This is an observation that keeps coming up . . . that "classical music" recordings typically try to capture the hall as part of the performance, and the listener typically wants to hear reproduced what would be heard at that "best seat". This presents a different problem than that of a studio recorded (or even "live") rock recording, where the acoustics of the performance venue are often terrible and what the listener (and often the performers) want is what it would have/could have/should have sounded like.
There has always been a tendency (and it is becoming more common) for "classical" recordings to adopt a more "studio" approach . . . there's regularly now a separate microphone for the "soloist", and often separate mics for the sections. Such recordings often do accomplish what they set out to do, "highlighting" the this or the that, but to my ear they seldom capture or deliver the sense of "real".
Maybe I just don't understand the metric but how helpful is it? An unechoic chamber would yield the best rating. Is this the best acoustics to listen to recordings?
The best halls do not have the best intelligibility factor. Opera houses are much better in that respect. Dead studios even better. In a nutshell, music needs to be adapted to the acoustic and vice versa. I mean, conductors even adapt the tempo of the piece depending on the acoustics (and the dynamics!).
I believe Same happens with our room/speakers, we can (maybe need?) to adapt them. I know the purpose is not music production, but music reproduction. Still...
The problem starts when someones says "I have a one fits all situations solution".. So we need to compromize, and there, each on their own..
Regarding MTF, I remember Elias posted some wavelets that did show some kind of better results with dipoles?
I believe Same happens with our room/speakers, we can (maybe need?) to adapt them. I know the purpose is not music production, but music reproduction. Still...
The problem starts when someones says "I have a one fits all situations solution".. So we need to compromize, and there, each on their own..
Regarding MTF, I remember Elias posted some wavelets that did show some kind of better results with dipoles?
Last edited:
Music IS already adapted to the acoustics - the acoustics of the recording/mixing/mastering studio. It's a cultural phenomenon just like any other space for music, e.g. concert halls or churches.
Music is made in and for studio acoustics. Could it be different? Yes but nobody cares, except the 0.00000000000001 per mill of all music listeners.
I am glad you realize the potential of it! A potential that maybe hasn't been really properly used yet..?
With high directivity I mean a speaker that has a higher directivity index (DI). A low directivity speaker is a speaker with a low DI. As far as I know the use of these terms is quite common, Toole for one uses the terms.
In the example I spoke of a small speaker with high directivity. The term 'small' here served to suggest that the loudspeaker in question was unable to generate very high sound levels with low distortion.
As I said it is my experience that a very strong direct sound and little delayed sound (reflections) helps to make the silent parts of music more silent. Imagine a situation in a gymnasium: a listener is situated relatively far from hypothetically perfect (no compression/distortion at all), but low DI speakers. The room has little acoustic damping (high RT) and the room is strongly illuminated. Although the speakers don't compress, it probably will not sound very dynamic. Sound levels don't rise and die away quickly.
Following that same rationale, a speaker with high directivity will probably sound more dynamic under those same conditions, but anything you could do to increase the direct/reverberant ratio (sit closer, increase acoustic damping) would probably increase subjective dynamics. At some point you may however overdo it, because aspects such as spaciousness suffer too much.
I think that you would indeed have maximum subjective dynamics in an anechoic chamber. Why would that idea be difficult to match with psychoacoustics?
Just to be clear, I'm not ruling out power compression at reasonable sound levels as a contributor to decreased dynamics just yet, but I do think that to be of secondary importance.
You guys s-t--i----l----l going at it? Sit back and listen to some music for crying out LOUD!!!
Trying to kill the discussion?
Enjoying music and discussing sound reproduction are in my opinion two completely separate things. I know adept music lovers who are totally uninterested in reproduction and I know those who enjoy hifi but aren't necessarily very fond of music.
Won't happen.
a) Stereo depends too much on the room and is really just a one-seat solution.
b) Movie business is driving innovation, not music business.
I've used MTF analysis modified for wavelets in the past to analyse low frequency room effects of monopole and dipole sources
Elias Pekonen Home Page - Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass
The response I get regarding this analysis has been mixed. Some see and understand the benefits of such analysis
, while those who didn't like the results blamed the method , but unfortunately many people don't have a clue what's going on there - Elias
it all depends on what one wants
if what one wants is more realism then a significant improvement is indeed possible
There's no psychoacoustic research about "dynamics" I'm aware of.
Anyway, listen to a drum in a damped room and then listen to a drum in a church. No psychoacoustic research needed
So you are equating dynamics with reverberation? Then the more reverberant the room the greater the dynamics? Feasible. Still fits my notion and experience. Also plays right into the importance of directivity.
I'm on the same way, but I've already moved beyond the hypothesis phase approaching a proof
While I've been studying psychoacoustics in deeper levels of auditory chain I've about to come to the conclusion
modulation perception is more important for music listening than for example frequency response anomalies and distortion. Music is a process where carrier signals are AM and FM modulated by information. In our perception we demodulate the AM and FM information from the carriers. If there are external disturbancies modifying the modulations (hint: MTF) it will testify itself in various forms of perceptual changes. Some of them may be beneficial depending on the original source signal, and some of them may be bad.
- Elias
If you interpret it that way then I guess, but that is not what I meant. What I meant was they expect "large room acoustics." An overwhelming image of large venue spaciousness, as is so common on piano recordings.
My playback room is very live for a HT and has its own set of "acoustics", but, of course, being that it is a small room it does not sound like a big room. Although, it sounds a lot bigger than it really is because of the way that it was designed.
No, the other way around. The less reflections, the more dynamic it will sound.
No, the second set of speakers would have to have no tonality or dynamics of their own. If they have the same as the first then this would double the effect which is not correct. This is a good example of the difference between original sound and reproduced sound. The original can be anything, there is no good or bad, but the reproduction must neither add nor subtract from the original.
HI Tom
I think that it is a great idea. I have long lived by MTF when buying lenses for my camera - would not buy one without seeing this data. I believe that MTF has been used quite a bit in room acoustics. I think that it is best suited to the whole room problem and probably quite usefull for that. I am looking more for something that is quantifiable so that I can design for it or model it and improve it in a speaker design. My comment about MTF was because the links between the MTF and the design variables are hard to see if they are doable at all. That's why I am a little reluctant.
How would you "improve" a speaker that had a poor MTF? What would you change? How would you model it?
Last edited:
I'm kind of surprised you haven't opened-up an IMP thread yet.
I'll leave that to Eickmeier and his hopefully refeatured appearing in this marvelous disscussion forum !
I know your take on this as we discuss it before. I am fine with 1 seat, music is too deep and moving to be shared by more than 2 people anyway.
Regarding point b, well, it depends how they use it for.. But yes, HT is where the money is now. For the best, and worst..