Absolutely correct. Several paper cones in 2 (or more) channels would never re-create an original sound field, even if tried in the same room where recorded.
Irrespective of the theory of it, the subjective impact of well reproduced recordings is of a vast sound field, if that is what was encoded on it. A way of explaining it is that conventional audio normally creates a dwarfish, miniscule pocket of sound somewhere in a large home - as the quality improves, the tables turn and the sound expands outward until it can literally dominate the whole house, the latter shrinks and becomes a mere adjunct to the sound event, aurally speaking.
On 3D capability of stereo - while generally it is at best doubtful, I would still suggest that the Doubting Thomases get hold of some Decca Phase 4 stereo LPs from the late 60ies (sic!), give them a whirl and we'll talk about it again. Astonishing feats of recording and vinyl pressing, although their musical taste was, er, odd on some occasions (e.g. Mantovani Plays Love Songs).
Now, my coup de grace - try to find an RCA edition of Harry Belafonte delivering negro soul and spiritual music, made in the early 60ies, 1961 I think, accompanied by an "orchestra" of 64 male and female VOICES. If memory serves, it was recorded in a church somewhere in USA, and it was in MONO!!! Listen to those acoustics and try to believe that yes, it was possible even then, even in mono. I'd love to give you its catalog number, but at this time, it's inaccessible to me, stored away.
And no matter on which system they were played, these LPs always let you know that they were special and always sounded way better than most. From the No Fi to the High End class, the High End naturally giving you much more of the same.
Which leads me to believe that in fact not nearly enough development was dedicated to what we already had, hardly surprising in a mass volume market in which numbers are everything. Which is why I never upgraded from 2 channel stereo to multichannel, I saw no point in it since the market was moving more and more towards low prices above all, not sound quality improvement.
Now, my coup de grace - try to find an RCA edition of Harry Belafonte delivering negro soul and spiritual music, made in the early 60ies, 1961 I think, accompanied by an "orchestra" of 64 male and female VOICES. If memory serves, it was recorded in a church somewhere in USA, and it was in MONO!!! Listen to those acoustics and try to believe that yes, it was possible even then, even in mono. I'd love to give you its catalog number, but at this time, it's inaccessible to me, stored away.
And no matter on which system they were played, these LPs always let you know that they were special and always sounded way better than most. From the No Fi to the High End class, the High End naturally giving you much more of the same.
Which leads me to believe that in fact not nearly enough development was dedicated to what we already had, hardly surprising in a mass volume market in which numbers are everything. Which is why I never upgraded from 2 channel stereo to multichannel, I saw no point in it since the market was moving more and more towards low prices above all, not sound quality improvement.
I have several very good Decca LP's from about 1966. I do not doubt 'sound qualities', the question was to get same (= realistic) sound even from one single acoustical instrument, and it is impossible. You may try a guitar in home conditions, or listen to a small street jazz band. Reproduced sound is quite different discipline from live real acoustical sound.
Re 'imaging' and 'focusing' - reproduced sound gives more of the virtual space and focusing than you would ever hear from real instruments and bands.
A lot of audio is played at 'prissy' volume levels, because any increase in SPLs will make the disturbing, low level reproduction distortion far too obvious, the automatic reaction is to back off the gain. Which means that the replay never sounds convincing, the volumes are just not there - the only solution is to sort out the underlying issues which create that too obvious unpleasantness at elevated levels; the goal is to be able to run the system at any volume you wish, there is never a 'cringe moment' ...
elektroj
I have opened up B77 MKII and PR99 MKIII.
By the looks and from the schematics, they have totally different transport control and audio electronics.
They only share the same T/R and the record amp
Now if you talk about reliability and longevity of R2R (even tubed), I wonder why you don’t point toward Japan !
If one uses old tapes, he has to clean the heads every half an hour. Also tape stretch compliance is permanently degraded (varying across the length of the tape).
IMO the difference btn studio and home R2R is to be found at the tape speed stability as measured in front of the heads.
Do some record/ replay tests and check through a soundcard/PC today, it’s easy.
I am of the same opinion. With the music I listen to, more speakers increase the ‘speaker-room’ integration problem.
Mono or close to ‘Stereolith’ type solutions give me better space sensing
George
Last edited:
Why would anyone want to tape in this day and age?
I can't speak for everyone, but taping was a double edged sword of fun.
You could create your own selections and mixes right at home, and I do get a bit bored by listening to most artists for a straight hour. True, you can do the same with a CD.
The second reason was that it was a ritual. You know, put the tape on the recorder, test the music for the signal, and so forth. No more or less masochistic than playing an LP, which is also a process.
One many of us enjoyed for decades.
I can't speak for everyone, but taping was a double edged sword of fun.
You could create your own selections and mixes right at home, and I do get a bit bored by listening to most artists for a straight hour. True, you can do the same with a CD.
The second reason was that it was a ritual. You know, put the tape on the recorder, test the music for the signal, and so forth. No more or less masochistic than playing an LP, which is also a process.
One many of us enjoyed for decades.
Kalimera George,
In the end, I have better sound even on Blue Ray than say 95% of all multichannel setups.
Years ago, I busted a good friend's privates to make my speakers as linear as possible, and he got it down to 40-18,000 Hz +/- 1.5 dB (anechoic), or 36-22,000 Hz +1.5/-3 dB at 96 dB SPL 1m, which is much louder than I would ever normally use (efficiency is 92 dB/2.83V/1m). I got him to match the two loudspeakers down to 0,5 dB overall. I got him to make it nominally 8 Ohms, dropping to 6.5 Ohms minimum, with a worst case phase shift of just -25 degrees, and when you work it out, the amp never sees less than 5.5 Ohms equivalent worst case.
The end result is that in effect, I have it ALL, even if the bass extends down to 36 Hz at -3 dB; it could have been pushed down to 33 Hz or so, but at the cost of some unruly behavior at the bottom end, so I gave it up. It took me years to find 3 amps which I felt did justice to the speakers - a vintage Marantz 170 DC power amp, a Harman/Kardon Citation 24 power amp and Karan Acoustics KA-i180 integrated amp.
And frankly, I am very happy with it all, despite minor differences between the amps when driven by Luxman C-03 preamp. Ecerything was refreshed, capacitors all changed for new and often better ones, everything adjusted as per the service manuals.
Now, imagine if I had to go through all that all over again for multichannel, and for what? An improvement of 2 or 3%? And at what price in time and money? Would you ever consider replacing a bouzuki? I wouldn't. But I would look for a good bouzuki player.
Just curious - "George" is a transcription of "Yorgos", is it?
Perhaps impossible in absolute terms, Pavel, but they get awfully close. If you want the real deal, your only venue is a live concert.
The difference between absolute and awfully close is the price we pay for being able to listen to it whenever we want, as many times as we want, in the comfort of our home. No such thing as a free lunch.
I agree, that's why I often visit concerts of classical music and I also enjoy listening to street jazz bands. Based on long experience with live concerts with acoustical, unamplified instruments, I say that precise reproduction is impossible. Reproduced sound is a different discipline.
No one sane would expect to get the same sound from PC speakers (or any other speakers) as the sound heard from church organ - or would you, Frank (fas42)?
It could be a lot less expensive today to record 3D sound fields. Why arent we doing it? Laziness? Lets get back on track and move the needle some towards greater reality in audio reproduction -- at least for the Hi-End.
With many excellent IC's and also excellent but not over -the-top expensive electret mics... a huge step forward can be realized using Sound-Field recording & playback systems.
I have only heard lame reasons so far. But, Technology allows for now as the right time!
THx-RNMarsh
[In the middle of no where - Nepal]
Richard, I can't share your optimism.
A couple of decades ago, the Technical University Delft was doing research into replicating 3D sound fields by using arrays of speakers. In order to baseline, they measured the in room response of live music using a grid of microphones.
The results showed very large swings even between adjacent mikes, also on very small scales. Compare it with a holographic photo, which is 'recursive' in the sense that each spot in it contains information about the whole image as perceived from a certain angle. The project never took of.
Let's first get our stereophonic speakers right! Please do the world in strict alphabetical order and join Jan and me for a demonstration.
People usually choose some instrument like this for their argument, for the simple reason that delivering clean, deep bass notes is seen as the big dilemma,Based on long experience with live concerts with acoustical, unamplified instruments, I say that precise reproduction is impossible. Reproduced sound is a different discipline.
No one sane would expect to get the same sound from PC speakers (or any other speakers) as the sound heard from church organ - or would you, Frank (fas42)?
. However, if one goes past worrying about the action below 100Hz, then everything else is eminently possible ... I have a test CD of Peter Hurford playing the Sydney Opera House organ, a decently impressive instrument, and I have been very happy with the sound I've extracted when all was in order, on past systems. What is a key element of organ is the tremendous depth and complexity of the sound, when a great number of the ranks of pipes are activated, it is an intensely rich aural experience, like listening to an immense massed choir. I have taken this CD to various, other demo'ing situations, and resolving that complexity barely started to get a foothold ...So, from my POV reproduced sound falls into the same category as live sound - rich, intense, immersive, completely filling your aural universe ... I am of course very familar with the comparatively mediocre version that most audio produces ...
Or another slant on what reproduced sound has to get right: simultaneously generating relatively intense sound levels and maintaining the integrity of the harmonic content of the constituent sounds. When I listen, I listen to precisely what happens at a crescendo, not so much the quiet bits - does the sound maintain 100% integrity at this point? ... This is key to achieving convincing sound ...
People usually choose some instrument like this for their argument, for the simple reason that delivering clean, deep bass notes is seen as the big dilemma,
No, Frank. Neither your plastic PC speakers, nor mine floorstanding speakers with 4 drivers per box are able to get close to sound of philharmonic orchestra, e.g.
PC speakers are even more limited, many instruments go below 100 Hz - organ, piano, double bass, cello, bassoon, bass tuba - you name the others if you want. So, frequency range is uncovered with with PC speakers. Not only frequency range, but also real volume, SPL. What is the max. SPL you get from your speakers, undistorted? What is the power of your amplifier? You are the one who likes to speed about loud music listening, but I am more than sure that you can never get any realistic SPL from your PC speakers. Please find attached a record I made during listening, on speaker terminals. Sensitivity of the speaker id 89dB/2.83V/m. You can see amplitude up to 26V, which makes 169W peak power to 4ohm, or 85W rms power.
Attachments
Remember that I often refer to earlier systems when I talk about capabilities, the PC bits are just the latest I'm fooling with, and these easily have the least powerful amplifiers of all - something like 6W or so. They're set up to run at maximum volume, using digital gain setting for level, and for most "restrained" material, e.g. classical, they will handle full strength levels.
But this is not a contest of SPL numbers - it's about the quality of those SPLs. With a real orchestra, if you stand next to the stage you will hear high peak SPLs; but if you then move back, walk down an aisle away from the orchestra will there be a point where it doesn't sound real, it starts to resemble a cheap hifi system because the decibels have dropped? Having more "headroom" is just allowing one to venture closer to front row, it doesn't switch the realness of the orchestra on or off ..
But this is not a contest of SPL numbers - it's about the quality of those SPLs. With a real orchestra, if you stand next to the stage you will hear high peak SPLs; but if you then move back, walk down an aisle away from the orchestra will there be a point where it doesn't sound real, it starts to resemble a cheap hifi system because the decibels have dropped? Having more "headroom" is just allowing one to venture closer to front row, it doesn't switch the realness of the orchestra on or off ..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.