"Do me a favour Frank, as I'm the only one listening. Answer (and I mean ANSWER) what you can of the above and then in one single sentence, tells us what you actually want to achieve. Thats one sentence with no analogies, bluster or bull****, explaining simply what you want to achieve."
Yes this is a public discussion on a public forum but I asked Frank for an answer, no one else, just Frank (as quoted above). I didnt invite speculation from outside quarters. Franks answers are tough enough. If you dont understand that a direct question to a named person is intended to be answered only by that person then there's not much I can do to help you. And again you deign to tell me how to conduct myself in these forums, even though I've been here for 9yrs quite happily. So may I politely suggest you drop it so I can get back to dragging some actual information from Frank...
Yes this is a public discussion on a public forum but I asked Frank for an answer, no one else, just Frank (as quoted above). I didnt invite speculation from outside quarters. Franks answers are tough enough. If you dont understand that a direct question to a named person is intended to be answered only by that person then there's not much I can do to help you. And again you deign to tell me how to conduct myself in these forums, even though I've been here for 9yrs quite happily. So may I politely suggest you drop it so I can get back to dragging some actual information from Frank...
First of all, it appears you won't be getting that answer from frank, so i provided it myself.
Second, it matters not one iota how long you've been here, i can see it on your profile anyway, so quit waving it as if replying to me is some kind of gift you bestow upon mere mortals. If you didn't want to discuss this with me, you could very well not reply to my answer to your question.
Third, i am not telling you how to conduct yourself in the forums (the forum rules themselves do that) i only claimed that you, literally, could reply without the attitude. Will you claim that such a feat is physically impossible, or that you did not, in fact, displayed such attitude, or that such an attitude is on par with the forum rules?
Second, it matters not one iota how long you've been here, i can see it on your profile anyway, so quit waving it as if replying to me is some kind of gift you bestow upon mere mortals. If you didn't want to discuss this with me, you could very well not reply to my answer to your question.
Third, i am not telling you how to conduct yourself in the forums (the forum rules themselves do that) i only claimed that you, literally, could reply without the attitude. Will you claim that such a feat is physically impossible, or that you did not, in fact, displayed such attitude, or that such an attitude is on par with the forum rules?
tsiros, my apologies for not responding earlier -- thanks very much for picking up the baton, so to speak
. There are some things in life more important than audio, shock, horror! A family member had a serious accident, so I've been out of the loop for a day or so, and it's still frenetic, more life stuff happening as I speak. So, I'm signing off again for some hours, then I'll be able to reply more fully.
Sorry you had to cop the bad karma in the interim ...
Cheers,
Frank
Okay, things have slowed down, finally! So I can respond properly now ...
Yes, the aim of the audio setup is to replicate the live event, to stimulate in your head, and body if you're a bass freak, the sensations as if you were listening to the real thing. Which is very much my goal ...
With regard to say, the replay of electric guitar, full bore, to me it ultimately comes down to SPL levels. If we measure the peak level a metre from the speaker cabinet at, say 125dB, record it and then get a high quality studio monitor pair which can do that level comfortably at the same distance, what ultimately is preventing the two sounds matching? Yes, if it's a bass guitar you will probaly need enough cone area in the monitor to not exceed Xmax, but, what in physics, so to speak, is preventing at least an equivalent auditory experience?
If you look back at the original post I never said the instrument sounds the same: I said it sounds like itself, as in the tonal characteristics, the harmonics which immediately identify what it is, the quality of the instrument in of itself, the distinguishing traits of that unique example of a particular model will be clear, especially to a musician, they are unchanging. As you say, the instrument changes in colour, when a particular player aims for an effect, and also if a different player uses that particular instrument to play exactly the same piece of music.
But that is not what happens when I listen to a great deal of supposedly high quality audio equipment. Often, I hear sounds which are attempting to emulate a grand piano, say, but they're a long way from what I know such a piano to sound like, in any sort of enviroment.
Frank
Last edited:
fas42
Hoping all is well beyond the audiophoolishness going on here. Yes there are more important distractions that do crop up in life and require our attention. Nothing serious I hope!
I am intrigued by your comments of the audio spectrum of sound being dissipated into a space or acoustic environment and your mention of being able to eliminate a focused sweet spot as well as carry on conversation without degradation of the source sounds from anywhere in the space.
As you may know there are people working on "holographic audio projectors" that keep the sound source localized at the head and around the ears of any listener in a room no matter where they are sitting or standing. I've been very interested in this and involved in acoustical systems for government/military/commercial use and aware of the possibilities using audio masking systems, audio projectors and acoustical treatment for that purpose. So I would really enjoy more discussion from you, if that is what you were eluding to. That technology has great possibilities!
I know you've talked about "monitors" like the B***ringers (if you can't tell I'm not a fan) but not quite sure I have the correct understanding from you with that term. Maybe it's just a cultural or land down under Kiwi use.
As a sidenote I do see a lot of AUS & NZ audio aficionados here and sometimes their terms are different!
In the audio recording and mixing group and in the US the term "monitor" is generally used to describe "studio monitors" which are much different in response than the generally accepted "HiFi" speakers that you see and hear about mostly in these forums. And of course studio monitors require an acoustically treated room which is tailored specifically to those units to be of any actual use. In that application accuracy and a sweet spot is way more important. Maybe you could clarify your use of the term.
I'm pretty sure you are in the audiophile camp (correct me if I'm wrong) as a listener of prerecorded material and not in the pro audio camp so I'm curious as to your concept on this full soundscape idea and it's applications.
Sometimes it helps to know and define if there are other aspects to sound reproduction.
Nothing wrong with talking about it openly in forums like this.
Too many people on forums believe they are somehow experts in the field of interest like DIY audio or video but really have no real experience in a vast and very complex field. They only understand or know so much and think that is all there is to it and I can hook this up to that and viola.
It's more complex than they realize. It is one of the very few technical mechanism that we have that directly interact biologically and organically with the human brain.
So keep up the dialog...and I'm not taking up any baton's....just stating the obvious in forum/internet riff raff....it's a free open system of words and it's important and interesting...
Hoping all is well beyond the audiophoolishness going on here. Yes there are more important distractions that do crop up in life and require our attention. Nothing serious I hope!
I am intrigued by your comments of the audio spectrum of sound being dissipated into a space or acoustic environment and your mention of being able to eliminate a focused sweet spot as well as carry on conversation without degradation of the source sounds from anywhere in the space.
As you may know there are people working on "holographic audio projectors" that keep the sound source localized at the head and around the ears of any listener in a room no matter where they are sitting or standing. I've been very interested in this and involved in acoustical systems for government/military/commercial use and aware of the possibilities using audio masking systems, audio projectors and acoustical treatment for that purpose. So I would really enjoy more discussion from you, if that is what you were eluding to. That technology has great possibilities!
I know you've talked about "monitors" like the B***ringers (if you can't tell I'm not a fan) but not quite sure I have the correct understanding from you with that term. Maybe it's just a cultural or land down under Kiwi use.
As a sidenote I do see a lot of AUS & NZ audio aficionados here and sometimes their terms are different!
In the audio recording and mixing group and in the US the term "monitor" is generally used to describe "studio monitors" which are much different in response than the generally accepted "HiFi" speakers that you see and hear about mostly in these forums. And of course studio monitors require an acoustically treated room which is tailored specifically to those units to be of any actual use. In that application accuracy and a sweet spot is way more important. Maybe you could clarify your use of the term.
I'm pretty sure you are in the audiophile camp (correct me if I'm wrong) as a listener of prerecorded material and not in the pro audio camp so I'm curious as to your concept on this full soundscape idea and it's applications.
Sometimes it helps to know and define if there are other aspects to sound reproduction.
Nothing wrong with talking about it openly in forums like this.
Too many people on forums believe they are somehow experts in the field of interest like DIY audio or video but really have no real experience in a vast and very complex field. They only understand or know so much and think that is all there is to it and I can hook this up to that and viola.
It's more complex than they realize. It is one of the very few technical mechanism that we have that directly interact biologically and organically with the human brain.
So keep up the dialog...and I'm not taking up any baton's....just stating the obvious in forum/internet riff raff....it's a free open system of words and it's important and interesting...
That's the difficult part! Conventional measurements are unlikely to pick significant improvements; I say these measuring yardsticks are looking at the obvious, and wrong, things; so then ensues a violent squabble about this POV! The only real proof is to have someone hear what I'm hearing, and that's the aim of the studio monitor project, in part. As I have already stated ...
I didn't read up on it. People on the other forum were quoting various studies which indicated interesting aspects of how people heard, comprehended sound. And the penny dropped: I knew the phenomenon occurred, from personal experience, but didn't understand why it should occur ... until I was able to connect the dots of various ideas in the research that was mentioned in a variety of postings.
I'm sure all the effects you mention are valid, but I offer as my star witness, the human organism. It has a remarkable ability to bypass all sorts of theoretical handicaps, is able to unscramble the most subtle clues, given half a chance. I've seen mentioned many times the fact that actual, highly accurate measurements of the stimulus the ear drum is subjected to shows a pretty dreadful mess - a massive amount of processing occurs in the brain to unravel it all ...
Not my understanding of how this "barrier" was considered: I recall many times hearing viewpoints like this: Sports: Bannister stuns world with 4-minute mile
I used the term "natural" as referring to the acoustics of a typical listening area unaltered in any way to deliberately enhance or filter the sound waves. Obviously, if you were in a concrete cube with nothing else in it, it would be unpleasant place, but I'm not talking extremes here ...
tsiros did an excellent job, and I would add that it should be capable of reaching clipping point with no perceptible change in tonal qualities, and it should be allow you to listen to your "worst" recordings with full enjoyment, no discomfort or fatigue.
Frank
fas42
I am intrigued by your comments of the audio spectrum of sound being dissipated into a space or acoustic environment and your mention of being able to eliminate a focused sweet spot as well as carry on conversation without degradation of the source sounds from anywhere in the space.
As you may know there are people working on "holographic audio projectors" that keep the sound source localized at the head and around the ears of any listener in a room no matter where they are sitting or standing. I've been very interested in this and involved in acoustical systems for government/military/commercial use and aware of the possibilities using audio masking systems, audio projectors and acoustical treatment for that purpose. So I would really enjoy more discussion from you, if that is what you were eluding to. That technology has great possibilities!
Now thats interesting..Its over there ...er no its not...
Shhh....They are behind us...actually they are in front...
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Unfortunately, an "argument" between someone's car and motor bike, and we know which side wins here! A very badly crushed foot, bike possibly written off, he was very lucky in that it could have been much worse. Thanks for your thoughts ...
Not really familiar with such techniques, but it sounds like an interesting approach.
The more I now interact with practioners of the audio "dark arts" -- something I had not done at all until a few years ago -- the more it's clear to me that there are some fundamental physiological factors always in play in the process of listening to music. To me, the human brain is always wanting to be convinced, to be fooled, by musical sounds as being more "real", less distorted than they really are. As a simple example, you listen to a piece or style of music you've never heard before on a poor quality system: it sounds terrible, you are quite averse to the musical event, every audible deficiency screams at you. But, for some reason, you listen to it over and over again, on the same playback; and you learn and understand the musical underpinnings, the structure of the track. The next day you listen to the same music anew, on the same system and you think to yourself, "Gee, that's really sounding quite good, I wonder why I thought it was so bad the first time!". Anyway, that's happened to me!
So, the "aim" is to have this "fooling" occur as easily as possible. And there a number of approaches:
* The obvious is what the majority do: focus one's effort on creating an intense sweet spot, by speaker placement, room acoustics, seating position, fine tuning the behaviour of the speakers
* A second is that includes what you suggest: extract and project subsidiary sound fields which interact with and enhance the primary sound. Multi-channel, rear firing tweeters, ambience/DSP manipulation, Linkwitz's WATSON, a very spohisticated but cancelled device by Lexicon, even Bose!! These can be very, very impressive ...
* A third but very lonely way is mine: aim to reduce audible distortions of certain types to the very lowest levels, so that one's hearing system can easily pick up the auditory clues, to a sufficient level to trigger that "holographic" soundscape experience
Very much the audiophile. Yet their world, and the pro world should overlap: sound is sound!
Everybody listens to reproduced sound differently: I got a shock the first time someone who was a respected audiophile pronounced a very hifi sounding system to be quite superior to the one that conveyed a quite realistic soundscape. The Behringer sent the right signals to me, the cues that said that it had real potential were strong: I'm listening to my gut here!!
Frank
Last edited:
You are assuming that you interact with the music and system as a constant..ie you are the same person every day..the room is the same every day.. the mains quality is the same every day...and that mood swings etc and hearing are the same every day..ie if you have the flu it won't sound the same..The same is true if you have been to work in a noisy environment or been off work for a while (I'm not picking this up..just a point)
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
The audiophile and the pro world largely stopped overlapping when the audiophile world started moving into the land of fairies with ridiculously priced cables etc.
Although I got the first inkling that they would go that way when Linn started their dodgy marketing practices and meaningless terms like 'PRaT' where invented.
Now we've got cable lifters, magic clocks and pebbles and the overlap is practically non-existent.
Also audiophiles try to recreate the live event which with 95% of recordings never actually existed (thanks to the advent of multitrack recorders in the '70s).
Well it says it all dosen't it....LMAO..
You are spot on...
A pebble for your thoughts..
Regards
M. Gregg
Paradox Alert "recreate" can be replaced with "create" but, much better I think, "present".
"recordings" is harder
Fair comment ... especially when the system is not firing on enough cylinders. What I have begun to believe more and more is that there is a critical level of quality for an audio system which is like the top of a bell curve: on the leading edge, prior to this attainment, the slightest variation anywhere is terribly apparent, the ear/brain has to work hard for the illusion to be maintained. And if you're feeling off-colour, or the drapes are falling the wrong way, listener "fatigue", from one's head starting to stress from the effort occurring subconsciously to maintain focus on the musical message will raise its ugly head, at different times.
But, on the other side on that "peak", the trailing edge so to speak, life gets a lot easier for your hearing system: there can be variations in perceived quality, relatively speaking, but it has nowhere near the same impact on your ability to enjoy, go with the music. My measure is always the real thing, you'd have to be in a pretty filthy mood not to connect with a live jazz trio you happened to find in your living room!
Frank
Last edited:
I agree,
However there is more to this than meets the “Ear”..assuming the room and all else including listener remains reasonably OK.
At the end of the day the resultant reproduction can only be based upon a finite number of engineering interactions.. if these are not constant i.e. variable resistance, variable frequency response, variable current, variable voltage, variable interference, variable dielectric properties or inductance . Due to change in temperature, RFI, voltage, current, static, load, ESR, leakage, dielectric properties etc. This is assuming that the system is above the requirement to produce the “in your room event”.
My experience is this is hard to replicate..taking into account recording types, compression, and Music types. You have a (cake mix) that seems to have infinite possibilities..
Yes we know it can be done.. and reproduced after disconnection and reconnection of components. However to get away from (the system is on a knife edge) sometimes it’s great sometimes it’s OK, and sometimes it’s just rubbish exposing the recording deficiencies.. is another matter..Some times it can feel like you need a switch that you can select (this recording can be played at high resolution or this needs some smear becuse its a bit rubbish).
Take the "BEST" system put a rubbish recording on it and it will sound rubbish..The system is true<<it presents what is actually there not whats not.
If you have to have a power station in your listening room and speakers that can destroy the walls of Troy its sometimes difficult to justify..
NB this is not taking into account of speaker types and personal taste..ie what one person thinks sounds real compared to another person..
Theoretically it should sound as in the recording studio..some people can tell from the sound where it was recorded..anything else is a false representation?
Or we can just say well it sounds good to me<<<probably the best way to go..unless you want to join the quest....
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
That's what makes sound such an interesting topic and field!
The experience is always unique for each of us at an instantaneous moment in time and then it's gone. We end up with an imprint of that experience that keeps us coming back for more.
It's impossible to achieve that same emotional experience consistently and that would be boring to us anyway! Which is part of the reason we're always tweaking things and looking to move things away from that peak of the bell curve. All prerecorded material is different in a thousand different ways.
Some of us get into Rock, some Jazz, some Classical. Some people like to listen to repetitive droning from some synth..with headphones.
Then there are all the physiological differences. The shape of ones ears (your left ear is shaped differently than your right) Some peoples ears are flat and lay against their head and some peoples ears stick out away from the head and are radically cupped. Some people have extra folds and ridges.
Most people never have their hearing thoroughly tested properly. So really they have no way of knowing if they can actually "hear" what's being listened too.
There are many people who have slight notch filters in their hearing. They don't realize it because they're brain fills in the blanks.
All of this is unique to you. There is a lot of ignorance in this field. But there is a lot of knowledge in this field as well.
You should have your hearing checked and then worry about the tweaks....if you can't hear that well, maybe the average sound system is more appropriate to your needs. There are people out there who modify things because they think it sounds better to them and it turns out they have damaged hearing and are merely harming their hearing even further....it's a little like staring into the sun...
Too bloody right! It's been a battle over the years for me; in the first skirmish well over 20 years ago I got worn out trying to achieve some understanding, some real progress, and gave the exercise away for nigh on 10 years, it was too frustrating - achieving high quality sound on a consistent basis in my experience has never come easily.
I'm interested in your comment here, are you referring to cleaning the connections, or something else?
This again is where my Zen factor, hah, has come in. I very deliberately use "rubbish" recordings to assess and test progress, because they are a beautiful spotlight and magnifying glass, highlighting the remaining weaknesses. Clean and polish a mirror in normal light, it looks reasonable enough; take a flashlight, shine it on the glass at an angle and inspect more closely: every tiny spot missed, not polished dry perfectly is obvious, the specks of dust are clear as day. This has been my approach, and it has paid dividends, enabling even lowly born recordings to give of their very best.
A key goal is very simply stated: every, every recording has to sound good; meaning that the musical message gets through, you spend your time while listening connecting to
the sound event recorded, not being aware of the playback mechanism or deficiencies of the recording itself.
Frank
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.