Think recording industry is aware of system distortion products and they know all about microphone and speaker systems plus their various reproduction rooms can be some of the worst components, so in their serious work they produce released material using various effects including simple EQing to kind of virtual correct for that especially microphones and speakers are far from low distortion DC component zero hertz to light speed devices, now if they wanted a particular released material have signature or benefit that BBE effects filter they simply turned it on before release i think.
If we seek a better reproduction or a closer sound to how mastering really sounded think mitchba's many hints and links in threads first 4 pages can get one there to a certain very good standard, for example he also correct in phase domain but not a random correction but a documented in situation system correction at listening position and probably it can also reproduce a limited band width of acoustic square waves there. Now this is diy so of course we can do whatever we want and feel free, but man we can ruin any good recording and makes it sound like a sommerhat
not having our own stuff right before concluding industry release always low quality material.
Curious diy that like to hear some real improving system corrections or some even worse and wrong but funny ones turned upside down can investigate that using free Rephase corrections, there is maybe a learning curve but think interests should break that.
If we seek a better reproduction or a closer sound to how mastering really sounded think mitchba's many hints and links in threads first 4 pages can get one there to a certain very good standard, for example he also correct in phase domain but not a random correction but a documented in situation system correction at listening position and probably it can also reproduce a limited band width of acoustic square waves there. Now this is diy so of course we can do whatever we want and feel free, but man we can ruin any good recording and makes it sound like a sommerhat
not having our own stuff right before concluding industry release always low quality material.Curious diy that like to hear some real improving system corrections or some even worse and wrong but funny ones turned upside down can investigate that using free Rephase corrections, there is maybe a learning curve but think interests should break that.
Yes you right about language and thanks the congratulation, sorry if its difficult to read or maybe less interesting because our points of view be it skin depth or BBE is different.
Some OT posts have been deleted, please keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks and put-downs.If we can have a respectful chat then the interchange of ideas is what we draw enjoyment from... everybody wins.
I am not sure I understand here: in a studio recording what I would want to hear is the sound that comes of the studio monitors, or have the signal that comes out of the bare wires at the speaker terminals at least. Phase shifts and so on are part of the product, and part of the recording I would think.
I do not want to hear what the original instruments sounded at all, in a studio recording.
Where I want to sit, ideally, is at the mixing console with access to the raw track and mix my own for the speakers I am going to use at home. Then I would do room corrections at home.
What level would I mix at, that's interesting, not wanting to cause any unknown effects, I would stick with 83 dB. Whatever it is, I would at least once like to hear the output of the recording studio monitors where the artists and recording crew all agreed.
Stereo is an attempt to mimic the spatial arrangement of instruments and voices as if the listener is right there in the room with the instruments and singer.
If the realism of the performance is not what you are looking for why not just hear a mono track ?
Stereo is about suspending disbelief that the band and singer arent right there playing just for you in the same location.
With the purpose of stereo understood .. isn't the use of other technologies to add to the realism of the track a natural consequence of our desire to forget we are listening to an electronic reproduction ?
I agree there is a difference between audio reproduction and hifi music reproduction
To do that successfully you would need to know the phase curve of the particular loudspeakers being used. I note they say "kind of mirror curve" i.e. it doesn't actually match so it doesn't actually correct things.
It is a loudness control.
Stereo and Dolby do particular useful things for sound. So do tape bias and equalisation. I would not put BBE in the same sentence as them.armarra1 said:
No. Tone controls can work on LF too, and can have variable corner frequencies. Maybe you should do some reading on tone controls?
No. When the necessary frequency range for reproducing music was determined by careful listening tests many decades ago this necessarily and unavoidably also established the phase shift requirements too. Ever since then, people who actually don't want high fidelity sound reproduction have added various effects to make the sound more to their taste - and thus reducing fidelity while convincing themselves that they are increasing fidelity.
Not so. The auditorium is part of the experience, and good hi-fi can to some extent capture that. The audience (especially on Friday or Saturday evenings) are best omitted from the recording, and careful microphone placement can help with this.cbdb said:
Not possible, without a good demon.armarra1 said:
Exactly and a bad venue ( not all live music is performed in auditoriums ) can ruin the experience. The room can turn the music to mush and change the tone. And carefull mic placement can help but it dosnt eliminate the problem, and it does nothing for the sound when your in a seat.
I think that there is discord over what the original is.
Is it the result of the studio recording, in essence the very first playable copy of what the artist performed
Or
Is it the actual sound from the performance artists band or group that is first heared by an audience.
I subscribe to the latter but some trust in the first recording so they want to hear what the studio recording professionals made out of the performance.
The act of recording and then playing back a musical event through speakers will render a different experience than being live at the same location as the performance artists actually playing the instruments.
To me the fact that stereo itself is a way to create the sound stage that would have existed in the live performance makes me think that any technology that brings us nearer to being at tgat sound stage is a better result.
Is it the result of the studio recording, in essence the very first playable copy of what the artist performed
Or
Is it the actual sound from the performance artists band or group that is first heared by an audience.
I subscribe to the latter but some trust in the first recording so they want to hear what the studio recording professionals made out of the performance.
The act of recording and then playing back a musical event through speakers will render a different experience than being live at the same location as the performance artists actually playing the instruments.
To me the fact that stereo itself is a way to create the sound stage that would have existed in the live performance makes me think that any technology that brings us nearer to being at tgat sound stage is a better result.
I said that it 'tries' to put back and we can all try can't we.
The fact that we record in 'stereo' is an earlier version of playing with the sound to make it more like the actual event... using the minute delays between our left and right ears hearing a localised sound to create a sound stage.
Placing even more mikes yields an experience that filters out the unwanted ambiance or indeed leaves some in for effect... but that effect some would say is where the calue is for if a 'tree falls in the woods' does anyone hear it and so did it happen.
The fact that we record in 'stereo' is an earlier version of playing with the sound to make it more like the actual event... using the minute delays between our left and right ears hearing a localised sound to create a sound stage.
Placing even more mikes yields an experience that filters out the unwanted ambiance or indeed leaves some in for effect... but that effect some would say is where the calue is for if a 'tree falls in the woods' does anyone hear it and so did it happen.
I think the point is WHAT are we being faithful to.
Some are saying we are being faithful to the first recording others say we are veing fairhful to the first musical event from which that first recording was extracted.
Stereo tries to recreate the sound stage.. dolby compensates for the recording media inadequacies and in this viewpoint so does BBE.
Is it perfect ??? Of course not but neither is dolby A B C S or indeed SR. Each is a man made process and each process draws us closer to the 'original'.
To those who say BBE is playing with the signal to introduce inacuracies.. i say that each time we add in a dolby process or stereo or adjust the tone .. we are indeed altering the original recording version of the original performance.
Tone controls are often quoted in operation manuals as varying decibels in a particular frequency and that frequenxy is a high frequency.
From a professionals perspective tone probably has a wider meaning just like the difference between velocity and speed is lost on the average person but professionals can identify the difference.
YES .. there is a difference and THAT is what stereo, dolby, bbe and many other man made processes are designed to reduce.