough to always have systems which excel at this quality and no longer give it a second thought. It is what, I think, is sometimes considered the best quality of a musician. Please ponder what I've said. You really have to get it yourself and not have me hand it to you. Even if we move on and find the next quality that exists in a great music system, you will eventually hear this quality if you fulfill all of the other qualities we'll set out. On another note, I attended a small string quartet performance today. There was a twelve year old girl who already has more awards to her name than I could even begin to make up. She's the sort who makes you feel like a real schlump when you find out this fabulous musician wants to be a neurosurgeon and an astronaut. She was performing on a 350 year old Italian violin which is on loan to her. Her pieces were a mixture of items which showed off her technical prowess, her ability to make you sit and listen intently and her ability to suprise you. Even though the acoustics of the space are not perfect, the overall sound suited the program very well. The sound was alive and ambient, slightly tilted to the bright side though not enough to loose definition or to blur the sound and the intent of the performers. I wished my system could have that tonality more often. But how many 350 year old Italian violins are available? It was well worth the effort the young lady put forth as the audience stood to applaud her. She will be performing in Carnegie Hall this autumn. The rest of the program was filled by professional musicians playing a mixture of Stravinsky, Beethoven and Michael Haydn, F. J.'s younger brother. Basoons, viola, violins, bass, piano, English horns and clarinets all had a go at it. I found myself tapping my foot, nodding my head and "playing along" with the musicians. I too have misplaced my air baton. Each turn of a phrase was a suprise and each repetition was a delight. The momentum built as the last selection neared its finale and the sound filled the rather lively space which was attended by a capacity audience. The interplay between the musicians was very well done considering they seldom play as a unit. Though their presentation was not as dramatic as the young lady who preceded them they were well up to the task. It was interesting to hear the sounds of the instruments weave in and out of the fairly compact "soundstage" as the players entered and left the musical field. That was my tune up for the month. The tinnitus in my left ear was evident today but it didn't mar the overall performance. It let the performers set the rhythm and the pace of the music, not my ears. I got to enjoy music by that composer who went deaf. ************** Well, where should we go from here? Should we stay on the subject we've been hitting at or move on? We still have a question of "natural mids" to deal with. Anyone up to that yet? Since we're trying to make the system as invisible as possible, maybe I can also ask a question that assumes the system is at the least what conveys the music. If that's the case, does your system suprise you? The young lady today did so on several occasions. Or more to the point, does your system let the music suprise you? Always, occasionally, or never? |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 697 Registered: May-05 | I think we all have some major issues hear. I look at the stars and I see neither right nor wrong in them there just there. I listen to a loudspeaker, woo, and stop what's wrong with this picture... I think it sounds too bright, and not enough bass range in it to be believably realistic to surpass all the rest of the competition. I therefore seek out for one that does therefore making it wholesome. I can relax and enjoy Star Wars episode 3 and War of the Worlds on dvd till I'm therefore totally blue in the face.... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3380 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Excuse me. What are the names of the qualities you think we have successfully identified, so far? |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 700 Registered: May-05 | Jan So what about sensitivity 200db for a loudspeaker is it possible, therefore giving greater and universal excellence all over, and if there is one word that I don't what to hear that is the word impossible... |
|
bumblebee Unregistered guest | Is this a tube-vs-ss thread ??? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2133 Registered: Aug-04 | "Mechanics in the sense of "that sounds mechanical and robs the music of its life" or "that does not sound like a mechanical reproduction and the music has a natural, lifelike ebb and flow to the music". I would almost say the music bounces along in the latter instance and lays like a wet dishrag in the former." Well, thank you Jan - I understand that completely. It is the difference between hearing music from my old Yamaha cd player, int' amp and Acculab floorstanders to what I hear now. I have never claimed a place in audiophillia as I just have not experienced a broad enough range of brands, models, types, variations and so forth related to audio components and music platforms. Sure, over the years, I've had vinyl, tape (inc 8 trk) and discs and various low to lower-mid range pieces of kit. And I've heard various higher end systems belonging to friends and relatives, though long enough ago that my aural memory of such has surely faded. What I have now I would consider mid-range, but terminology aside, what I hear now is not robbed of life by the mechanics of the system - it picks me up and carries me most of the time - when it seems that damn real. And those times when you listen and almost forget to breathe . . . For me and mine - it is truly musical! I envy you of your day's musical interlude. Seeing/hearing talent in one so young is absolutely magical. Usually that sort of ability at such an age is robotic; no matter how well taught a natural ability electrifies a performance. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 702 Registered: May-05 | oh my god we have someone hear that been infected by the 8 track tape, back, back to the sixties with you, hehehehe, oh that's a name from the past, my dad had one of those and I remember playing some of those chunky 8 track tapes, the 8 track tape deck I don't remember the name of it. But it had wood on the sides of it chrome face plate, that's as much I can remember... |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2134 Registered: Aug-04 | Andy (or he who pervades all threads) Infected? No Andy, just an old experience of another faded format. Most of us here might be affected, but we were of the age of the 8 track. It was the latest and greatest, but it didn't quite happen. Something I don't wish to see occur with other recent formats. And stop watching movies until you're blue in the face - they are not worth dying for. Jan - there isn't going to be a test I hope? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4442 Registered: May-04 | A test? Good grief, no. It's gotten to the point I can hardly follow this thread long enough to put together a pop quiz on yesterday's material. Patience. Patience. John - Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 09:51 pm: We need a word or phrase that you can carry into a store and tell the salesperson very unambiguously you want a system that is "effortless", that "has a black background of silence", which "lets you envison what is (not) there" and allows you to ... ? As I see it we've agreed those are qualities we would like to have in a system and/or those are qualities we have heard in very good systems. They should also be qualities we associate with the experience of life music and which will contribute to our "lifelike" system. We also had the suggestion regarding the ability of the sound to grow larger and smaller. But, since no one took a bite of either of those cookies, Alice remains down the rabbit hole on that idea. Do you not agree with my assumption? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 296 Registered: Dec-03 | What would someone need to say to you Jan to convey these concepts? |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 640 Registered: Sep-04 | Oh my God - I go away for 4 days and come back to 330 responses... Jan, I'm beginning to think the question posed is unanswerable. I also feel that there is no single correct answer since all systems are compromises and one man's choice of compromise may not suit the next man. However, I get that what you're trying to identify is the quality that makes us tap our feet, connect, be touched in our souls. Why, next thing you'll be making us all spiritual.  Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4444 Registered: May-04 | Yep, got to stay with it, Frank. We're moving fast and furious down the road right now. Trying to avoid the storms and the occasional dead skunk in the road. I stay away from proselytizing, Frank. There's big bucks in it here in the States though. They call 'em MegaChurches or sometimes McChurches. But, if you could fill us in on that quality, maybe we could all take a look at the issue and decide if we agree on its value to our systems. How does "tap our feet" relate to "be touched in our souls" in your world? Do you think that's what happened with the useless mono radio? Is that part of what made the weekend system work? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3382 Registered: Dec-03 | "Do you listen?" Many people do not "listen" - they are content to hear. Perhaps the arresting, unexpected, memorable events occur when you are least expecting them. For example, when you are concentrating on something else. Perhaps driving. Then the music can take you by surprise. Perhaps a hifi to which you sit down and listen is less likely to produce music that surprises you than, say, a car radio. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4447 Registered: May-04 | John - I have to diagree. When I am listening to music through my car radio there is a detachment that allows for suprise only when the traffic conditions permit. When I am listening to music through my audio system I am hoping for the sort of suprises the young lady supplied yesterday. I want the music to continue to suprise me in some way. When it no longer can suprise me, then the disc gets moved to the "seldom listen" stack. |
|
Unregistered guest | Well...I'm not asleep. Jan, your answer defining the difference between dispersion and soundstange was very helpful, thanks. The quility you are encouraging us to identify... I come up with lots of discription, words and more words...alas, just so much blather. A bit of help, if you please. When I listen to the young musicians in the band, sometimes, what seems to distinguish one from another is their own confidence or joy in the playing. Their music is smoother. Less a collection of notes and more a whole, unified presentation. Am I anywhere in the ballpark? (Your afternoon in the music...Yummm) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4448 Registered: May-04 | Margie - Yes, I think that's a way to hear what I talking about. You might say it has to do with the apparent confidence that music portrays when it is hitting on all cylinders. It has a swagger even when it is being very modest. As if the performance were rehearsed and rehearsed again until it becomes second nature. You hear the finished, polished product in some systems and some live performances while in others you still hear the rehearsal performance. There is a different manner in which the music moves forward in the lifelike/musical system or performance; no longer hesitant but carried from note to note with a flow and continuity to the sound. It is what I hear in a well done live performance. I know where the music is going and I am suprised when it takes a sudden variation. My system and the music suprise me with the ingenuity of the performance. The bending inflection of a note or the manner in which a performer plays ahead, behind or on the beat is the intent of the music. It goes beyond the detail, in fact not relying on detail as much as the beat/rhythm, the soul, of the performers. That is what communicates the intent to me. That is what carries me along with the performers. It is what makes me care about the performance. Even on a transistor radio. Unfortunately, it is what I do not hear in many audio systems which have all the notes but no life. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 710 Registered: May-05 | Jan it will help us all if you can place some diagrams hear for all to see about dispersion and the angles as well, alone with words, that describe in detail, and for the listener to place his or hers set-up in many combinations of ways, and the room sizes as well. Wow still listening to John Williams score for War of the Worlds dame good mix, playing it in Dolby stereo pro-logic II music mode, the dynamics are big and its got a live feeling to it, and some parts of it sounds like the Star Wars episode 3 signature as been put to it, within the notation... Diagrams... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4450 Registered: May-04 | Ashley - You're asking for a lot of information to be posted. Once again I have to remind you that is not the topic of this particular thread. If you would like that information, begin a new thread and I'll see what I can do to accommodate your request. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2135 Registered: Aug-04 | Moments I think we all have moments when the planets are aligned, the moon is in the right phase, the day is going right and life, in general, feels good, the senses are heightened and the mood is right, and the dj couldn't have played a more appropriate tune than the one playing on the old car radio right now. It sounds so good and so right. The toes are tappin' the head is noddin' and we're singin' along without a worry in the world. Man, does this old radio crank or what? Then we pass over the Stephen King bridge; darkness falls, the mobile rings - bad news. It's your stockbroker - advising you have just lost all but your socks and, to rub salt into the wound, that he has also had an affair with your wife and she's leaving you and suddenly you remember about your appointment with the dentist. Thunder roars in the distance, lightning slpits a tree on the road in front of you, you swerve and drive into a ditch. The phone is dead. The dj decides at that moment to play "What A Wonderful World." The radio sounds like shite! |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 715 Registered: May-05 | Jan I'm really tired, and I nominated you to start a new one and I'll jump on the band wagon Looks like lance Armstrong is going foe another la tour de France record winning, boy I hope he pulls this one off.... Taking the the lead and yellow jersey for lance, 1st position 28hrs 6mins |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4453 Registered: May-04 | Ashley - OK, I start when this thread finishes. Rantz - Just keep driving till it stops raining. And relax, the DJ could've played a Bobby McFerrin tune. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2136 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan, The point I was making was that one's mood coinciding with a favourable tune/song could partially explain why lowly audio systems like car radios, lifestyle kits etc could have such a positive impact on the listener. This happened to me the other day, I was in a down mood and thought listening to some favourite music might pick me up. After ten minutes of trying, I couldn't get into it. I turned it off. Later when my condition improved, I played the same disc again and was captivated. So we introduce psychology into the equation also. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3384 Registered: Dec-03 | Wonderful and very plausible scenario, My Rantz! I am so glad I do not have a stockbroker. Andy, we need another thread. Do not take offence. Jan is trying to keep sight of the original topic, or at least remember where the discussion came from. I could gladly follow the topic of Film music but will not do so here. Small point, why does Jan persist in calling you "Ashley"? Did I miss this? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4455 Registered: May-04 | "So we introduce psychology into the equation also." Can't do! Feelings and psychology met a party once and neither have been the same since. B. F. Skinner told me it's best to keep them apart. Particularly if your doin' any equatin'! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3388 Registered: Dec-03 | I wonder how B. F. S. accounted for the difference between hearing and listening. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 212 Registered: May-05 | Geez, I leave for three days (play and work) and come back to 4 bazillion posts. It took me about 20 minutes just to catch up. And, we end with B.F.S. (big friendly scienceman). Sorry, Jan, I'm with you on this one, undergraduate pyschology major and it just didn't work for me. So, I now know more about dispersion and sound staging, that was helpful. I've learned a little bit more about how we define "what isn't there" and I know that there's emotion out there and I need to listen more closely to/for it? Tim tells me a little more about what I should be looking for in a midrange and I hope to hear that tomorrow and compare it to what I've got. How am I doing for a slow study? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2137 Registered: Aug-04 | Pavlov wondered about the same thing when his dog ate Skinner's cat. It wasn't that he couldn't hear the bell, he just wasn't listening. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 215 Registered: May-05 | My R-Man. Now, remember the bell only made the dog salivate. It was the cat's pajamas that evoked the predatory chomping. Don't believe it, BFS never found those pajamas, OR the cat. Now, psychology aside, I think it's interesting that some music on my current system comes very close to recreating the emotional experience of yesteryear while some comes across as more "sterile." Is that the system's fault, Jan? Or, is it the recording engineer's? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, how do I tell? Do I compare the same music on someone else's system? And, if their system presents a warmer version, i.e., more emotional, is it because that's the system response they prefer and it may make other music seem too forward? OUCH, how do we deal with these variables that we may not be able to measure or even know if they're there? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4457 Registered: May-04 | "Pavlov wondered about the same thing when his dog ate Skinner's cat." That, sir, is what they call "Synchronicity". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity "I wonder how B. F. S. accounted for the difference between hearing and listening." Rantz pretty much has it right. It was Pavlov who was concerned with hearing and Skinner didn't listen. None the less, they are all Jung today. And, somewhat relevant to our discussion: "There are four psychological functions in Jung's model: 2 rational functions -- thinking and feeling. 2 perceptive functions -- sensation and intuition. Sensation is the perception of facts. In our example, suppose the house is well built, it has a large garden, it is 2 miles from the shops, the buyer has a nervous tick when he/she mentions money. Intuition is the perception of the unseen. For example, the seller is hiding something, I'd be cntent here for the next twenty years. Thinking is analytical, deductive cognition. For example, compared to the house I viewed yesterday, this is overpriced, bigger, nearer to work, overall it would cost so much per month more on my mortgage, but I'd spend two hours less travelling each week. Feeling is synthetic, all-inclusive cognition. For example 'I'll have to sleep on it before I know whether this house could be home. Even then I may not know!' Feeling takes time. The feeling function is not the same as emotion, which Jungian psychology refers to as affect (emphasising its physiological component) but the feeling function and affect (emotion) clearly do influence each other." No need to debate those functions. Just stick them in a file somewhere for future reference. They will not be on the quiz. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3389 Registered: Dec-03 | Brilliant MR. Also Dakulis. I though Skinner had a rat, not a cat. So we listen, hoping to hear the sound that will make us salivate? Following Dakulis's question, can I say that, personally, I do not want a system "recreating the emotional experience of yesteryear". That is all filed away. I want new emotional experiences. It seems to me people, including Dakulis, if I may say so, are shying away from the obvious comparison, which is between the system and the real, live, musical performance it is designed to reproduce or replicate. This comparison is the one to which I believe Jan was referring in his original question. It is as if we are becoming progressively more accustomed to the idea that music is produced primarily by loudspeakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4458 Registered: May-04 | "I think it's interesting that some music on my current system comes very close to recreating the emotional experience of yesteryear while some comes across as more "sterile." Is that the system's fault, Jan? Or, is it the recording engineer's?" David - It is: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ying_Yang "Everything can be described as either yin or yang 1. Yin and yang are opposites. Everything has its opposite--although this is never absolute, only comparative. No one thing is completely yin or completely yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite." ******* " When I listen to the young musicians in the band, sometimes, what seems to distinguish one from another is their own confidence or joy in the playing. Their music is smoother. Less a collection of notes and more a whole, unified presentation." Where is the yin and yang in Margie's statement? |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 725 Registered: May-05 | John A Hallo there I'll post this hear as I did on the music page, you said you are going to see and hear and feel for the "War of the Worlds." Check "War of the Worlds" out at the "Empire Leicester Square screen #1" has this used to be "THX" in the past, but still as a good sound and the interior decoration is far smarter than of the "Odeon", and if "War of the Worlds" is playing at the "VUE" formally "Warner Village cinemas", as they have two "THX" screen there, see it at the two different types of cinema, and if you have an SPL meter take that along with you to do an SPL test, it's a question of science and historical home cinema factual information, and seeing which as the best low bass and overall wholeness in performance... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4459 Registered: May-04 | Ok, more to the point of David's question. Is it the system's fault? It could be. "You might say it has to do with the apparent confidence that music portrays when it is hitting on all cylinders. It has a swagger even when it is being very modest. As if the performance were rehearsed and rehearsed again until it becomes second nature. You hear the finished, polished product in some systems and some live performances while in others you still hear the rehearsal performance." The extent of the yin and yang in any one system will be dependent, as David asks and as John implies, on the system as a whole. Some components possess a yang quality in great abundance while others are cold fish to the matter. (A good salesperson can mix and match components to put together a system which is very adept at either extreme or somewhere in the middle. The system can be exceptionally musical or it can be exceedingly adroit at the technical abilities of a system. We need to separate the two extremes and concentrate on the music for this discussion.) The great majority of components above the mass market crud variety will have some but not all of our "lifelike" nature. There will be a yin yang balance. The more appropriate question to ask, David, might be; "Do I have a yang amplifier trapped in a yin system?" Let's take a short trip down this side road for a while. It could be interesting. I am constantly amazed at the questions on the forum asking for help matching components to other pieces of the system. The basic idea of matching a less bright amplifier with a top heavy speaker is about as far as the point of system matching seems to penetrate when these questions are asked. Everything in the system is used as a BandAid for the other components. And yet the real yin and yang of the system is ignored. You can't create a system personality by piecing together components which merely make up for the other equipment's shortcomings. To have a system which transcends the typical "line 'em up on a wall and move the boxes" sort of system, you must work on the strengths of each piece not the weaknesses. In the sense that a "warm" amplifier will possibly tilt to the yang side of our balanced system, it will be slightly less emphatic in its presentation of the high frequencies. It may even be a bit pronounced in the bass region because of this shift in tonality. (This "warm" amplifier may or may not possess other musical qualities that we will discuss later, but for now, we are concerned only with the technical aspect of frequency balance and the overall tonality of the amplifier.) Mating this amplifier with a "bright" speaker which tilts its tonal balance toward the upper frequencies will not achieve the balance of yin yang. Why? Because, taking the concept of yang to be night and yin to be day, combining the two does not get us to dusk. We might be able to say we are at 6 O'Clock; but which 6 O'Clock? AM or PM? That's an important question to ask if your bus leaves at 6 PM and you want to take that trip. If we have a speaker that is very day - yin - bright (as in emphasizing the treble region) we cannot turn the system into night - yang - warm (as in less high frequency emphasis) by putting on sunglasses. We can remove some glare from the yin side of the system; but we will loose something by doing so. Just as we shift the perception of our surroundings by using sunglasses and can no longer see true red, we shift the coloration of the system when we combine a warm amplifier with a bright speaker. It may be more pleasing on a temporary basis; but it will not be a long term solution and it does not let us see the reality of the music. Instead of working yin and yang against one another in this case, we should be deciding where we wish our system to end up in the final combination of the two properties and aim for that spot. If we want the system to be tilted toward the yang side of warm, we should aim all the components toward that side. If our desire is for a more yin system balance, the choice of components should reflect that. Is there a danger in having too much of a yin thing? Of course there is. That is why structuring a system is a bit more difficult than asking on an audio forum "which subwoofer cable is best for my system?" Just as yang is night, every yang-ish component will possess an amount of that yang nature which you can use to place your system at 6 O'Clock PM or AM, or anywhere in between. You get to decide at what point during the night or day does the bus leave the station and where you want your system to sit for the trip. And you do it by building on strengths not weaknesses. Notice we used the term "warm" to lean our system toward the yang side of balance. We also used the word "bright" to refer to the yin side of balance. To take those two words and place them in another context we wouldn't say, "The oven is only warm; I need to turn it up to bright." Those words are not comparative in that context. Nor would we say, "The sun was shining in Dallas today; it was warm and bright", if we wanted to imply opposites to each word. Just as each word has its meaning in the context of a sentence, the idea of yin and yang in your system will depend on the context. "Everything has its opposite -- although this is never absolute, only comparative." Warm and bright above refer to simple qualities of tonality in a system. They do not approach the personality of a system. Warm and bright are technical attributes of the system and therefore the musical personality of a system can still exist independently when we refer to the whole system as yin/bright or yang/warm. What we want to discover is how to find the other qualities of yin and yang that are relevant to the personality of the system and not just a descritption of its technical qualities. We are pursuing music in this discussion and not just the tonality of a system. So we will hopefully arrive at an end result being a system which has a yin and yang nature to the music no matter where the tonal balance sits. That certainly should have cleared things up substantially!? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4460 Registered: May-04 | Ashley - This is a discussion that does not involve cinemas, SPL meters or THX certifications. Please; confine your comments to the issues at hand. No one here said anything about War of the Worlds. Ashley, do you ever listen to music without a movie? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2139 Registered: Aug-04 | Only got a minute - too much to take in right now. John, "I though Skinner had a rat, not a cat." If he had rats then he was bound to have a cat - don't you think? Later Yin & Yang of the sytem - oh my! Later |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 644 Registered: Sep-04 | Definitely getting spiritual... As to the weekend system, I cannot define it. A picture is worth a thousand words and to me, HiFi paints pictures. I don't want to be surprised by my system time and time again. I want to go through an experience time and time again. One quality of music which surpasses movies is that the same piece of music gives me the same experience time and again. I don't get bored by it just because I've heard it many times before. Or at least the threshold of repetitiveness is much higher than it is with movies for example. So Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto still gets me every time, except possibly with poorer interpretations - not a fault of the music, but a fault of the players. It's a bit like experiencing beautiful sunsets every day. They never fail to move, inspire and affect you. Yet you've seen more beautiful sunsets than you can remember. It's a question of mood, consciousness, resonance. It's not something that can be described adequately through words. It's an enigma. Should we solve it? We may be poorer if we do... Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 730 Registered: May-05 | Yes I do listen to music more often than you would think, but I had to mention it hear as John A may not pass the music posting for a while, and seeing that he leaves in London, it's importation to mention this, as the "Empire" is the holy grail of listening.... I like classic music and film score music Jan, there you have it in a nut shell.... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 731 Registered: May-05 | Is this thread about Altec like the Altec A4 the voice of the theatre the grand loudspeaker of it hay day now long passed by, didn't know that fact as for Altec A4 maybe Jan you should look at this post as this mentions the Altec A4..... https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/146507.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1255 Registered: Mar-05 | > One quality of music which surpasses movies is that the same piece of music gives me the same experience time and again. I don't get bored by it just because I've heard it many times before. Or at least the threshold of repetitiveness is much higher than it is with movies for example. Beautifully put, Frank! My sentiments exactly. Which is why my CD collection outnumbers my DVD collection by oh, 50 to 1 or so. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4465 Registered: May-04 | Geez, that road sign for Film Soundtrack was hidden behind a bush! No, I don't want my system to suprise me every time I listen anymore than the next person does. I've told the story of the last time my system suprised me and I ended up on my backside about three feet from the amplifier when a coupling cap exploded. I can only deal with those sorts of suprises on a very infrequent basis. If you'll look back I asked; "does your system let the music suprise you?" (Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 12:29 am I prefer to be suprised by the music each time I listen. Even with familiar material. I enjoy hearing something new or the same music in a new way. That's the purpose of having a recording of a performance as I see it. Every time I return to that performance there is something new waiting for me to discover. Maybe I've learned something new about the artist, the composer, the performers, the history of the piece, etc., which lets me go on a discovery hunt for a suprise. Even the moments I know are going to happen such as the trill of a note, the explosion of sound and then the quiet that follows in Shostakovich or the finish of a piece that has held my attention are things that can suprise me again and again. I see this as making me a more active listener than merely experiencing the same emotions each time. This may be splitting hairs needlessly since the Shostakovich 5th still leaves me with the same emotions each time I finish the piece. But it is all the minute to minute suprises that keep me wanting to listen again. So is there a concensus on this aspect of being suprised? Either way you go; is it important to you? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3392 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry to be brief. I wrote I do not want a system "recreating the emotional experience of yesteryear". .... I want new emotional experiences. What I meant was that I want to see more deeply into the music, understand it better, as well as discover new things. Not re-live old feelings. So I am completely with Edster and Frank on this. I think. I find some music gets better and better with each listening. And different interpretations add interest. Unless there is something really flawed about a performance, it is not a question of "better" or "worse" but "well - I hadn't thought of it like that, before". That's the sort of surprise I was thinking of. Yes, movies are quite different. A really really good one I find I can watch a second time. That's about it. [Andy; - I have posted on "Movie Soundtracks" and seen your reply, as an e-mail. Perhaps you have not switched on automatic e-mail notification. It saves having to interrupt topics.] |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 743 Registered: May-05 | Hallo there John A And where may I find this wonderful feature, and how do I make it active... Also listening to Madonna at this moment in time "The Immaculate collection" track 8 "Live To Tell" its got a nice harmony feel to it and the lyrics are easy to listen too, without the other instruments masking the vocals, when it finishes I'll "play it again Madonna" its happy hour.... Well almost, the UK is a bit down at the moment..... |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 217 Registered: May-05 | Gentlemen, we seemed to have lost Margie along the way. I like the yin and yang analogy, Jan. It helps me understand the concept of molding the system components towards an end. BUT, unlike several of you, I don't have the necessary reference points, i.e., the necessary number of components to compare to know how the system is being affected. I recognize that this is a different concept that how the music is being affected. I can hear that, generally. Then, I have to decide what I want to do about it. My current dilemna, as I stated, is that some music sounds "warm" in my current system and some sounds "transparent", probably a better word maybe than sterile. The Ascends are pretty neutral in the midrange and treble. It's a different sound than what I'm accustomed to but it's a much better, clearer, cleaner sound overall. The music and sound that I hear is lightyears better but it's not always "warm". It depends on the type of music, actually that's not true, it depends on particular recordings. Should i have a few "reference" CDs that allow me to distinguish what is happening with the system when I make changes? I hope this is making sense? I'm enjoying the philosophical discussion immensely BUT eventually I want to know what some of you know already so that I can determine better how to balance and control the yin and yang qualities of my system. Is that something that only comes with extensive exploration of what's out there? On the purely philosophical side, it's all about trying to recreate the emotion and feel of "live" experiences at home. So, a way back when Jan asked "do you listen to live music." Yes, I do and it's a reference point for what I would like to hear from the system components. Sometimes I'm getting pretty close to "live" and other times it sounds like piano, violen, oboe, guitar but it's not a particularly emotional feel. Got that? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4466 Registered: May-04 | I think Margie was hanging back looking at that replica of the Lincoln Memorial made out of Popsicle sticks. I'm sure she'll catch up. http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html |
|
Margie Unregistered guest | Welcome back, big D I seem to be in agreement with your whole post. Myrantz..the Stephen King thing.... love the imagery. Jan, you have posted lots of good info. Jung, Yin and Yang, are not unfamilier to me but you managed to tie it to this discussion. You really are a good facilitator. I do, however, feel a bit stuck in the muck. I agree with the three items listed. Soundstage..(very important to me) but we've tabled it for now. Re-live an old emotion...Re-visit an old emotion...hear something new (surprise) What quality is this...What "word or phrase" can we give it? Well...years ago, I spent a lot of: time, money, emotion, thought, energy.. in the selection of Stereo equipment. Two systems really, mostly new but some used. They weren't the very highest end stuff but way more than I could really afford. I was happy, they were my friends! "Stephen King" comes along and I didn't get custody. For several years ....nothing at all. Slowly I rebuilt, adding one piece at a time.(By now, I actually enjoy the process!) I've, "re-lived and re-visited, heard new, been surprised" etc. I think they are all parts of the same or different ways of expressing it. I think as a quality of the system, I want it to sound.. fresh (?). If I'm listening to old songs from my past, I don't want to relive it, I want to revisit. I want to go back, to then, but with freshness. The context has changed. I should, "hear new, sometimes surprised" if the componants are nimble enough and I want them to be. Wheather my preference is more yin or yang...I love a clean, detailed high end that will " make angels weep". On the other hand a full, round, clear, bass that lets me feel "the earth move under my feet"(how 'bout Carol King)....Must I choose? |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 751 Registered: May-05 | Talk about recreating the live event of music, on the other forums site Secrets of home theatre and Hi-Fi, there's this chap that what's to recreating the liveness of FireWorks on his home cinema set-up, and needed a list of DVD's that have fireworks, one thing come to mind musical concerts as I remember seeing and outdoors one back in 2003 in the summer time. I only hope he doesn't destroy his loudspeakers has fireworks are so loud and with concert music on top of it as well like the "Tchaikovsky 1812" KABOOM, I have measured fireworks with the SPL meter at around 25 meters away with SPL levels hitting 108 to 110dbc weighting, 25meters so don't try this at home, as you can say good bye too the loudspeakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 298 Registered: Dec-03 | >the "Tchaikovsky 1812" KABOOM One of my favorites on Telarc. I've avoided blowing a driver, so far. That's a recording that'll make you applaude. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2145 Registered: Aug-04 | Andy Summers After what you posted on the "nasty Neighbors" thread that had to be taken off by the administrator, I will not be responding to any more of your posts. I understand you have some issues, and I was prepared to make allowances for those, as others are, but I don't believe that they are so bad that you do not know right from wrong. And you are very wrong, no matter what was said or done or by whom - you cannot tar all people from one vocation with the same brush. I have never read anything so disgusting or so treachorous in all my time on this forum. Ohers will not know what this is about and I will not be disclosing it. Just don't communicate to me on this forum as I'll be ignoring anything you have to say. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 752 Registered: May-05 | Timn8ter Hallo there The Tchaikovsky version I have is one without the cannon recoils KABOOM, though I may come across some of the dts CD versions and the planets by Gustav Holst is one of my all time favourites but there will be others, there is the DTS music and demonstration disc that as one superb mix on it called TELARC: "A Touch of Madness" which uses all forms of mix techniques form some infrasonic range that shakes the room before it even reaches the highest levels.... http://www.gustavholst.info/ |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4473 Registered: May-04 | ")....Must I choose?" Must you choose between the very best at one aspect and give up another desirable quality? Any audio salesperson would tell you, no, you don't have to; but only if your pockets are deep enough to do both well. And for most of us that is the first compromise we have to make. Determining a budget is where I suggest anyone begins when thinking about a system or an upgrade. Listen to what's above your budget but don't get drawn into spending more than what's needed for what you want. How much we can spend will determine where the next cut is made. For some people it may be the extension of the bass while maintaining quality of reproduction. Certainly it is not that overly difficult for a speaker to reproduce a quantity of bass in a small region of frequencies. And that alone can be impressive; but refer back to my comments about buying what impresses you. To extend the bass response down beneath 30Hz and have the quality remain very high is still a bit of a financial stretch. The same applies with all other aspects of reproduction. The difference between a $1k speaker and a $2k speaker will probably be significant, most particularly if the speakers are from the same manufacturer. The difference between a $10k speaker and a $20k speaker will probably be an issue of diminishing returns. So, if "Stephen King" dies and having repented leaves you a vast fortune, Margie, you can have it all. Until then we'll work on getting you the best you can afford. I hope everyone has taken the time to look at the link I provided for a glossary of terms used in audio. It covers terms such as "transparent" so everyone has a better idea of what is meant by the words they choose. The effort in this thread, as I see it, is to get you beyond the typical words used by audio reviewers and into a lexicon which everyday people can understand. I would prefer to hear a client say their desire is for an "effortless" system than to tell me they wish their system had "a more open top end". I think everyone can at least begin to understand what the former's meaning is; while the latter can be left to much interpretation even among experienced listeners. Once again I'll ask for an opinion on what all of you see as the direction we should be taking. Is everyone thinking understandable terms? Which, by the way, Margie has thrown out the idea of "fresh". What's the reaction to that term? "I'm enjoying the philosophical discussion immensely BUT eventually I want to know what some of you know already" "You really are a good facilitator." David, I'm not yet certain what knowledge you actually seek or that we can give. Most of what you desire I hope will eventually be discussed in this thread. As to knowledge/philosophy and being a good facilitator; most of us just like to show off. Eventually we make a point. Sometimes you have to be paying close attention to catch it, but it is made. We'll work on a few of your questions as we move along here. I would recommend you have a few "reference discs" to use as a yardstick of what your system is doing. Without those you are at the mercy of the commercial music business. You can pick up most decent audio or music review magazines and find information on current releases. You can also ask at any of the better audio shops in your area to get an idea what they think of and use as a reference for demonstration. When I was selling, much of what I used as demo material came from music clients brought in and I found interesting, so I had a fairly wide range of material that covered most music types. As the first question I asked implies, I think most of all you should use live music as your reference and then compare what are considered "reference" discs to the sound you hear at the live performance. I would really encourage everyone to find a performance to attend this week. The one I heard last weekend was free, it cost me the gas to get there and the donation I made, and was worth innumerable amounts more than I paid to attend. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 650 Registered: Sep-04 | I think the phrase 'a picture is worth a thousand words' doesn't even come close. Reading all the posts that are left in this thread leads me to the conclusion that we are simply going round in circles. The vocabulary simply isn't there. Perhaps we're just not good enough at English. Perhaps the vocabulary doesn't exist - after all we insist on using words that describe largely visual attributes (bright, transparent, deep, soundstage, image) or sensations (warm, cool, rich, fruity, soft, hard) rather than auditory ones (can't think of any). I honestly don't think our vocabulary allows us to describe adequately that which we are trying to define. Since we are using terms which are used for other senses, these terms are inaccurate as well as lead to misunderstanding. After all, you don't get auditory dictionaries which describe a sound through the actual sound itself do you? Therefore experience is the only solution. Experience gives you the ability to interpret the inadequate vocabulary with some sort of common understanding. Therefore if you were ina demo with a dealer and discussed what you heard, you would both understand what the other meant by 'warm' for example. It's a painstaking exercise but it's the only one guaranteed to save misunderstandings. As to compromises, everything is a compromise, even the most expensive systems, since these reflect the philosophies of design of the designers. Therefore a top of the range Naim system does not really do soundstage half as well as a top of the range Krell system. The Naim designer would say that the soundstage is more realistic. The Krell designer would say that his soundstage is much better defined. Both designers would say their system is the more musical! Is anything I say making sense?! Jan, you invented this thread to drive me insane didn't you? Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4474 Registered: May-04 | Actually I didn't, Frank. Your point concerning language is well taken by everyone I think. I am always reminded of the oenophile's love for describing wine as being "grassy" or possessing "a taste of leather" when the language of audio becomes too intense. One thing that has always bothered me about the language of audio is we never listen to a live performance and remark that the sound was quite open on the top. There are terms that are interchangeable between how we describe the actual sound of a performance and the space it was performed in with words used to describe the performance of an audio system. But, all too often the words we use in audio have no real meaning other among those already innocualted in the verbiage. Since we are all adults who use words constantly, I think we can produce some idea which we can use to better paint those pictures which cross from one experience to another. I'm not looking (curious word there) to supplant the vocabulary of the audio world but merely to help define what we experience in live music and how that relates to an audio system. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 654 Registered: Sep-04 | Hmmm, but the problem with live music is that is the exception to the rule. Most recordings you buy are not live recordings. They are facsimiles engineered to sound in a particular way. After all, most contemporary music is recorded in little recording studios with horrible acoustics. All that air, space, soundstage etc. is added with reverb later, so what you're hearing is NOT the real thing. When you do hear the real thing it rarely has the same effect as when you'd heard the recording, not just because the recording's not real, but also because the live sound hasn't got all that post-processing in it. So, turning things on their head, are you comparing to an unrealistic source perhaps? Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3393 Registered: Dec-03 | [Andy: "And where may I find this wonderful feature" - click on your name (left); log in; select option from profile; save changes] I agree, Frank. we insist on using words that describe largely visual attributes... or sensations ... rather than auditory ones (can't think of any). I can suggest loud, soft, treble (higher pitch) and bass (lower pitch). Then there are musical terms, "staccato" etc., most of which are Italian. But that's about it. Yes, most hifi terms are by analogy with other senses. I read hifi reviews and wonder what on earth these guys are talking about. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3394 Registered: Dec-03 | That was intended as a reply to you previous post, Frank. I agree with the later post, too. There is an interesting article on microphone techniques in August HiFi News. I learned that even Tony Faulkner puts reverb into "live" recordings if he thinks the original acoustic is too "dry". BTW his home-made web site is worth scanning for names he has recorded, and the sort of recording kit he uses. http://www.auracle.com/greenroom/ Wish he would chip in on this thread. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 222 Registered: May-05 | Jan, thanks for the audio glossary link and article. See, it helps when you not only read to catch up but you take a look at the links. Mr. Holt relates much better than I did the frustration I'm chasing with trying to "upgrade" and get "real" sound. I guess he also discusses several of John A and Margie's comments about the emotion of the music and he comments on your original premise that "live music" is the standard by which we should be trying to judge the reproductions. Now, in my spare time, I'll work my way through the glossary, and maybe, I will be able to better communicate the sounds that I hear and the emotions that I'm feeling as I listen. BUT, I still like the yin & yang anology and your response to the post on my system but I lack any "qualified audio salesmen" in this area. (I used to have some folks at Magnolia Hi-Fi that I felt were knowledgeable but it's closed and BB, CC and Huppins just don't do it.) So, Jan you looking to continue your vacation to Spokane? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3396 Registered: Dec-03 | Definitions and descriptions |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4475 Registered: May-04 | David - At this point I'm out of the rain and would prefer to remain that way. I understand the weather in your part of the country does wonders for the hydrangeas though. Turns them into trees from what I've been told. Here a poor, sickly little hydrangea can be stepped over by a fox terrier. From Gordon Holt's introduction to the Stereophile audio glossary: *** But what should it sound like? The pat answer, of course, is that it should sound like "the real thing," but it's a bit more complicated than that. If the system itself is accurate, it will reproduce what is on the recording. And if the recording itself isn't an accurate representation of the original sound, an accurate sound won't sound realistic. But what does the recording sound like? That's hard to tell, because you can't judge the fidelity of a recording without playing it, and you can't judge the fidelity of the reproducing system without listening to it---usually by playing a recording through it. Since each is used to judge the other, it is difficult to tell much about either, except whether their combination sounds "real." *** From Frank: *** When you do hear the real thing it rarely has the same effect as when you'd heard the recording, not just because the recording's not real, but also because the live sound hasn't got all that post-processing in it. So, turning things on their head, are you comparing to an unrealistic source perhaps? *** One of the great yin yang issues in audio is the relationship of the recording engineer and the audiophile listener. When I introduced that concept into this thread, I began with a quote from the Wickepedia article on the matter. "Each contains the seed of its opposite." The truth of the relationship is a bit lopsided when it comes to engineer/audiophile. This relationship has permeated the discussion on another thread where the matter of "is it wrong as long as I like it" has been an issue of debate for some time. There's certainly no need to rehash that argument here as it has occupied thousands of posts over several threads to get to a midway point of agreement. However Frank's comments and David's question, "Should i have a few "reference" CDs ... ?" are taken into account by Holt. The issue becomes; "what is real?" and "why do so many recordings not sound real?" The answer has to begin with what are you using as your reference when you ask what is real. Here the answer in most cases should be the live performance. The answer to the second question is answered, in part, by the answer to the first question. Many recordings do not sound real for the simple reason that, with the engineering techniques used in their production, there was never much that was real about them. Where to begin with that discussion is an impossible task. Do I start with the production of the latest pop diva who wasn't in the studio when the rest of the musicians were present and the strings were recorded in another nation? Or do I mention the use of multiple microphones and gain riding/spotlighting which Duetsche Grammophone became fond of employing when recording a simple string quartet? If you take a look at how music is produced and engineered, you will be amazed some discs sound as good as they do. http://mixonline.com/recording/projects/ It is when you look at the equipment listed in John's link that you understand that good sounding discs do not require large amounts of post production processing. Taking Frank's question, "are you comparing to an unrealistic source perhaps?", we have to realize that many of the sources we choose to buy will be processed and engineered to sound the way the engineer desired and not necessarily the way it existed in the studio or in a live performance. As long as we are aware of what we are using as a source, that should only become an issue when the lack of reality becomes frustrating. At other times the manipulation can be a breath of fresh air. The first time I saw a photograph taken with a starburst filter I was delighted to see the effect I had seen on occassion in real life. Then I saw the filter's result when there was no real explanation for how the effect could exist in reality. Finally I was old enough to understand the effect was caused by a manipulation of reality and thereafter I found the effect sometimes charming and often times no more than an effect that altered my perception of reality. But it remained an effect. I never assumed it to be reality from that point forward. This takes us back to our sunsets discussion. How am I to react to the photographic manipulation of reality? Should I accept it as desirable and be disappointed when the reality doesn't match the filtered effect of the photograph? Should I accept the real thing and understand when that reality is being manipulated? Can I enjoy both the reality and the manipulation? I think it's clear that until I have a reference for the real thing I cannot see the effect. Once I see the effect for what it is, I can enjoy that also. So it is with music and an audio system. Until I have a reference for what live (real) music sounds like, I cannot detect manipulation unless it is blatant. Once I realize the effect of the manipulation I can decide whether I wish to enjoy it or dismiss it as mere hokum conjured to deviate from reality. I see Frank's question as looking through a telescope of sorts. When the moon is viewed through the telescope what we don't see is the reality which places the moon in its context as a celestial body. Without the bigger picture of the stars in the background I can't tell whether I'm looking at the moon or a reproduction of the moon. Once I've established the moon among the stars, I can then view the moon with greater understanding. To think of the recorded attributes of the processed disc as the moon is to ignore the entire night sky. We can separate out what qualities the production process alters and consider that to be the moon; or we can widen our view and realize there is more in the night sky that makes it real. If we wish to study the moon, we can look only at the moon. If we wish to study the effect of "flanging" in a recording, we can consider only how flanging affects the recording. If we wish to understand how the moon relates to the sky it sits in, we have to look at the stars. If we wish to understand the music, we must look beyond the effects. I think we are looking to put into words how the music is the entire night sky and the effect of production is only one object in that universe. Place the effect of the production in its context and look instead for the music. If the system is aimed at showing us the music, the objects will be put into perspective. In that case we can still enjoy the music, which is what we're after in the first place. If the system is effortless that is reality. The recording can only alter that reality. If the system allows us to envision the performance, it doesn't matter whether there is a recorded soundstage or whether we are listening to a mono recording. If the music engages us, suprises us or relives a connection, it can succeed at going beyond the effects of the production. If the music is the reference, and the reference is what we seek, the effects can be realized for what they are. Our concentration is on the music. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 301 Registered: Dec-03 | Ah Mr. Jan, I see a geography lesson is in order. Mr. Dakulis lives in the desert, similar to west TX. You see, there is a mountain range running north and south that divides the state in half causing the moisture from the Pacific to pile up in the western half. I'm the one that lives in the rain forest. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 225 Registered: May-05 | Jan, I see Tim already gave you the geography lesson. It's 85, sunny and I've got to go out to Lake Couer d'Alene, think very large body of water, to provide refreshments to a bunch of homesick, lonely boyscouts. Ah, ain't life tough. So, limited listening time tonight BUT I'll get an hour or two probably and my daughter is having a "Phantom of the Opera" party and promised to report on Tim's speakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 226 Registered: May-05 | Well, I'm taking Jan's advice and I'm going to attend our Symphony's kick-off of summer in our downtown park this Sunday at 7:30 p.m. Anyone in the area is invited as it's sponsored by our bar association and there's no fee. Just bring a lawn chair and a good ear. I've tried to get them to use Tim's speakers, but alas, they prefer to use their own, something about the green stuff growing from them, kinda like they've been exposed to too much moisture. LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 606 Registered: Mar-05 | Who started this god forsaken post anyway!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4476 Registered: May-04 | Little Jan Vigne, Said this is a winner, Reading the forum posts. He asked the question, What is your reference?, And said, What a good boy am I. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4477 Registered: May-04 | That doesn't quite work; does it? How about this: Little Jan Vigne, Said this is a winner, After reading the forum why's. He asked the question, What is your reference?, And said, What a good boy am I. That's better. The power of proof reading. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 619 Registered: Mar-05 | post wh0re. lol |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3398 Registered: Dec-03 | I cannot see a way to avoid having some sort of reference. The ultimate reference is the original performance, but a practical reference may be different things for difference purposes, and different people may have different ideas about that. But we inevitably want someone, somewhere, to be able to know what the reference is, so they can compare. As soon as we say that, it seems obvious to me that they will only be able to compare if they have a recording/playback system that is, itself, as close to invisible as possible, and that means neutral speakers, amongst other consideration: absence of coloration and other artefacts. If someone wants to introduce coloration of some other effect for some reason, and they have every right to choose that, then they still need to know how much, and where, and they will not be able to make any sensible decisions about that unless they can hear what the changes they make actually sound like. For that, they still need a reference. One of the real problems in audio, in my opinion, is recording engineers and hi-fi equipment designers who want to get in on the act. Even if mixing from microphones is part of the performance, it still seems to me to be essential to have accurate reproduction of sound somewhere, otherwise, how does anyone choose the mix? Then I would think it is important to draw a clear distinction between the engineer participating in the performance (there is some avant-garde electronic "classical" music where this is done) and the engineer whose job it is to get the performance recorded, so people can hear it. Those guys should agree about who is doing what, and the other performers absolutely have to know who is "part of their act" and who isn't. When the recording hardware itself becomes part of the act, all I see is confusion, and I run for cover. It is much the same with art. Here is an analogy. If a guy is painting a representational picture, say a portrait, landscape, or still life, he chooses how to represent the object. Put him behind coloured or otherwise optically interfering lenses, and what do you get? Well, much the same picture, because he see both the original object and his representation of it through the same lenses. If, however, someone tries to fool the guy by putting the lenses on him when he is looking at only either the object or the painting, then that person is just interfering with what the artist is trying to do, and should go away and paint his own damned picture. That seems to me to be just as much true when the picture is supposed to be abstract, it is just that, there, the original point of reference is only in the artist's head. In that case, put him, unknowingly, in red glasses, and you will still get a bluer picture than the one he intended you to see. Put on red glasses to view his picture, and you might get closer to his intention, but how do you know what that was, and are you sure you glasses are the same shade of red as his? And who benefits from all this, apart from whoever makes the glasses? It seems we've always got to ask what was the the artist's/musicians intention, and who has the right to interfere with that? Recording engineers and equipment manufacturers are a bit like art restorers, or photographers who take pictures of pictures. All their skill should be directed to making their contribution invisible. If they don't do that, they are deliberately trying to get in the way, couldn't have had much of an opinion of the guy whose work they are doctoring, and must lead unhappy lives. I'd recommend a change of job. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2148 Registered: Aug-04 | Please make it a single accurate head shot so I don't suffer, but personally, I think the reference needs to be a small selection of your favorite recordings on your preferred medium - the ones that you THINK come closest to representing the sound that actually does it for you - something you believe your favorite performer/s is/are wanting to convey to you. Because quite frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn about the live performance other than to see if it can live up to my expectations. And no two live performances held in different venues will sound the same anyway. If it is a recording of a live performance held in a venue where you actually heard the live performance and you find you get upset if it just didn't convey the music accurately then I can see how this would be important to you if this is what you listen for. Me, it will either do it if it sounds right, or it won't if it sounds wrong - the same with my system. And isn't enjoying the music what it is about. Can't a recording be wonderful too even if it doesn't quite capture the essence of the live performance. If your system allows you to differentiate wonderful sound from crap sound, then there can't be too much wrong with it. And whether or not others approve of your gear or musical tastes, it's all there for your enjoyment, not theirs - regardless of how much you paid for subwoofer cable. Even if we could convey what "we listen for' to the audio salesperson, he still would'nt be able to set up a kit that's gonna do it for you. It will always take many combinations until your EARS make the decision. But, if we can talk the talk, and the salesperson talks the same talk, then that would help get us there more quickly. That's my take. Wait! I want a blindfold. And a cigarette. Oh, for a cigarette. Actually, I'll agree with any opinion for a cigarette. No just kidding - filthy things. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 160 Registered: Dec-04 | Do we want an 'accurate' recording, or one that sounds good? That must depend, to some extent, on the type of music which we are listening to. For pop/rock/easy listening music, then it probably doesn't matter much if there are dozens of takes in the studio, then mixed and muddled through a thousand op-amps, as long as the result is pleasant sounding. Maybe they should sell various mixes though, designed for audiophile, average and crap equipment. There probably isn't one mix which will universally good, so they probably compromise somewhere between average and crap. Acoustic music - from June Tabor singing 'a capella' to Mahler's 'Symphony of a Thousand' - needs different treatment in my humble opinion. If you listen to this sort of stuff then you need to get up to 'average' equipment, at least. I recall that binaural recordings were much talked about in the 70's. For anyone who is not familiar with this technique, it involves having a 'dummy head' which has microphones in place of eardrums. Because the recording process is so simple, mike to tape, with no processing, it can give a very impressive effect - a real surround effect. The disadvantage is that replay is only accurate when listened to on headphones. Now that the amount of data which can be stored on a single disk is so huge (SACD and BlueRay for example), it would be a great idea if the recording studios would include a binaural version on all their releases of acoustic stuff. We might then get an idea of what damage those nasty Deutsche Grammophon sound engineers have done to your newly purchased Shostakovich string quartet. It's never going to happen, of course, but I like to dream of a more perfect world. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3402 Registered: Dec-03 | Excellent points. Please take off the blindfold, MR! I said on another thread that my last post here was a defence of "right" and "wrong" approaches, but note the inverted commas. It really is a matter of preference, ultimately. However, I think for acoustic music, it is as diablo describes. Obvious departures from what you would hear if you were there are going to spoil the illusion. These can be accidental, like some defect in the hi-fi, or deliberate, such as the engineer trying to "get in on the act". For synthetic music, the engineer has got in on the act from the beginning. There is still the question of what he intended you to hear. But that is probably unaswerable. Whereas "What did/does the original performance sound like?" can be answered, in principle, and we can decide for ourselves. That is a nice conclusion - classical and other acoustic music is more "democratic". Then you can get live performances of things that were synthetic in first place, like the recent "Sgt. Pepper's lonely hearts club band" in Hyde Park. Yes, I remember reading about binaural recordings, diablo. I do not think I have ever heard one, though. Not knowingly, anyway. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4479 Registered: May-04 | Shouldn't we all be moving down the road again? That last stop was interesting; but I think Margie and David stayed in the car while we took off on our jaunt. Here's where I see us on the map; we've settled on a few terms but have left the hard work still to be done. Margie had said, "I do, however, feel a bit stuck in the muck. I agree with the three items listed.* Soundstage..(very important to me) but we've tabled it for now. Re-live an old emotion...Re-visit an old emotion...hear something new (surprise) What quality is this...What "word or phrase" can we give it? ... I've, "re-lived and re-visited, heard new, been surprised" etc. I think they are all parts of the same or different ways of expressing it. I think as a quality of the system, I want it to sound.. fresh (?). If I'm listening to old songs from my past, I don't want to relive it, I want to revisit. I want to go back, to then, but with freshness. The context has changed. I should, "hear new, sometimes surprised" if the componants are nimble enough ... " (Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:42 pm For the moment I've used the word "engage" as a catch all, "If the music engages us, suprises us or relives a connection, it can succeed at going beyond the effects of the production." (Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 05:38 pm The problem I have with engage as a desirable quality is it falls into the same category of nondescript words as when a client would say, "I want a clean top and clear mids." Well, of course you do; we all do. But that doesn't tell me anything because everyone who said that bought vastly different systems from the next person; and yet they all felt they got what they asked for. I had also suggested "suprise" which seems to have taken us off the road a bit. "This may be splitting hairs needlessly since the Shostakovich 5th still leaves me with the same emotions each time I finish the piece. But it is all the minute to minute suprises that keep me wanting to listen again. So is there a concensus on this aspect of being suprised? Either way you go; is it important to you?" (Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 01:50 pm) Where are we at with this right now? Do we have a consensus on what we want from a system and how to describe it sufficiently? We also have "natural midrange" to deal with and Margie is still interested in discussing soundstage. (Though I see that as being encompased within "envision the performance".) The idea of getting big and small has not been touched for a long while. If I've forgotten anyone's requests just let me know. Possibly there's something else that will bring things together. Where do we head next? There is still more that I could say about the yin yang of a system; but that doesn't seem appropriate at the moment. As to the ability to describe what Frank sees as indescribable, I would say we have to assume we can have the perfect system. We can have a system which replicates the live experience if only we know how to ask for what we want. If we can return to identifying what we desire from an audio system and how we put that into simple to understand words, we can be moving forward. *Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 09:51 pm: We need a word or phrase that you can carry into a store and tell the salesperson very unambiguously you want a system that is "effortless", that "has a black background of silence", which "lets you envison what is (not) there". |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2150 Registered: Aug-04 | "Do we want an 'accurate' recording, or one that sounds good?" Personally Diablo, I want one that sounds good. I agree with you and John that with a live acoustic performance accuracy would/should be the goal for the recording engineer and listener alike. However, should the venue and/or placement of musicians on the stage or some other influence create a less than wonderful live performance, artful mixing to enhance the sound rather than accuracy might be preferable if the end result is more pleasant to the ears. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2151 Registered: Aug-04 | Sorry for clogging the fuel-line for a while there Jan, but had to let it out. As mentioned previously, the words or phrases we may carry into a store are pretty difficult to come by if we are all - customer and salesperson - to talk the same talk. If 'we' need these words or phrases, and I agree they'd sure be helpful, what have 'we' said to get by in the past? Or didn't we? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 227 Registered: May-05 | I didn't stay in the car, I got lost in traffic. Sorry, other duties, like work and "other fun" took me off and I didn't return until after 11:00 p.m. last night to find 15 late teens to early 20s watching "Phantom of the Opera" and "raving" about the sound. Well, see it's easy to please the masses, or is it? I'm still looking for the words to describe what I want. I guess, like an earlier post I gave, it's like obscenity, I'll know it when I hear it? I want the artist to be connecting with me, depending on the type of music. Diana Krall - should connect. Harry Chapin should connect. Mozart, Bach, Wagner - should connect, and I agree Jan and Margie, they should surprise us with new emotions, feelings, discoveries as we hear and change and grow with their music. This music is layered and like our lives has to be experienced in stages to unpeel the fruit, kinda like an artichoke or onion. But, I don't know of any store that's got a salesman that will capture the above for me no matter how I describe it, although he may understand the words. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 661 Registered: Sep-04 | I give up. It's doing my head in. Sorry guys. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 232 Registered: May-05 | Frank, Don't leave us. "There's a day when mankind will fail and fall but it is not this day. Today, we fight." Or something to that effect, Tolkien. |
|
Unregistered guest | ... still contemplating Lincoln,... imaginative choice of medium. Your explanation of "soundstage / dispersion" encludes this item on "my list". I want the speaker to fill the room beyond its dimensions, yet have the ability to produce an intimate environment. We don't have to discuss this farther for me, it's on my list. And it may be part of "envision the performance" but that seems more of a clarity type emphasis to me. The word, "engage" is good so far. We may not have a best word or phrase yet, but I think we all are, at least in the same chapter. Part of the problem maybe that we all want to be engaged but that engagement is a little different, one to another. If thats true... and ...we can identify that characteristic, then we will be able to find "the one" most pleasing to individual preference. Yin/yang is very helpfull. It explains, to me, why I have heard speakers that were lovely connected to one system but went flat connected to another. It really does give diffinition to something I had no understanding of. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4480 Registered: May-04 | "I didn't return until after 11:00 p.m. last night to find 15 late teens to early 20s watching "Phantom of the Opera" and "raving" about the sound. Well, see it's easy to please the masses, or is it?" That's the point of the Phantom. Not in the latest movie version but in the book it is. ***** "But, I don't know of any store that's got a salesman that will capture the above for me no matter how I describe it, although he may understand the words." " If 'we' need these words or phrases, and I agree they'd sure be helpful, what have 'we' said to get by in the past?" 1. Yin and yang are opposites. Everything has its opposite--although this is never absolute, only comparative. No one thing is completely yin or completely yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite. For example, cold can turn into hot; "what goes up must come down". 2. Yin and yang are interdependent. One cannot exist without the other. For example, day cannot exist without night. 3. Yin and yang can be further subdivided into yin and yang. Any yin or yang aspect can be further subdivided into yin and yang. For example, temperature can be seen as either hot or cold. However, hot can be further divided into warm or burning; cold into cool or icy. 4. Yin and yang consume and support each other. Yin and yang are usually held in balance--as one increases, the other decreases. However, imbalances can occur. There are four possible imbalances: Excess yin, excess yang, yin deficiency, yang deficiency. 5. Yin and yang can transform into one another. At a particular stage, yin can transform into yang and vice versa. For example, night changes into day; warmth cools; life changes to death. A salesperson can't tell you what you should buy based on your words alone; the work has to be done by you and then communicated to the salesperson. What we need to have at our disposal are words which are as clear and precise as possible to communicate what we hear vs. what we want to hear. The words some listeners take into the shop with them are vague and ask for audio-obscenity in the sense they will know it when they hear it. Where does a salesperson begin with that description? Where does the listener begin to narrow the field with that as their reference? Some salespeople have a problem with their own vocabulary and can't tell when the client is asking for something specific. I was listening in a shop not long ago and the only word the salesperson could use was "warm". No matter what he played, if I indicated I was looking for something different or more musical, he would ask if what he had played was "too warm". No, you twit, it has no soundstage, no imaging, no rhythm and the vocalist playing the piano sounds as if she's not sitting at the piano or even hearing the piano. It sounds somewhat like a recording but it has no presence of a real performance. There's not much there that would even make me believe it was even a recording of a real performance. It's moving note to note to note. How does that translate to "too warm"? On we'd march to the next piece of equipment and the inevitable question was, "Is that too warm?" The other extreme is what John mentioned and the salesperson or reviewer wants to demonstrate their complete mastery and beating into submission of the audio vocabulary. The upper midrange textures of a SACD player are compared to the flavors of a fine cigar or a glass of Scotch. The words we use are known only by each of us. We have what we want in our head; but can we get the words to mean what we want? We are the only one who knows whether we can communicate with a salesperson or with a client. We shouldn't be embarrassed if we are not working with the jargon of the audio world any more than any other specialty. Unless it is your specialty. If the physician tells you that he sees "oropharynx inflamation", you might be quite taken aback when you thought you just had a sore throat. If the doctor had just said you have a sore throat, you could get on with getting better. If your audio system requires attention to the "background of silence", the salesperson can begin to imagine where the improvement might be found. It may take a bit of work on your and their part due to the fact the salesperson might not know exactly what level of silence your system possesses presently. You on the other hand know exactly what you mean not because the words are special to you or your system but because you have the advantage of having listened to your system before driving to the shop. Maybe this rest stop should be a simple exercise in the words we all actually would use to improve our systems. I know several of you have purchased new audio equipment in the past year or are considering changing a component in the near future. What words did you use to explain what you wanted? Did the salesperson ask? If you were dropped into the most complete audio shop in the country with a helpful staff to attend to your needs, what words would you use to explain how or what you want to improve regarding your system? Would you say you want "clean highs and clear mids"? Would you use terms to explain the soundstage improvements you think are missing from your present system? Would you use terms that relate to the flavors of a cigar? There's no need to be embarrassed if you don't have a vocabulary to call on. We are all at varying levels of experience with the situation and we will all have a different vision in our head as to what we want to improve. Some may want to deal with bass problems while another person might need the dynamics of the system improved. For myself, I would ask for the system to have the ability to move the music forward with a more involving nature to the music. This is something I'm now missing which was in my old pair of speakers but they don't fit into the new room. The speakers I'm using are doing the soundstaging and imaging very well but the momentum of the music has taken a slight turn downward in level. I want to anticipate the next note or phrase and then be suprised when it takes a different direction. I would also prefer a slight bit more ability to hear the shifts of the instruments as they double one another and then move apart to become individuals again. The sound I hear when they are doubling one another is fine; but I think it's the movement of the music not being at its best that is keeping me from hearing them move apart to become separate instruments. The problem is in the range of cellos and basses mostly. But that is where the LS3/5a's have their "muddiest" sound and my old speakers were more lean and musical through this region. With the Rogers' speakers I have to focus on that range of sound. I want that aspect to be more effortless. I would be interested in T8 giving an idea of how he hears the problems or discusses the problems with the listeners he gives his speakers to. How do you translate what you hear in your head to what you determine to fix in the next version? Not the technical aspects of needing to change the value of a capcitor; but the qualities you are hearing and then altering to achieve. Anyone else want to have a go at describing what your system needs to move to the next level? |
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