Which way to spend
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4980 Registered: May-04 | This is a long post. If you want to cut to the chase, advance to the bottom of the post now. I shall post this in the "Home Audio", "Home Theater" and "Computer" sections of the forum since those seem most relevant to the question. ******* On another thread in the "Home Audio", "Receivers" forum I got involved in a "discussion" which began as a question about the value of separate pre amp/power amp combinations as compared to one high wattage HT receiver. The "conversation" drifted onto the issue of how separate components are constructed and configured vs. how the industry has moved to make HT receivers a part of the trend toward integrating the Home Theater system into a whole house "Home Entertainment" system. One side of the "debate" went like this: "The basic point of the circuitry of the amplifier is to allow for general amplification of the analog signals it receives, hopefully without distorting it. Basically choices are made as to what to do when signals of various designs are received and these are coded into the solid state circuitry that you are used to. The instructions used to be hard coded with the use of the electronics that were available then. The signals have moved from analog source to digital source and the amps made adjustments. The whole idea behind the process of creating a VLSI chip is not just to pack 350 transistors in a chip and recreate the circuit that already has been working. ... When we get to a point when you have access to a high number of MIPS (millions of instructions per second) you have the ability to create and recreate the circuitry that was previously soldered into circuit board, by programming. In this way you are not limited to the original design of the circuit. Now part of this flexibility comes through, at this juncture, as what we see when we do on-screen programming of units such as the (Denon) 5803. Speaker placement, lots of pre-set audio and channel settings are still fairly rudimentary use of this technology. It is capable of a lot more. The programming of these chips allow you to completely control the above mentioned signals so that they can be amplified in any way you like them. Warm, bright, high bass, low tones and millions of other settings can simply be programmed to match the taste of the user. Jazz, hip hop, country, rock? Set it up in any way you please. It shouldn't be too far down the road when the receiver will make adjustments as it plays the song because it recognizes the genre and knows your taste for listening to that type of music. I'm sure even you would enjoy being able to tune your amp to do just what you would like and not just how some engineer thought it should sound. The units such as the 5803 have the ability to receive updated programming through a port in the back. I don't know how often software upgrades are released by Denon, but it sure makes it exciting to know you are not limited to what you got from the factory. I'm looking forward to the day when the manufacturers will release a software development kit (SDK) for these units so owners can do the modifications themselves. Try that with your tube amp and $.28 diode. Jan there is a reason why, for the most part, amps are not built with the older technology. They don't meet our needs any more." My own thought was: "Why don't you begin with the reason there are so many high end (audio) separates not using IC's in the signal path, or even for system management, if they sound as good as discrete component circuits." Obviously, from the information provided above, you can recognize I prefer to state my case in as few words as possible. But, I digress. The home entertainment industry has headed in two very distinct directions over the last twenty years. One seeking the highest fidelity from discrete components and the other seeking to intgrate the entertainment experience into a more "complete" and visionary component. As with everything today, common ground between the two camps is minimal and tenuous. The buying public is also split into groups. Some such as myself, who use forty year old vacuum tube amplifers in my two channel system, have no need for the integration of Ethernet connections, no desire to plug our amplifiers into anything other than an AC outlet and cringe at the thought of "Warm, bright, high bass, low tones and millions of other settings can simply be programmed to match the taste of the user. Jazz, hip hop, country, rock? Set it up in any way you please." To listeners like myself, the way I like it is the way it sounded when it was performed. I have no need for enhancements or alterations. (Naturally, I don't even have tone controls on my pre amp.) I do not look forward to "tuning" my amp anyway I please. I bought my amp because I liked it the way it was designed and have no desire to change it. This seems to be the attitude of the high end audio market where IC's are minimized, if not eliminated, for the "old fashioned" way of building with discrete components and to the point of hard wiring components instead of using a circuit board. Anyone who requires proof that this is the long standing tradition of the high end product manufacturers need only look at an issue of Stereophile (http://www.stereophile.com/) or any of the online review magazines. http://www.6moons.com/ http://www.tnt-audio.com/int.html http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ These are articles about the sort of product I would buy. Since I am not an "early adopter", I don't know what the future of audio at the other end of the spectrum offers. I've not really looked since it has no appeal to me. It obviously does have appeal to some people. So, here's the question. Which do you prefer and how would you spend your money (knowing what you know about the current state of audio/computers/electronics) if you were in a position to invest in a new "entertainment" system to last the next ten years? Would you invest your money in a very good two channel system using "old school" technology? Or, would you go for the integration of electronics in your whole house? (For those curious about the intial thread that raised this question; go here: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/152719.html) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4984 Registered: May-04 | https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/computers/154032.html https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-theater/154031.html https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/154030.html |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1473 Registered: Feb-05 | 2 channel. Stereo is forever. Even if I were to dismiss the tens of thousands of dollars I have invested in software, the connected house is changing so rapidly that you would be lucky if your system was on the cutting edge in 6 mos. Even now with my integrated system the 2 channel ethic rules the roost. The day is here where we are starting to see high end servers and that is where we are going. Access to our entire collections via one high end source. Some may like that idea I do not. I still like reading my liner notes and organizing my software. With my wifes love of movies I will always have a home theater system but it will always have a 2 channel first sound. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4989 Registered: May-04 | This question could be like asking would you rather read the newspaper over the internet or with the paper, and all its sections, in your hands. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 635 Registered: Jun-05 | I have a home theater system I just moved 2 months ago,well gee thats along time not ot set a system up.Well thats my home theater system thats not setup and i have already bought 2 pairs of speakers since I have been here.My Onkyo TX DS575SX is 8 years old and it is my centerpeice of my hometheater rig,and do you why because it was one of the last A/V receivers regardless of price that played music well,My dad still has his old Harmon Kardon AVR 30 that was Pro Logic that reatailed for $1,299 back in 1996 and it was chosen for its 2 channel ability above all else.I gave away my Techniques SX A6 to my cousin which I owned for its musical abilities before they sold out horribly to Panasonic.Ive heard many of todays A/V receivers and price had no baring on their sound its clear that stereo isnt a priority to the manufactures and that I cant be apart of.7.1 is available and popular now and i have no desire to join that crowd,5.1 will be my cut off point until the Onkyo dies,and when that happens i will have no more use for the home theater industry.The more channels gained the worst stereo will get,because companies craming all these channels in a single box,and 7.1 will not be the last step.The home theater industries are crooks,it used to be if you got the setup you wanted you didnt have to upgrade for 20 years.If you are following HT thats not the case just 6 years ago a Dolby Digital receiver costed you $1200 for what is now offered for $200 and the older models were without DTS,Kennwood was the very first to introduce it.The mass market is trying to make 2 channel extinct,but look how manyreancarnations H/T has had in just 10 to 12 years of existence,here in the near future A/V receivers wont even have 2 channel on them and that will be their demise and I will glad when that that happens.Elephants and alligators are among the oldest living creatures on this earth and they have been threatened many times,but thru all the climate changes they are still here.2 Channel will be here for as long as this world exists,so whoever isnt a beleiver better go back to the museum and see how the Dinosaurs used to roam this earth,because when its all said and done thats where the A/V industry will be. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3609 Registered: Dec-03 | From the quoted text: "It shouldn't be too far down the road when the receiver will make adjustments as it plays the song because it recognizes the genre and knows your taste for listening to that type of music." This is nonsense. There was a performance. The job of the system is to deliver an accurate and credible reproduction of that performance. The job of the engineer is to design and build an audio system that reproduces the original sound. How a recording is stored and distributed has nothing to do with the goal, which is the same for networked digital audio files as it was for wax cylinders. The goal is to recreate sound. More specifically, music. We judge the quality of a system by how well it does that. If the system adjusts to try to give different people different sounds, it is getting in the way, and its purpose is lost. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1481 Registered: Feb-05 | I have to agree with you John. The idea behind hifi is for the system to get out of the way of the music. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5015 Registered: May-04 | Check the responses on the "Computers" side of the forum. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3611 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Art. Jan, there are seventeen threads under "Computers - Hardware", and I am not even sure that is the right overall topic, since I do not see what computers have to do with it. Your "Bottom line" question was (edited by me): Which do you prefer and how would you spend your money :.... Would you invest your money in a very good two channel system using "old school" technology? Or, would you go for the integration of electronics in your whole house? It seem to me this is another false distinction. One can answer "yes" to both questions. But "Convergence" is a curse; by which I mean having one system that does everything in one space, including make the coffee (presumably having read your mind and knowing you tastes in coffee). You have to listen to music. So I would tend towards having different functions in different rooms. At least one room would have good two-channel, for all the reasons Art, Tawaun, and you state. And I agree with these. I cannot find the relevant background on the link after "for those curious .. go here. Perhaps I should re-post, here, my comment on Teaching an old dog new tricks.... This forum is very fragmented; topics come up time and again under new headings and categories, with previous discussions unread. Cryptic references to other theads do not help my feeling that we are in an internet Tower of Babel! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3613 Registered: Dec-03 | OK, the "computers" link must be the first link of Jan's three on August 10, 6.46 p.m. It is under Computers - Hardware > Desktops > Which way to spend. What a strange place to ask those questions. I have posted a short response. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 737 Registered: Sep-04 | John I think you're well off the mark actually. As we all agree (possibly th eonly thing we all agree on) the room or acoustic in which we play our music has a significant effect on the results we get. Furthermore, the acoustic in which music is recorded has a similar effect. We expect our systems to reproduce the spatial clues to give us the sense of 'being there' or 'they are here in the room'. Well, why shouldn't the medium (CD/DVD/Bluray/whatever) carry information of that nature. Ally that to a noise shaping processor and provided the processor knows what your room does already, then it can insert the correct noise shaping to make your room sound like a given acoustic such as a jazz club or church hall. In fact, we are part of the way there already. TacT make processors which measure your room as played with your system (very important) and iron out the peaks and troughs in its response. If we measured famous halls and jazz clubs we could then dial in the attributes for the appropriate location. For example, I could want to listen to Oscar Peterson playing at Ronnie Scott's. But I think that would be only halfway. What I'd really want is for my CD(or whatever) to have a description of the correct acoustic and listen to that! For example if the LSO was recorded at St. Martin in the Field then I'd like to have the measurements for that Church on the medium so the orchestra would sound right. This is particularly true nowadays since close-miking is used so often nowadays. Since the mike is so close to the instruments, you get no sense of acoustic (the reflections haven't been recorded). To get a true representation of that performance, you need the reflections to be added in! Oh - FWIW - I wouldn't go multiroom since the value for money is so low. Multiroom installations dilute the quality of the overall system significantly. In the bedroom I want to be doing other things than listening to someone in the room singing to me, so very low quality is fine (think Tivoli Model 1 radio with an iPod attached). This is true of the bathroom too. The lounge wants to have high quality so that's where my money would go. Predominantly high quality 2-channel, with some surround sound in there, probably. Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FnegroniBerkshire United Kingdom Post Number: 22 Registered: Aug-05 | Humans like dicotics. They like to think there are two choices: yes or no, high or low, 0 or 1, hi-fi stereo or DSP Home Theatre. This trend stems from the fact that we like to simplify complex problems. We are better at tackling simple choices. The matter of fact is that these problems are complex. If I were to buy a stereo system, I would buy the one that with my budget allows the most faithful reproduction of what is written on the medium. Unfortunately, what is written on the medium may not always be what I'd like to hear. When studios capture sound and afterwards edit their recordings, they have so much more influence on the sound than my amplifier and speakers have. That is why so much DSP technology has developed over the years: to give people a choice. Sometimes, we would rather not have to choose. Sometimes, we would rather not have to think about the best crossover for our sub for the particular track or the best location of our new sofa etc. That is why we have these two tendencies: the audio-phile tends to prefer systems that do not introduce any distortion, so that s/he only have to choose the right medium. The more consumer type tends to prefer systems that have lots of controls and can introduce the kind of distortion s/he likes, so that s/he does not have to think about the medium. My opinion is: In music, we have a wide choice of mediums, therefore we tend to prefer audio-phile systems because their simplicity will enable us to be critical about the medium and change it, knowing we can. In Home Theatre, where the choice of mediums (DVD editions) is limited, where digital tracks are compressed, and where detail matter the least, we prefer DSP consumer technology. I use we as "buyers": this is the trend. If that was not the case, Yamaha, Sony, Denon, Dolby themeselves would be out of business by now. We need to recognise that there is not one single solution that solves all problems, for however much we would like it to be. I for one, wishes TV was just black and white, not even grey. I actually managed to watch a DVD using Ascii-art decoder (a software toy which uses characters on screen instead of images). Guess what: it could start a trend of its own amongst film-critics. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 237 Registered: Apr-05 | Let me ask a question: How do some people here think that the music that has been produced in studios or concert halls etc. using rooms full of equipment that are increasingly IC based, go through hours and hours of production and post production to polish up, tune, and add sounds that were not there during the recording, and recorded digitally on CD's and DVD's can only be faithfully reproduced using analogue equipment from the 60's? Now if you argue that you only listen to records for that reason, I will accept it. Jan thanks for bringing this out. I hadn't noticed it until now. This is fun. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1227 Registered: Feb-04 | Here's what I'd like... To be able to dial up or down a single intrument. Very often drums are not loud enough compared to other instruments. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 744 Registered: Sep-04 | Indeed, very often soloists are highlighted against the rest of the orchestra. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3614 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank, Good point about room acoustics. I have read about TacT but not heard it. As I forecast, we are covering some points already discussed. I definitely agree with you that we should know what assumptions the recording engineer was making about the room in which we play back his recording. I also think some way of correcting for his mistakes can be useful. But there is very little, in practice, anyone can do. Much depends on whether we want to create the illusion of performance as in would sound if it took place in our listening room, or whether we wish to be transported out of the listening room into something resembling the place where performance took place. I have said, before, that if we want the latter, surround sound has something to offer, and having a nearly anechoic listening room (soft furnishings etc,) is probably the way to go. But the recording engineer has to make his decisions on that assumption, too. The worst combinations are 1. an anechoic listening room and recording - everything will sound as if it is in the open air (thought this can sometime be the right answer) and 2. A resonant performance and listening room, when the two virtual spaces will come into conflict, and you do not know where you are. What I do reject is this idea that there never can be an original sound - i.e there is nothing corresponding to what you would have heard if you had been at the performance. In some synthetic recordings this is the case, and anything is as good as anything else, although, even there, the engineer presumably had something definite in mind. As I have said on other threads, I have been to the Royal Albert Hall a couple of times quite recently. The platform has a forest of microphones strung above it, and there are others picking up ambience from the rest of the hall. These microphones have no part at all in the performance, and are there entirely to re-create a believable sound in the live broadcast and the recording of it. Somehow, the engineers do a pretty good job of that, most of the time. But, if they don't, there really is nothing you can do at home to correct for their mistakes. You would need as many channels as they have microphones, and would have to be able to calibrate your system with reference to the sound you experience in the Hall itself - and this varies greatly, depending on where you are sitting, or standing. Like it is not, we are in the hands of the sound engineers. If we don't like it, we can lump it, or switch off and listen to something else. As regards special playback effects for particular performance venues, this all self-delusion, again, as far as I can see, Who wants to switch on "Church" so that you get the exact sound of a recording made in a church, and played back in a church, too? This are clear examples of where the technology is a barrier, not a bridge, to the music, is seems to me. What are people thinking of when they choose those equalizer and/or ambience presets for different genres and performance acoustics? That the engineers made no attempt at all the capture the original sound? And if they don't like the presets, how on earth do they know what values to use if they have no reference? What is an audio system for, if not to re-create an authentic, original sound? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1490 Registered: Feb-05 | Regardless of how the music is produced or recorded for me the question is; Is this how the artist intended for their work to sound on record? It is not up to me to decide what paint or brushes a painter uses to create their art, but to be sure if I enjoy the artists work I want to see it through as clear a lens as possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3615 Registered: Dec-03 | I missed the two posts prior to my last. It illustrates my point. You really want the drums on a separate channel, so that you can balance them yourself? How many channels do you want control over? Ten? A hundred? Isn't all this the job of the sound, balance, and recording/broadcast engineers? Wouldn't you rather be listening to the music? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3616 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry, I missed you post, too, Art. I agree exactly with the point you make. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 238 Registered: Apr-05 | Art I don't disagree with your point. My question is: why would there be a physical or technological impedemnent in using IC's to reproduce the sound vs. diodes and tubes. Either way the engineer has to make decision as to how to decipher the signals and amplify them. Good engineering can make either one work. Tubes and diods where abanoned, for the most part, year ago in favor of the IC's because of production cost and quality. The problems that exist with today's IC based receivers in terms of silly listening modes (church, concert hall etc.) has more to do with tha lack of imagination and partly market pressure as to what sells that ends up in these equipment. I think when engineers and audiophiles are given time to develop and implement better ideas we shall see much better use of this technology. I like for example Frank's idea about DVD's having correct accoustic information that could be encoded for our receivers to reproduce. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1229 Registered: Feb-04 | You really want the drums on a separate channel, so that you can balance them yourself? Sometimes I wish I could... It won't ever happen. Isn't all this the job of the sound, balance, and recording/broadcast engineers? Yup. Maybe they chose a compromise so it will sound okay on common systems that can't reproduce a 110 dB drum. Wouldn't you rather be listening to the music? I wish I could. Sometimes I listen to a recording and enjoy it and can't help but think it would be so much better if the drums were 10 dB hotter. Lots of stuff is so compressed it's depressing. I'm hoping that adding SACD capability to my system will fix some of these issues with recordings of higher dynamic range. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5033 Registered: May-04 | Pick up an "audiophile" CD/SACD/DVD-A and look at the mastering chain. More often than not the signal is passed through vacuum tube electronics even down to the tube based condenser microphones. In most "high end", read non-commercial, studios, the signal path is kept as simple as possible. On the playback end of "high end" of audio, the signal path is also kept as simple as possible. IC's do not fit that concept. It is true IC's replaced other technologies for reasons related to production (and shipping). They did not, in the opinion of the majority of "audiophiles", surpass the older technologies in terms of sound quality. There a simple circuit with diodes, caps and resistors rules whether the output devices are solid state or vacuum tube. That IC's dominate in mass market consumer goods is related to selling a product and not to selling the highest quality of reproduction in our homes. As I've been playing with Tim's Ling Speakers (https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/154100.html) it is becoming increasingly evident that what the consumer mass market products sell is more new product. There is little future in selling the simplest signal path possible. That would get everyone to more or less the same point in a reasonably short time. The only decision would be which product gives the best results compared to live music. That is, hopefully, the way decisions are made when considering a pre amplifier. To the mass market companies there are far more advantages selling the product's features to a consumer who doesn't listen to live music any longer. And, to a consumer who is sold not on the quality of music reproduction, but is sold on the story to be told by the sales staff. Or the convenience of 10,000 songs at their fingertips. However, the less that gets in the way of the signal, the more music we will hear the way it actually was performed. If that is what we are after, we will not have to manipulate the signal to make it "conform" to our wishes. It will be there due to the simple fact it wasn't altered by banks of IC driven effects and post production equipment. Read also my comments here (https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/152652.html) concerning the inefficiencies of speakers and how it literally throws away the music we say we are trying to get into our homes. The comments were made on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 11:06 am. I realize the consumer electronics field is driven by different forces. The electonics "geek" has always been a fixture of consumer audio and is responsible for the high end market's existence. As technology developed the split occurred which sent some consumers in one direction and other consumers in another direction - with plenty in the middle. The move to integrate components and give people choices is not something I disavow. I made a decent living selling those products. But, if it is the music you are after, my feeling is the simpler the better. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5035 Registered: May-04 | Suprisingly (somewhat), this thread has had far more responses in this portion of the forum than on the "Computers" side (https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/computers/154032.html) Even more suprising to me, the thread has all but been ignored in the "Home Theater" area. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 680 Registered: Jun-05 | Why would it suprise you,most of members on this side are mass market people who probably think their A/V receivers sound as good as a comparable priced intregrated amp.Its really not suprising at all when you really think about. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1495 Registered: Feb-05 | For me Stof it's about the artists intent and my desire to get as close to it as possible. That's why it doesn't matter to me whether they use tubes and diodes or IC's or bones and black magic, it just doesn't matter to me. It's about the artist and those they trust to translate their vision into a a format that we can enjoy. I want my system to get out of the way and let the artist speak. When I introduce various dsp modes I am in essence saying that the artist trusts me to rework their vision in my image. I don't feel qualified to do that. That is just how I enjoy my music. My system represents the best I can afford to toward my stated goal. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 178 Registered: Jul-05 | But what if the recording is of poor quality ( as many of my rock&roll CDs are) and you have the means to fix the problem through "unnatural" methods? |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 681 Registered: Jun-05 | My take on it its already been mixed goosed,and processed wouldnt you think thats enough steps to go through, do you wanna come home and be a lab techninician and still not have good sound.Its kinda like a kid going through a custody battle how much is enough when is the kid gonna get to live a normal life again and not have to choose sides or parents to be with they just be a kid again and nto be their parents buisness.Thats why the 2 channel pure preamp is so important its pure it hasnt been corrupted by unwanted noise from cheap circuits and its not running 7 channels trying to stear everything,its job is simple and it can just be itself without being forced to do things it doesent want to or have to,it ca just get out of the way and let the music flow thru. The studio does their job and they have proffessinal processing gear that some of the most advanced audiophiles cant fathom to understand.Now why would you wanna get a cd home listen and click a DSP mode which is no where near the quality of these studios DSP processing and it comes out worse and tainted with the cheap cacitors,transistors so much interfearance.Now Please tell thats not how you like your music? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1496 Registered: Feb-05 | Often the recording isn't as bad as the transfer. DA this is where we can get into a debate. Much rock or pop music was never intended as art and is only a commodity. Do with your oatmeal what you will. I own a good number of pop and rock recordings and I am by no means speaking about all of them. But I hope you admit that there is little of artistic value or intent in much of the recorded popular music of the last 50 or so years. Poorly recorded music has it's own value as it was the best that those who put it together could do at the time. Again I am not speaking of the commercial properties that I just commented on. A good clean transfer of Louis Armstrong's "West End Blues" says a whole lot more than a digitally remastered super dynamic copy of Styx singin "Babe". Just my opinion. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 179 Registered: Jul-05 | Art: "But I hope you admit that there is little of artistic value or intent in much of the recorded popular music of the last 50 or so years. " Thats an awfully bold statement to make. Just because we cannot appreciate something as art does not mean it is not art to someone else. "Poorly recorded music has it's own value as it was the best that those who put it together could do at the time. Again I am not speaking of the commercial properties that I just commented on. " Perhaps, but if I can improve and customize to my tastes, why not. If I can add a little bass to a piss poor recording of Lynyrd Skynyrd to give it some life, I see no reason why not to do it. --------------------------------------------- TW: "My take on it its already been mixed goosed,and processed " Certainly I would prefer if it were not as well. But unfortunately we have to take what we get. "Now why would you wanna get a cd home listen and click a DSP mode which is no where near the quality of these studios DSP processing and it comes out worse and tainted with the cheap cacitors,transistors so much interfearance." I don't recall mentioning DSP modes...but if it sounded better to my ears, I would certainly use it to its fullest advantage. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 683 Registered: Jun-05 | Pretty much everything that gooes thru a A/V receiver is a DSP mode.Their is nothing pure about the sound that they produce. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 180 Registered: Jul-05 | Onkyo claims their direct mode is fairly pure. For the few good recordings I have, I do utilize this, and it does indeed sound very good. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1497 Registered: Feb-05 | Yep, it's bold but I stand by it. Remember to read what I say, not what you want me to say. I never said that rock or pop isn't art I said that much of it is nothing more than a commodity and never intended as art. "I don't recall mentioning DSP modes...but if it sounded better to my ears, I would certainly use it to its fullest advantage." Knock yourself out. Remember that I stated only how I prefer to listen. I am not asking anyone else to listen as I do. I enjoy mine and you can enjoy yours. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 182 Registered: Jul-05 | "I never said that rock or pop isn't art I said that much of it is nothing more than a commodity and never intended as art." Certainly plenty of it these days is intended as a commodity (Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, etc), but plenty of it is pure art as well (say, Prince for example, although there are many others), as intended by the artist. "I enjoy mine and you can enjoy yours." Indeed. I wouldn't tell you how to enjoy your music. I am simply expressing my standpoint on the matter. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1540 Registered: Mar-05 | > I never said that rock or pop isn't art I said that much of it is nothing more than a commodity and never intended as art. Sad but all too true. That's why about 75% of my music listening these days is not rock or pop. Also why I hate 90% of TV and mainstream Hollywood movies. As the French say, we Americans have an economy in place of a culture. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1498 Registered: Feb-05 | And the French are buying it just like the rest of the world. After all there pop culture is modeled after ours. DA and Edster, I think we have agreed. Enjoy the rest of your evening. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5040 Registered: May-04 | I don't think the issue should be whether what is recorded is art or less than art. We get to judge what is art by what we put into our libraries. If someone chooses something you wouldn't, that's their choice. If the question is "what if the recording is of poor quality", then the answer is to put together a music system that finds the music in whatever is put through it. A system that plays to the strengths of music and not audiophile desires will get the essence of the music out of almost anything that is put through it. This is an issue that goes back to why so many musicians do not own anything special when it comes to their audio systems. It is how you listen as much as how the system responds to the music. If your main interest is in the soundstaging and imaging and bass response of your system, you will find too many recordings that fall short of those goals. If your main interest is in hearing the music, no DSP mode can put a soul back into music. DSP can make it sound like a crappy recording is now being played in a disco in Tokyo. But, no DSP mode I've come across can make Jessica Simpson sound like Ella Fitzgerald. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 685 Registered: Jun-05 | I would use Britany Spears, Jessica Simpson can actually sing,I think on her second albulm she done some gospel I was quite impressed with her voice to say the least,but if you wanna hear a young girl that can really sing pick up Joss Stones 2 CDs and she uses all accoustic music and its recorded quite well to,and its the best recording on vinyl ive ever heard.Absolutely no evidence of vinyl except for that organicness that nothing can create like it. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3620 Registered: Dec-03 | My vote is with Art an Tawaun on the audio question. DA asks "But what if the recording is of poor quality .... and you have the means to fix the problem through "unnatural" methods?" My answer is: you don't. You can either switch off, or go and make you own recording. It is a good point about the transfer and editing, too. A lot of original master recordings are being re-mixed, edited, and "sound shaped" the days. That applies to classical as much as to pop and rock. The Beatles "1" album is a big commercial success and re-worked through and through. The guys doing the editing have access to the original tapes, usually, and we don't. They also have a lot of technology at their disposal which we would never want in our listening rooms. In classical, some of us discussed Holst's "The Planets" on another thread. There are currently 35 recordings of that to choose from. The other day I bought the 1978 Boult recording, on new CD, ADD, sound-shaped in EMI Abbey Road using something called Prism. The result is brilliant. It is one of the best CDs I have heard. I doubt if SACD could do a better job. I no longer have the LP to compare, unfortunately. I have no desire to try to improve on what the engineers did with that recording. I like the music, and want the original sound. I think that was what the engineers were trying to achieve, too, for that CD. Just before pressing "post" I see the last two, from Jan and Tawaun. I agree. "no DSP mode I've come across can make Jessica Simpson sound like Ella Fitzgerald". And who would want it, anyway? Who would it make Ella Fitzgerald sound like? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 184 Registered: Jul-05 | "If your main interest is in hearing the music, no DSP mode can put a soul back into music. DSP can make it sound like a crappy recording is now being played in a disco in Tokyo. But, no DSP mode I've come across can make Jessica Simpson sound like Ella Fitzgerald. " I never said I wanted Jessica Simpson to sound like Ella Fitzgerald. However, when recording engineers muffle the beat of the music and this can be rectified by simply using the tone controls, who are you to inform me that this is the incorrect way to listen to music? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5045 Registered: May-04 | I am me! Me I am. But, I don't think I ever told you couldn't do that. I checked with me and there's no indication me told you that either. You must have us confused with someone else. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5046 Registered: May-04 | I would like more singers to appoach the level of talent Ms. Fitzgerald had. But, if you seriously think I was just referring to Simpson having the tonal balance of Ella, you've dramatically missed my point. In fact, I don't think you even heard it whizz overhead. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 185 Registered: Jul-05 | I never made a statement that tonality was the only difference between the two. But nice try there Jan. However back to the point; if I want Jessica Simpson, and I want her to sound like Jessica Simpson, not Ella Fitzgerald, and I want her backup band to sound halfway decent, I may need to make some adjustments to compensate for recording engineers "adjustments" that make her band sound horrible on decent playback equipment. Nothing will bring back the dynamics of the original recording, but I can make adjustments to at least make it passable by my tastes. Now as I understand it, you are saying that altering the original signal is bad, which I can agree with. My point is that if the signal has already been altered, why not try to at least alter it a little more to make it sound halfway decent instead of anemic and dead. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5049 Registered: May-04 | I think we're headed off on a tangent since tone controls aren't necessarily digital or analog, but let's try to answer the question. Now, as I read the post you made to me and I, you want to know; "when recording engineers muffle the beat of the music and this can be rectified by simply using the tone controls, who are you to inform me that this is the incorrect way to listen to music?" And, as you say, "Nothing will bring back the dynamics of the original recording, but I can make adjustments to at least make it passable by my tastes." OK, we've dealt with who I am. On to the muffled beat. I guess, if you see value in adjusting tone controls to try to compensate for a muffled beat, no one will bust down the door and make you disappear for that action. I don't have much of an answer because I just don't believe I've heard a tone control, EQ or DSP effect that can put back music that was left out or altered so much that the sound has been "muffled". If you think that can happen, then you should probably use whatever you have at your disposal to rectify the situation. Since I have no way to change anything on my main system (no tone controls, no loudness, no DSP's), I just listen to what the engineers have put on the final product. I do have a few discs that are so badly buggered that I just don't care to listen to them. I figure if they didn't care enought to do it well, I shouldn't care if I don't listen. It is bothersome to spend the money on something you stick in the back of the stack before you finish the first side of the album, but that's life in the commercialism of the big city. (It's like getting a bad fast food meal. If you get that same quality over and over, stop patronizing that business.) That same recording might sound good enough when played on a boombox, a car radio or a mini-system. Maybe that's the market the engineers were aiming for with the sound they produced. I just happen to be listening to the recording on the wrong system. None the less, even for the Paul Desmond reissue I bought recently, the sound is rather atrocious but the music is interesting. I can't imagine any EQ could make it any better tonally and I doubt there's any DSP I can afford that wouldn't screw it up more. To do anything productive with this disc, I would have to disassemble the tracks and put everything back in a different order. I don't have the resources to do that. "Hall"; "preset 12", is not going to help this recording. Making gross changes to the entire recording is not the answer for the differences between what I am hearing and what I would prefer to hear. Bad recordings, in my opinion, are like bad Scotch. Swallow it down quickly and move on to the better stuff. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1502 Registered: Feb-05 | Hmm...better than Louis Armstrong or early Ellington. I'd like to hear that. Personally I'd rather listen to a bad recording of music I love than listen to a splended recording of music that I don't care for. Then again I'm in this hobby for the music. In other words I think it's more like aged wine...the bottle may look atrocious but oh how delightful the contents. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 241 Registered: Apr-05 | "A good clean transfer of Louis Armstrong's "West End Blues" says a whole lot more than a digitally remastered super dynamic copy of Styx singin "Babe". Just my opinion." Ooh that was a good! Hey Art you think we can do any better with Journey's incessant "Nah nah na na na na " Let's remember that DSP as it stands right now is really in its infancy, and these cheezy created modes are just really bad attemp at using what is generally a good technology. With proper use of DSP, we should be able to clear up some of those old scratchy recordings of Robert Johnson. That would be one good use for it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5055 Registered: May-04 | The remasters of the 50-90 year old recordings I have are terrific examples, for the most part, of how technology can benefit the music. Scratches, pops, snaps and surface noise from the original transcriptions have been eliminated with very little, if any, effect on the music. Lowering the noise floor has brought the dynamic technique of the performer into reach for the listener without requiring listening past the recording quality. I can see the benefit of the digital technology that is applied in these remasters. But, like other studio technolgy, this is something that is unlikely to make its way down to the consumer level. The consumer audio marketeers seem more interested in how many pre set "spaces" they can pack into a high end HT receiver. They are interested in changing the shape of the listening room to reflect something that should have been captured in the original recording. For the most part, the high end audio market that deals in separate power amps and pre amps has shown no intention of pursuing this technology; instead leaving it to the engineers in the studio. The audiophile market then listens with no further adjustment to the recorded sound. I don't think most audiophiloes would be that interested in trying this technique of remastering the originals in their own systems. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 692 Registered: Jun-05 | Thats just goes back to my original statement,do you want to come home and be a lab technician? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 186 Registered: Jul-05 | I don't want to, but unfortunately some of the music I choose to listen to forces me to become such. In any event, have a good weekend folks. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3626 Registered: Dec-03 | That's right, digital signal processing will not clean up scratches. The work has to be done very carefully, bit by bit, and each record or tape is different; a unique case. Those are skilled guys doing that, with a lot of clever technology. And this time it is put to a useful purpose. The old "scratch filters" were awful, just a treble cut, I think. There is no substitute for getting into the sound file and carefully taking out each scratch, doing as little damage to the program material as possible. It must be like doing surgery. Furthermore, careful digital editing can remove other sorts of noise, also can correct for speed fluctuations. Trying to do all that at playback is a crazy waste of time. Maybe you could have a leading laser reading the track ahead of time, and doing some corrections to the signal from a second read-out. But why not just buy a good disc? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5065 Registered: May-04 | Because sometimes there is no "good disc" available. My LP collection is full of great recordings of terrific performances; most I will never be able to duplicate. After many years of use as store demo material some of those records have become less than pristine. Fortunately, I have back ups of most of the best material. Every now and again though I pull out something that I've heard hundreds of times and see the results of just that. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5066 Registered: May-04 | Here's an example of a disc I just acquired that (I don't believe) can be "helped" by any DSP mode I have available. Blossom Dearie's "My Gentleman Friend" on a Verve reissue CD. This album was originally recorded in 1959 and has just recently been remastered through 24 bit/96kHz transfer. The tonal balance, clarity and artistic expression on this disc rank as high as any commercial release I own. However, this recording was made in the infancy of stereo processing when consumers were buying recordings of ping pong games and passing trains to show off the left channel mono amp they just added along with their new pair of AR3a's. Blossom plays the piano but her close mic'd voice is seven feet in front of the piano she sits at in this recording. The pan potted bass and flute exist all the way over on the left side wall with the equally panned guitar and drumset sit to the right side of my right channel speaker. Should the remastering technicians/producers have put the instruments and vocals in a more realistic space in acordance to today's style? Or, should they have left the recording alone in its orignal mix to recreate a bit of history? Either way, someone would probably be unhappy with the results. I can think of nothing I could do with EQ or DSP modes that would make this recording any better than it is. I can only think how DSP modes could do bad things to this recording. So I choose to listen to this recorded bit of history as it is given to me. As is, I can take in the talents of Ms. Dearie, Kenny Burrell, Ray Brown, Ed Thigpen and Bobby Jaspar at a point in their careers when their music making prowess was never higher. That by itself is enough for me to be happy. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1512 Registered: Feb-05 | I have many such recordings and couldn't agree more. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 754 Registered: Sep-04 | John I'm not sure but I think you miss my point. Most music is recorded in studios nowadays, be it classical or modern. Most studios have the most unnatural (anechoic) acoustic you can think of, nothing like a typical venue. In my view, we would empower our systems significantly if the recordings took place in either real venues with complete surround immersion courtesy of all those microphones you speak of, or in anechoic conditions with ambient responses thrown in afterwards, preferably with the ambient file I suggested earlier. The thing is, it should be possible to reproduce an acoustic space provided you record the space's basic attrbiutes such as reverb, echo etc. Once these measurements have been made, it should be possible through summation, subtraction and a little cleverness to introduce effects in your room that will make your room sound like the acoustic space in which your music was meant to be heard. You would literally be bringing that acoustic space to your room. You are complaining that you should hear what's on the recording, but in reality most recordings are studio recordings. I don't want to hear Television playing like they're in an anechoic space. I want to hear them playing in a garage or at the Apollo! Now with recordings that have a genuine sense of real space, or where the acoustics actually contribute euphonically (Abbey Rd for example), the unadulterated recording may be fine, but for the vast majority of recordings it's simply not right, let alone good. That's why some bands make lousy albums but are fantastic on tour, and also why some make lousy tour bands but craft brilliant recordings. Seems a shame that you want to restrict the accessibility of the various artists. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1517 Registered: Feb-05 | I want to hear what the artist intended for me to hear, whether that's the sound of an anechoic chamber or the Apollo...or whatever. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 699 Registered: Jun-05 | If you have a problem with recordings sounding bad just simply tweak your system.Go for a warmer speaker,use Tubes,try different interconects,speakerwire,isolations.See the home theater market was designed for consumers not audiophiles,consumers with A/V receivers in mind to make it easier for them to achieve a good sound but when it comes to 2 channel performance their is no substitute,but A/V consumers dont know in most cases or they think this new technology is better all from false imformation or advertising,the latter part of that is off the topic I will save that for another thread,but it is a valid point indeed.An Audiophiles on the otherhand will go that extra mile to get their system to get the most out of it,or to acheive a certain sound by still staying in the true 2 channel world,not by a false method that is complicated.Quad failed it was much better in stereo than A/V setups,but it was a audiophile format therefore ,not having consumer star power as HT. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 700 Registered: Jun-05 | If you have a problem with recordings sounding bad just simply tweak your system.Go for a warmer speaker,use Tubes,try different interconects,speakerwire,isolations.See the home theater market was designed for consumers not audiophiles,consumers with A/V receivers in mind to make it easier for them to achieve a good sound but when it comes to 2 channel performance their is no substitute,but A/V consumers dont know in most cases or they think this new technology is better all from false imformation or advertising,the latter part of that is off the topic I will save that for another thread,but it is a valid point indeed.An Audiophiles on the otherhand will go that extra mile to get their system to get the most out of it,or to acheive a certain sound by still staying in the true 2 channel world,not by a false method that is complicated.Quad failed it was much better in stereo than A/V setups,but it was a audiophile format therefore ,not having consumer star power as HT. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 760 Registered: Sep-04 | I disagree. I believe the audiopphile is after the best possible performance irrespective of how it's achieved. All I'm suggesting is splitting the performance from its location and then adding it in later. Provided this is done correctly, you should get a much better result than we get now since the current situation does not allow for different rooms nor does it take into account for different recording methods. It makes it a pretty tall order for a HiFi system to reproduce a performance accurately if it doesn't even know what it's aiming for. Art, the artist could then let us know exactly what he intended by inserting his own criteria in the room acoustic information on the disc. It would also allow the artist more freedom to change acoustic parameters for the track, making smoky dead atmosphere for intimate songs and making wide open bright spaces for summery songs. The possibilities are endless and would finally allow the artist to express themselves completely and devoid of any restrictions of the recording environment. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 761 Registered: Sep-04 | The more I talk about this idea the more I like it! Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5079 Registered: May-04 | Frank - Your idea is absolutely perfect! Why didn't I think of this sooner? Oh, ... wait, ... Sony did think of this sooner. Way back in 1990. Yeah, and Yamaha and Denon and a whole bunch of other guys. And they got their idea from the SQ and QS and CD-4 guys who got their idea from ... Never mind. It's not important. The problem with this idea of recording the "thumbprint" of the performance venue and then placing the performer into that space by means of a little addition and subtraction and move this digit over there to make that equation look the way we want on paper, is that it only works on paper. You can record all you want to, but experience has proven you cannot (so far) replicate another space inside my room. You could if you took my room and turned it into an anechoic chamber where it had no effect of its own on the sound. (That would make placing furniture a bit dicey, though.) However, as soon as my room, or even me sitting in my room, introduces a reflection, an absorption or any other of the many things rooms do to the soundwaves present in my room, the idea of superimposing another room on top of my room is shown to be faulty logic. Yes, you can go to the point of taking your measurements of my room and digitally removing all traces of my room. Then you could put your room in place of my room, I suppose. But, what if there was an error and suddenly my room sounded like Joe's Tavern instead of the Royal Albert Hall? That would sort of bugger things when playing Mahler; wouldn't it? You go ahead with your plans, Frank. For my part, I'll just sit here in my room and wish for recordings made the way they should be made instead of patching the p..s poor job they prefer to do. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5080 Registered: May-04 | Need I point out that what the manufacturers of DSP laden receivers are selling us is exactly the faulty logic of Frank's scheme. Even though they know it is a bald faced lie. They know it can't happen with their (lack of) plans. Criminy! You'd think they were politicians! |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 704 Registered: Jun-05 | Yes thats true Jan I tried not to go off into it,but as I said it is valid,and quite hard to ignore when you consider lots of people are buying into that garbage. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5084 Registered: May-04 | Just thought I'd elucidate the foundation of your dissent. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3636 Registered: Dec-03 | This interesting and we probably agree on the essentials. But, Frank:- "Art, the artist could then let us know exactly what he intended by inserting his own criteria in the room acoustic information on the disc. " He already does. He agrees where to perform, and where to record. He adjusts how he plays accordingly. Every musician needs a warm-up to check out acoustics of where he is. The result is in there, in the sound, already. The system should let it out. I agree some more information about recordings and venues would be good to have. But that is for interest, and to help with understanding what you hear. I can't see how the audio system is supposed to do anything. Like Art says, who wants to be a technician while you're listening to music? Should we all have SPL meters, microphones, and oscilloscopes in our listening rooms? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3637 Registered: Dec-03 | That point was made by Tawaun, not Art. Sorry, guys! Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 09:15 pm "eludicate the foundation of your dissent" Cough. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5087 Registered: May-04 | Take a pill! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3640 Registered: Dec-03 | Pill taken. Cough. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1521 Registered: Feb-05 | "Art, the artist could then let us know exactly what he intended by inserting his own criteria in the room acoustic information on the disc. " "He already does. He agrees where to perform, and where to record. He adjusts how he plays accordingly. Every musician needs a warm-up to check out acoustics of where he is. The result is in there, in the sound, already. The system should let it out." Exactly John...well said. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3646 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Art. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 762 Registered: Sep-04 | Sorry it's been so long - I couldn't get onto the forum this morning for some reason. Actually, he is doing what all the artists through the recorded ages have had to do, and that is adjust their performance for the claustrophobic confines of the recording studio. My suggestion would be that they could snap in the appropriate venue information and hear the results as they recorded their performance. The performance would be different because they got different cues. The modes on modern AV receivers are crude because they do not a) dial out the listening room's mode and b) do not take into account the artist's intention. If both were taken into account the result would be much more interesting. I admit that the idea smacks of outer space, but I believe we are getting to the stage where this kind of manipulation is possible because the computational power of processors has reached the stage where we can do this kind of manipulation on the fly at a reasonable cost. I firmly believe that one of the missing parameters of the reproduction chain is ambience, and that close miking techniques have made that all the more difficult to record, let alone achieve. There's nothing worse than a bodiless saxophone floating in the ether with no body and tone, which are usually cues given by first reflections in an acoustic, yet we're beseiged by the floating apparitions all the time. I think you're wrong about this. Of course, until the media do this kind of scheme, audiophiles have no option but to improve their reproduction chains as much as possible in order to reproduce every nuance. Unfortunately you get a load of junk in the process. I'm talking about things like a saxophonist's breath blowing through the sax even in full note. In a real performance you never get to hear that (thankfully) since the sax is so damn loud. Me? I'd like to hear the sax, not the man blowing it, just like I would if he were playing in a local venue... Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5098 Registered: May-04 | "The modes on modern AV receivers are crude because they do not a) dial out the listening room's mode and b) do not take into account the artist's intention. If both were taken into account the result would be much more interesting." OK, we've covered the problems entailed in "a"; but, Frank, taking in to account the "intentions" of the performer? I'm not sure which side of the Orwellian equation your headed towards. None the less, I'm betting you voted for Blair. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3650 Registered: Dec-03 | I see your point, Frank, I think. But we are still allowing the recording to become an end in itself; and trying to envisage ways of artificially making an unnatural recording sound more natural. If we don't like close miking and "the claustrophobic confines of the recording studio" then we still have a choice, and so do the musicians. I know even high-quality recording engineers occasionally put in a bit of reverb to sweeten a dead acoustic. They do it reluctantly, I think, and with care. The ideal is not to mess with the original sound. I agree that is not always possible. But, once again: what they do at the recording end is not something we should have to concern ourselves with on playback. Again, in an ideal world. In the real world I personally would still prefer not to spend my time adjusting settings while the music is on. I even remember volume control settings for different discs, if I can, not wishing to change the gain in mid-performance. If we have control over ambience effects, we will also have to be monitoring ambience all the time, not listening - ambience changes, often from track to track. One may as well just get used to it. And just not play discs where the ambience is a complete joke. I can give many examples of completely ludicrous recordings. I sometimes wonder how many recording engineers are actually listening to what they are recording, and not just looking at level meters or waveforms. Jan, Repeat of previous quip: Two channels good. Four channels bad. I do not quite see TB as Napolean, though there are similarities. Putting your biometric ID card into an AV receiver, so it knows what you should be hearing, does seem fairly close to other schemes afoot, over here at least. Perhaps Onkyo or someone is now designing a reciever that will do a retinal scan. Ghia posted a link somewhere to a fingerprint reader that could determine whether you were allowed to play a protected disc. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5101 Registered: May-04 | How long ago did we experience 1984? |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 245 Registered: Apr-05 | John you make a good arguement, but my question is what are we comparing your 2 speaker system to? Live music? We have already established that depending on where you hear it, the acoustics and amplifications will vary greatly and thus "modification" of the original sound. Music in that way always go through composition before we hear it. So to say that the only pure way of reproducing that sound is through minimalization and 2 speakers only is ...well... minimalistic! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5109 Registered: May-04 | As opposed to expansionism? I didn't realize this question paralleled world trade policies so closely. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5110 Registered: May-04 | All joking aside, that is the question, Stof. Do we need, or even want, all the "stuff" the large international companies tend to want to sell us? What exactly is the problem with minimalism if it serves the music more efficiently? Isn't it better than adding all the additional circuits and fluffery that usually don't serve the music but, instead, serve the desire of the listener to "create" something that wasn't there before they stepped in to the picture? In the truest sense of minimalism, the hardwired, no circuit boards, SET lot with their single driver speakers without crossovers represent an attempt to get the most music out of the source by keeping the signal path as simple and linear as possible. That the deficiencies in modern recording techniques make themself more apparent through this simplified circuitry is not the fault of the amplification. The circuit, being just a dumb circuit, is merely showing you what it has been provided. It is showing the fashion to which the people who sell us music are all too often willing to go to cut some corners and some expenses. Cutting corners and expenses is seldom the path to artistic success when the cutting is your only real goal. Minimalism works when it is your artistic goal. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5111 Registered: May-04 | Think "form follows function". Think Bauhaus. Think Black Forest Germanic. Think Constructivism. Think Samuel Beckett. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3654 Registered: Dec-03 | "...serve the desire of the listener to "create" something that wasn't there before they stepped in to the picture?" That's it. By George, he's got it! Ace comment. Think "form follows function"..... think evolution. Stof, Thanks. I am not saying there is only one way. There is a history to this. What am I comparing my 2-channel system to? Answer; recollections of live music, and also to a 5.1 system with totally different speakers and amplification, in a totally different room, in another country. I am hoping to be able to make a more direct and useful comparison before to long! Exactly the same issue is now under discussion on Teaching an old dog new tricks... which was started for this reason, and where you might notice that it has taken more than a couple of posts to arrive at what could be a stalemate on this very question. Sorry to be terse. If you will take a look at my last post on the linked thread, above, I take more time. Best wishes, |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5120 Registered: May-04 | think evolution. Sorry, John, here in Texas we can't think of evolution without mentioning it is only a theory and that intelligent design is another theory. That one has evolution scientists and the other has preachers doesn't seem to matter. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3658 Registered: Dec-03 | I really should not follow that remark, but is true that evolution is a theory. So is the atomic theory of matter. It is the "only" that causes all the trouble, it seems to me. Let us not get into this! At least Stof was not talking about minimalist music. That's something. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 246 Registered: Apr-05 | No I have been following the tread and I have seen both sides of the technology issue. I am now more focused on the specific issue of 2 speaker vs. more. Can nothing out there break the sound into more than 2 speakers and still give us the feeling of being there? Again I am comparing this to any live performance from concert halls to Buddy Guys Legend club where the place is just surrounded by speakers. Can there be no more intelligent design or has evolution simply stopped (at 2 speakers that is)  |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3662 Registered: Dec-03 | Stof, Again, we have argued through all this. My current view is that 5.1 DVD-Audio, 5.1 DTS (which is the best surround audio format on DVD-Video discs) and/or SACD probably will give you more of the sound of "being there" than two-channel, provided it is correctly set up, and provided you play a good recording. The other thing I now think (and this is a minority view) is that the important part of 5.1 is 4.0, which means four channels of amplification and four speakers, two of which (front left and right) should be "Full-range". Then you do not need an active sub-woofer, or a center speaker, which is what people tell you you need for movies etc. Most (all) DVD players/ receivers have so-called "Bass management" meaning you can tell the unit there is no center channel or sub-woofer (the ".1"). Then nothing is lost, because those channels, if present on the disc, are re-directed to the front; you get true surround sound, and I believe there are benefits in simplicity and cost. Whether it is all worth it is debatable, as you see. And this is leaving aside a myriad of issues like availability of discs and whether 6.1, 7.1.... etc is about sound quality or selling unnecessary hardware. Many music discs are in 4.0 even when it says "5.1" on the box. There is a strong argument that 2-channel stereo is almost always best for music. That is Jan's position, as I understand it. Certainly if we consider, too, the cost of a complete system, I personally would prefer to get a good two-channel system than an equally-priced "home theater/cinema" set-up. I write all this having gone back to stereo for 7 months, from 5.1. Even my movie-orientated family thinks our current system is better; "who cares whether you can hear rain falling behind you?". But our current two-channel has better components than we had before. So it is not a level playing field. I wonder if that actually helps. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 247 Registered: Apr-05 | It does explain your position. Musically I stayed with a Rotel amp and 2 Boston Acoustic speakers for 15 years before upgrading just a few months ago, simply because I didn't see a need for it. Now for movies I did want to hear the rain in the background or sounds segmented in different positions in the room so I broke down and bought a 5.1 system, but I don't see a drop off in sound quality either. So my Rotel is sitting there unused for now until when the kids grow up and want their own sound system in their room. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3664 Registered: Dec-03 | What did you replace with what, Stof? Still using the speakers? Are you listening to music in 5.1 as well as 2.0? You asked "Can nothing out there break the sound into more than 2 speakers and still give us the feeling of being there? " It seems to me you are as qualified to judge as any of us here.... |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 248 Registered: Apr-05 | I, along with a bunch of people on this forum, jumped on this deal on over 500 units of new Marants SR8400 few months ago on Ubid. I then bought 3 Axiom M3ti and an HSU STF-2 subwoofer. I placed the BA speakers in the back. I couldn't buy any floorstanding speakers because my kids are still little and would destroy them. So all the speakers are wall mounted. The Rotel will remain retired but, as I said, soon as the kids are a little older, I will create a 2.0 sound system with their Rotel and put it in their room. I don't know. After all this discussion, I may bring out the Rotel and switch the speakers for at least a test to see if I can really hear any difference. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3666 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Stof. Well, you are certainly qualified to pass an opinion! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5140 Registered: May-04 | "who cares whether you can hear rain falling behind you?" Oh, Lordy, Lordy!!! I hope you got up at that point and kissed whoever said that on the top of their sweet little head. Your family is getting smarter about what's important in hifi than you are, John. Now pay attention when they say they want another pair of Quads to do stacked ESL's. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3672 Registered: Dec-03 | It was Mrs A. I do that, anyway, from time to time. We'll have the system in a bigger room, soon. I'll maybe come back and ask Stof about projectors. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 250 Registered: Apr-05 | Yeah John I wonder if you will dislike DLP's as much as you do DSP's |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3677 Registered: Dec-03 | Stof, I've had some demos and I don't like the "rainbow" effect. Neither does Mrs A. We can both see it. DSPs are OK if you are playing a stereo video tape to watch a movie. It is not what you would choose, but we have load of VHS tapes. For matrixed surround sound, I choose NAD "EARS". This will all be obsolete soon. Perhaps it already is. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 776 Registered: Sep-04 | John Bad news if you're susceptible to the rainbow effect. You'll be looking at LCD projectors from now on then. The Epson ones are good. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5165 Registered: May-04 | I hope it comes as no suprise to anyone here that DLP and LCD do not represent the same technology. To compare the two is to compare cantalope to potatoes. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 253 Registered: Apr-05 | Frank I think you mean LCD screens right? |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 254 Registered: Apr-05 | Also John you may want to look into the 3 chip DLP. They seem to be immune to the rainbow effect because there is less color switching going on. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1987 Registered: Jan-05 | RP-CRTs rule!! If size and weight is not a concern, I'd recommend avoiding the LCDs and DLPs alltogether. The best HD picture is still produced by the RP-CRTs. If size or weight is a concern, the LCD style of TV would be the way to go because you can fit a larger TV into a smaller space. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 586 Registered: Oct-04 | Take a look at the JVC 52" HD-ILA. Rainbow effect not present for me while it is for other sets. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1990 Registered: Jan-05 | Is that the famous "3 chip"? My dad has that TV, or the 55"......not sure. It works great for his room, but I still like the CRTs better, and so does he. The only reason he bought it was because of space restrictions. Dont get me wrong though because it's a nice TV. If anything, it has a little pixelation problems during some sporting events. I notice that while watching the NFL playoffs while at home visiting over the xmas holidays. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 587 Registered: Oct-04 | I noticed the same thing, anything with fast motion seems to mess up all the new DLP/LCD sets. Turning the detail down to 0 greatly reduced that effect in my demo of the JVC. It's funny, I've found even with my current TV to reach the Avia test for sharpness I needed to turn it down to 0 on the TV, and then another 5 notches on the DVD player. Factory settings are garbage. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5172 Registered: May-04 | How did this thread get turned into a discussion of tv technology? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3679 Registered: Dec-03 | By my referring to Stof having a projector. I thought we were on projectors, not TVs. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 590 Registered: Oct-04 | "I hope it comes as no suprise to anyone here that DLP and LCD do not represent the same technology. To compare the two is to compare cantalope to potatoes." I'm sorry, I thought you were starting a discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5174 Registered: May-04 | I was just trying to make a clarification. If there is nothing more to say on the issue raised in the thread's question, then the thread can die. If the question is about TV's, there is a more appropriate place for that discussion where more people can join in rather than burying the issue in the middle of this thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3689 Registered: Dec-03 | Apologies, Jan. It was not my intention to start a discussion of video on this thread. Noting that Stof has all the equipment to make up his own mind on 2-channel versus "surround sound", I decided I was explaining too much, and should listen. " I'll maybe come back and ask Stof about projectors." was supposed to be a throw-away remark. Please start again as if from August 18! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5186 Registered: May-04 | John, how is that possible? My life has progressed in uncalculable ways since then. (smiley) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3691 Registered: Dec-03 | A modern phrase is "Pause and rewind". I think it was a song. That, too, is intended as a throw-away remark. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5189 Registered: May-04 | Here's a throw away paragraph. When I was in high school a friend's father took two of his sons and me to the Fox Auditorium in St. Louis to watch the Indianapolis 500 which was being shown as a live satellite broadcast to large movie theaters across the country for the first time. The race was delayed several times by rain and accidents. About midway through the race, Mario Andretti had wrecked his car and was trying to reconstruct the vehicle while the race was delayed once again for rain. One of the announcers was on camera asking Andretti what his strategy was to get back into the lead if and when the race restarted that day. Andretti looked at him like he was an idiot and flatly stated, "I'll put my foot to the floor and pass everyone in front of me." Some of us live our lifes with a simple logic that has no reverse gear, John. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3692 Registered: Dec-03 | A friend told me the first time he heard a certain word on TV. Graham Hill was ahead in an F1 (I think) in a Lotus until it had to go into the pit stop with smoke billowing out and the whole team going frantic. A BBC sports commentator wearing a deerstalker and generally looking like a prat approached Hill with a microphone and started saying to camera something like Commentator: "... and now I shall ask Mr Hill himself what seems to be the problem..... Graham, you have had to pull into the pit stop despite the apparently unassailable lead; I wonder if you could take a moment to explain to the viewers at home what seems precisely to be the trouble with the car?" Hill: "The f......g engine's blown up". Hill stalks off. Commentator, to camera: "And with that I return you to the studio". |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5194 Registered: May-04 | My point exactly! There is no going back. "And with that I return you to the studio". |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3693 Registered: Dec-03 | Stof was asking ""Can nothing out there break the sound into more than 2 speakers and still give us the feeling of being there? " |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5198 Registered: May-04 | What sort of response do you want here, John? Of course it can. But, you know my opinion is it hasn't been done very well or very consistently so far. The talk out of Skywalker Ranch is still about adding more channels in order to make it more successful. While I think in terms of theory that works well (just keep increasing until we are literally suurounded by speakers), I don't see that being a practical solution in a home audio system. Somewhere back in time on this forum, someone brought up the idea that the room becomes a membrane that is the speaker. Terrific idea. So is the ten hour work week and robots to do all of our meanial tasks. They both have about the same chance of happening. All it requires is someone to put their foot to the floor and pass everyone in front of him. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3697 Registered: Dec-03 | Well, Jan, it is really a question of what response Stof wanted here. One of my first ventures on this forum was to start a thread under "Home Theater" on trying to understand how to set a subwoofer: DTS vs. Dolby Digital. The subwoofer. I think I finally worked out a solution. But, in the end, I have come round to the view that full-range speakers are simpler, and, if you have decent main speakers, a sub is a waste of time under most circumstances. Also a waste of money, relevant to "Which way to spend". I believe that goes for movies, as well as music. As regards the subject of stereo versus surround, I put some thought into the post, above, "Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 11:14 am", and tried to summarise there what I think I have learned from my experience, and our various debates on this subject. That is also my response to your questions in the original post on this thread. So I, too, was disappointed we headed off to discuss video formats. Personally, I think the people with their feet on the floor are currently discussing the advantages of 7.1 over 6.1. It could be they have no traction, and are burning rubber without going any faster. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 780 Registered: Sep-04 | Interesting. There's an article in this month's HiFi News which basically says that if you want real bass down to 20hz, you must have a sub and to achieve the best integration and use the sub most effectively, you should limit the main speakers' output since you want both sub and main speakers working in their most comfortable zones. A good sub will happily work up to 100hz so your main speakers, even if full bandwidth should be bandwidth limited to around 80 or 100hz. They also made strong overtures that a pair of subs usually sound better than one sub, and that smaller subs are usually enough in typical rooms. There was a whole section on cone excursion and they were saying that in an open space (e.g. a large hall) you would require a much larger sub to achieve the low output, but in the confines of the typical room, the 12db lift caused by the boundaries mean that a 10" sub can give you decent output at 20hz. This was a discussion for music reproduction just as much as surround sound. The test signals were things like organ notes and deeper. Interesting reading. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5223 Registered: May-04 | Real bass down to 20Hz? That has always been amazing to me. Frank, you and I know how expensive and difficult it is to achieve "real bass" down to 20Hz. And, I'm sure many on this thread realize how infrequently the need for that response is called upon in average listening. "Ambience" or not, the need virtually never justifies the real world cost and expense. For the past five decades, this has been one of the most ludicrous examples of chasing your tail I've seen in home audio. That the introduction, nay, invasion, of HT subwoofers claiming this response has increased the desire for this response is another example of "which way to spend" your money wisely. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3707 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Frank. I'll read that article. In support of Jan's point, one wavelength at 20 Hz is 55 feet. You need at least one wavelength before the pressure wave can propagate. Not many people have rooms that big. The lowest note on the biggest organ comes from a 64 ft. stop, I think, which makes a fundamental tone at 18 Hz. Such sounds are awesome and wonderful, but physics gets in the way if you want to experience them in less than a cathedral or concert hall - and a large one, at that. In any normal listening room, you will not actually hear the lowest notes even if the organ, itself, is really, physically, present. All it will do is vibrate the whole building; the sound will not carry through any space inside. This is why you hear only bass from outside the houses or cars of people playing loud music. I am not 100% sure of the calculations here. Wikipedia's entry Pipe organ says subwoofers are used in place of the largest pipes in some modern organs. Best place for them, it seems to me. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5235 Registered: May-04 | John - I think Mr. Crabbe wrote an article a few months back concerning reproducing long waves in a room shorter than the wave's length. You might want to refer back to that. It is not necessary to complete one full cycle within the room to propogate a 20Hz sinewave. In fact, in most rooms it is nearly impossible to do so since the height of the room would typically be the first impediment. It is that propogation, the rarefaction and compression of air, however, that we hear and/or feel as 20Hz. And, it is the result of propogating even a small portion of that wave that presents the problems during and after the event. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5236 Registered: May-04 | The organ put in place in the Meyerson Symphony Hall in Dallas is unique in that it utilizes actual pipes for the entire frequency spread. Most smaller organs, or less expensive organs, use "subwoofers" due to the cost of manufacturing and installing large pipes. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5237 Registered: May-04 | I guess, in the spirit of which way to spend, the lowest frequencies of these "electrified" organs are usually reproduced through IC based systems. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 785 Registered: Sep-04 | The article I mentioned above implies or indicates that organs go down to 20hz but not below that. Now 18hz is pretty close, but the article said they had to use other electronic (?) sources for really low bass well below 20hz. As to expense, you're bang on Jan. Good bass as low as 20hz is difficult to achieve, particularly with smaller subs. However, when you take into consideration the room boundary effect it's actually not as difficult as you'd imagine. In the article they managed all but one signal using a pair of Velodyne DD-10s. Now these aren't cheap subs by any means, but in the greater scheme of things they achieve what far more expensive so called full range loudspeakers do not achieve. I know of no speakers that can actually go down to 20hz flat let alone into the low teens. For a pair of subs under a 5-figure sum to be able to do this, it certainly shows that using the right tool for the job counts for a lot. Now if you add a pair of bandwidth limited satellites, these do not need to be particularly expensive and the solution cost is in the slightly above mid-fi price bracket. I'm thinking in particular of a M&K solution (which also go down to 20hz flat) but there's bound to be others that would suit the Velodyne too. In the UK these subs are far more expensive than in the US I believe. The Velodyne DD-10 retails for £2000 ($3500) and the M&K MX-700 retails for £1350 (about $2000). In the US I'd expect them to be the UK price in dollars. Both go to 20hz flat and both are startlingly good subwoofers (as you'd hope). The most surprising thing from my perspective is just how well they integrate with diddy little satellite speakers (paricularly the M&K Xenon system). It just doesn't seem right that you can get such a big open soundscape from a solution like that - and it was a shock to the system I can tell you! I haven't played much with the Velodyne but colleagues have and the story goes that for music it is even better, particularly because it has very sophisticated room EQ software which allows it to balance out the bass response of your room. The M&K is remarkable on HT but less so on music - best I've heard from an HT system, just not quite as good as the most musical systems IYSWIM, although this is hearsay. If you've not had the pleasure of hearing one of these systems doing its thing, it's well worth having a listen just for the experience. Regards, Frank. ...awaiting Paul's tumultuous derision... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5268 Registered: May-04 | I used to sell MK and Velodyne. It's been a few years since I sat and listened to their products, though. Getting the deepest bass signals out of the upper bass and above drivers will always be ebenficial if your goal is actually 20Hz reproduction. Tell me about the room where these measurements were taken. That is usually a huge impediment to actually getting very deep bass in an average room; not so much due to dimensions, but to the room problems. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 790 Registered: Sep-04 | Jan The accepted definition for full range is 20hz - 20khz. I don't know who decided this (Philips?) and I accept that many people would argue that the 20khz limit is far too low. However, when you get very low bass (8hz for example), there are serious problems with building structures and physiological effects on human anatomy. For example, many people feel very queasy when they are subjected to sub-10hz frequencies. I also understand that 7hz is the resonant frequency of the muscles that control certain bodily functions. A 7hz signal can cause people to lose control with rather embarrassing consequences... M&K and Velodyne do not publish the room measurements for their specs. As to the article, they do not go into their room either. However, they do discuss at some length what the room boundary effect does and how it affects the requirements from a sub. For example, one of the main ssumptions about smaller subs is that they are sealed units since designing a ported sub requires a fairly big port in order to tune it appropriately. In a free-field environment, if you wanted a 12" sub with an effective cone radius of 250mm (about 10") to produce 90db at 20hz at a distance of 3m, you would need an excursion of 38mm. Most cones don't come close to 38mm. The Velodyne has one of the longest throws in the business at 22mm. However, the numbers come tumbling down once you place room boundaries in the equation. Apparently, if the sub is placed next to a wall boundary, the boundary acts as a reflective surface (with some losses of course). There is the floor and back wall, each providing a reflection to the other as well, so the effective excursion can be reduced 4-fold. There are other factors which I can't remember which reduced the excursion for 90db 20hz at 3m all the way down to under 5mm. This is well within the remit of almost any sub and so most rooms do not need massive subs for this reason. The article then goes on to examine the effectiveness of 10 and 12 inch subs at reproducing signals at 100, 105 and 110db. Among the tracks used where the infamous Telarc 1812 disc which surprisingly had output down to 13hz(!), but also Kill the Competition by the Bass Outlaws which has huge bass around 22hz. He used 12 tracks in all and it really is a very interesting article, but I need to re-read it a couple more times to really make head and tail of it. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5289 Registered: May-04 | We get the current issue for you guys about six weeks later here in Dallas. What issue is this article in? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3727 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, September. I would fail a comprehension test on that article. Frank, I think the range 20 Hz to 20 kHz comes from psychoacoustical experiments. There is some consensus on that, it is in textbooks etc. Pressure waves above and below those limits do not strictly qualify as "sound", at least for humans. Apparently we perceive nothing, directly, above 20 kHz, while below 20 Hz is experienced as vibration. Meaning it is felt, not heard. (Actually that may not be such a clear distinction, since hearing is related to touch - both are based on response to mechanical forces, unlike the other three of the five senses, which are chemical. So I read recently....) |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 795 Registered: Sep-04 | John Experiments in the mid-nineties showed that signals up to the region of 80khz are picked up by our middle ear and that we respond to them. The article needs re-reading several times over. It's reasonably well written and makes some interesting observations. There was one aspect to the article that irritated slightly which was that they did not explain why two subs were better than one. They explained why a smaller sub coiuld be better than a larger one (predominantly because a larger sub's panels had resonant frequencies closer to the performance envelope of the sub itself), but not why two subs were better than one - this shouldn't be the case, but they maintain that it is. I have heard from other sources that it is the case as well, but it would have been good to see the reason why. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5323 Registered: May-04 | Start here. I have an article bookmarked discussing two subs vs. one sub. I'll try to find it. http://sound.westhost.com/subcon.htm |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3730 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank, "Experiments in the mid-nineties showed that signals up to the region of 80khz are picked up by our middle ear and that we respond to them." Thanks. I did not know. My references are older than that. I wonder if you can give names or even a quote a reference...? If correct, that could certainly change the whole case for supertweeters and greatly extended high frequencies. I am suprised B&W, KEF and others do not refer to such experiments. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 807 Registered: Sep-04 | Sorry John, although I can remember reading it in one of the HiFi mags I can't remember which. There was a whole series of experiments conducted at some university whose name escapes me and they were gobsmacked at the results. Ken Ishiwata at Marantz (at the time) also ran some experiments which seemed to indicate that we could discern differences in signal with content up to 500khz! Additional content beyond 500khz did not seem to have an effect. I'll see if I can find the reference. Thanks Jan, I'll read... Why is it that the messages are coming up in really large letters all of a sudden? This isn't happening on other websites I visit. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 808 Registered: Sep-04 | Ignore my last quesion, my PC's settings went screwy for a while there... |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 809 Registered: Sep-04 | Jan That article you linked is really good reading. Once again my addled brain (the wife started teaching me how to read music last night - YIKES!) is having trouble coping with some of what's said in there, but I loved the bit about timing and must ponder this at some length sice I think there's something in there that could affect the musicality of systems very significantly, but I haven't worked it out yet...! Thanks for that. Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5364 Registered: May-04 | http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1003 |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 816 Registered: Sep-04 | Ker-splat! There goes the brain... Thanks Jan! Frank. |
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