well, if you can live without the finer audiophile textures, imaging, etc...even a Cerwin speaker and amp could make many other speakers sound like a joke, and even sound surpricingly smooth, with tons of power and headroom
that said, everything it misses is for the most what I want to hear, and do hear every day
but many wont, or cant, and thats a fact
rewievs, thats just entertainment, fun to read, and can be a 'pointer', but other than that nothing
that said, everything it misses is for the most what I want to hear, and do hear every day
but many wont, or cant, and thats a fact
rewievs, thats just entertainment, fun to read, and can be a 'pointer', but other than that nothing
I know exactly what you try yo say
perfect describtion, spot on
I find it better to focus on good tonality
but you are right if you say a good listening position feels pointlessly boring without good imaging
if you want to fake a concert experience, imaging is the key
but if its just to hear music or listen to certain musicians, tonality, pace, rythm, timing etc, are my priority...imaging comes last on my list
but as said, perfect and fixed listening position becomes pointless without good precise imaging, size, width, height, all that stuff
every musician should be placed properly, and stay there
unfortunately not all recordings are good
jazz recordings are for the most the only proper ones
it easily becomes a lost game
+1
I think I've mentione before the time I attended a symphony+choir performance where they "augmented" the choir . . . my first "clue" was that I could "localize" instruments in the back of the orchestra (from bleed to the choir mikes). Not "natural" . . .
Wow, are you sure?
I've tried for some time to get the music to leave the speakers and hang in free space. Things like cymbals and hi-hats almost make it, but they're still locatable to exactly where the speakers are, with some smudge of them across the middle.
How did you get around this?
Here is the rub. A recording taken from microphones will have imaging, it is the nature of recording. The live experience is another animal altogether, as you are listening to more of the room itself than any direct output of the instrument(even sitting up close to the instrument you are still hearing a floor bounce). Audiophiles love precise imaging because they know it was recorded to get that effect. It is not really artificial(not made up), it is the direct capture of the microphones.
Comparing a recording to a live event is like comparing apples and peaches.
Last edited:
somethimes it does happen that an instrument actually is located correctly where the speaker are...accidentally
what can be really annoying is if a drummer has some of his sound(drums) in one side(channel), and other of his drum sound or cymbals in other side(channel)
then he is impossible to place correctly in the 'sound picture'
what also tend to be annoying is when a lead singer is positioned too much off middle
tend to tip the balance
we seem to expect the lead man is in the middle
Gee, and for the last 50 years that I've been involved in audio I though the objective was to try to recreate the live experience at home. If it is to reproduce the recorded event as accurately then let's get the room all the way out of it. Listen in an anechoic chamber. That will show you just how poor even the best recording are and how important room reflections are. Without room related reflections you won't want to listen very long. It typically make you disorientated and nauseous. I know from expereince.
Hi there S: I'll have another opportunity to observe the effect of listening to live music performed in our listening area, Thursday, when my wife's string quartet rehearses at our home.
While I ageee with your premice quoing above "Comparing a recording to a live event is like comparing apples to oranges" and EG's rejoiner "result is bananas", if we in the diy community are not attemping to rereate reality, then all we have done is to: as Adam from Myth Busters is found of saying "reject your reality and substitute my reality". ...regards, Michael
Happens virtually always if the drum kit is recorded with more than one mic and pretty close (which both happens very often). Then the drum kit rotates between the speakers although on stage it would be located on the right hand side (Jazz) with the hi-hat more towards the audience and the right hand cymbal further back on stage and the bass drum perpendicular to the piano, which sits on the left hand side of the stage.
Then the right hand cymbal appears in the left speaker, the hi-hat in the right and the bass in the middle.
Similar things happen to the piano upon playback, which is also often recorded with more than one mic. Then you can find the lower keys in the left speaker and the higher in the right.
Pretty interesting but the natural context is lost.
To me has always been clear that the record or recorded concert is just an image of something. I have never expected them to sound "live"
Classical, choir/vocal and acoustic jazz perhaps are trying to sound real. They are often recoded "live" at some acoustically decent or interesting places. But hey, even they have been mixed and mastered at studios!
Perhaps binaural recording listened with earphones is the closest thing. You can hera lots of them at Youtube. Chesky records is interested in them now The making of "Dr Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show!" | InnerFidelity
I have downloaded one binaural piano record, but I was not amazed of the sound. It is a Zenph-re-performance https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD886970335027
Classical, choir/vocal and acoustic jazz perhaps are trying to sound real. They are often recoded "live" at some acoustically decent or interesting places. But hey, even they have been mixed and mastered at studios!
Perhaps binaural recording listened with earphones is the closest thing. You can hera lots of them at Youtube. Chesky records is interested in them now The making of "Dr Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show!" | InnerFidelity
I have downloaded one binaural piano record, but I was not amazed of the sound. It is a Zenph-re-performance https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD886970335027
Walking into one was very strange ... and I knew what to expect!
It felt like a different pressure
and my ears 'bulged'! And then I felt very unsettled and wanted to look over my shoulder ... disorientating and nauseating it was! 
+10
Different discussion topic to this one, there are basics necessary.
Hi-fi is about the reproduction of the recorded medium, input =output. It's the recording job to capture the live performance, the Hi-Fi systems job, is to reproduce the recording as faithful as possible..
Siegfried Challenge
I emailed David Clark, the organizer of AES paper, and he sent me the attached document (see below), which was written prior to the test.
My interpretation (paraphrasing 'The Existence Test') from this document and Summary section from of the AES report:
1) The stereo recording/mix quality is essential (microphone placement and quality, timbre, acoustic properties of the recording space, etc.). The Auditory Scene (AS) is dictated foremost by the recording mix rather than playback acoustics (recorded reverberation is far more noticeable that live reverberation).
2) We ignore the loudspeakers as sources of sound if they do not have an acoustic signature:
4) Loudspeaker radiation pattern, symmetry of listening arrangement, and proximity to room walls are not as important as previously thought. Subjective perfection (via. stereo) is relatively easy to achieve with today's equipment.
5) Physically, stereo reproduction does not resemble the live acoustic event. A willing suspension of disbelief is a requirement for AS recreation.
The AES report validates that an AS can be indeed be achieved with stereo, although it invalidates SL's claim that "that loudspeakers and room can disappear from the AS and that this depends primarily upon the polar response of the loudspeakers and their setup in the room."
Basically, any good speaker system can recreate a believable AS. There is no firm consensus (or valid scientific proof) on what constitutes the ideal polar response, open-baffle-dipole or otherwise.
I emailed David Clark, the organizer of AES paper, and he sent me the attached document (see below), which was written prior to the test.
My interpretation (paraphrasing 'The Existence Test') from this document and Summary section from of the AES report:
1) The stereo recording/mix quality is essential (microphone placement and quality, timbre, acoustic properties of the recording space, etc.). The Auditory Scene (AS) is dictated foremost by the recording mix rather than playback acoustics (recorded reverberation is far more noticeable that live reverberation).
2) We ignore the loudspeakers as sources of sound if they do not have an acoustic signature:
- drivers maintain a smooth frequency response and constant directivity across a broad listening area
- diffraction, distortion, and noise are negligible
4) Loudspeaker radiation pattern, symmetry of listening arrangement, and proximity to room walls are not as important as previously thought. Subjective perfection (via. stereo) is relatively easy to achieve with today's equipment.
5) Physically, stereo reproduction does not resemble the live acoustic event. A willing suspension of disbelief is a requirement for AS recreation.
The AES report validates that an AS can be indeed be achieved with stereo, although it invalidates SL's claim that "that loudspeakers and room can disappear from the AS and that this depends primarily upon the polar response of the loudspeakers and their setup in the room."
Basically, any good speaker system can recreate a believable AS. There is no firm consensus (or valid scientific proof) on what constitutes the ideal polar response, open-baffle-dipole or otherwise.
Very interesting.
I had always thought that there is something that is 'good enough'. The quest to obtain the best possible looking polar response might be not that productive?
Best looking not anyway
Guys, please don't forget that the context here is the "ability to create a plausible AS". That is indeed a pretty easy task.
Different radiation patterns, however cleary sound different in a given room and a speaker too close to the wall will inhibt the precedence effect and affect localization badly.
The biggest differences I can find in terms of AS are ASW/image broadening effects.
Features that make a speaker disappear are minimized diffraction, wide dispersion and no discontinuities in directivity.
I think nobody has claimed that dipolar is the perfect radiation pattern.
Here is my consenus again (though most of you know it already).
Last edited:
well.. really? Any good speaker, independant of the placement and room? The further I push my dipoles into the room, the better it gets.. the sound is precise, and like suspended in air, with good imaging, without a ton of acoustic treatment either. Same applies to a small omni far from boundaries and in near field.
Does a speaker with distorded directivity does that too?
Does a speaker with distorded directivity does that too?