I think that yes sadly. It has been a long time to just stop thinking about the sound and just enjoy, and I fear that for a couple of guys in here, this "hobby" is turning more into a fuckin obsession.
I always find the reference to "musical enjoyment" as any kind of pertinent metric to be disturbing. When I hear a great old song on my car radios I "enjoy" it. What does that have to do with audio? I enjoy a good steak - same thing.
The quality of the audio equipment makes a difference for my enjoyment of music. Probably I would be better off if there was no connection between both ...
Rudolf
I too might enjoy the music more on a good audio system, just as I'd enjoy it, and a steak, more with a glass of bourbon and some friends. But those things are social/emotional attributes and when they get mixed together with audio evaluations makes for a lot of confusion. "Was it a really good audio system or just a really good time?"
it has everything and nothing to do with audio. it has everything to do with music, not so much to do with technology fetishism. That you find it disturbing that the amount of enjoyment of the music someone gets from an audio system might be used to measure the success of an audio system, is telling in itself.
what I object to is
A. the suggestion that there is anything natural or pure about the sensory illusion we choose to chase, with the vast majority of the recordings it has little relation to the space it was recorded in.
B. the derogatory and elitist cliches that the musical experience that we chase is any more pure simply because we have different goals, more extreme methods and a larger budget to achieve that satisfaction. If indeed that sense of satisfaction still gets a look in as far as motivation ...
C. Stereotypical/soft targets, ipods, the notion that anything but 'live' audiophile approved music is somehow less than, just as the whipper snappers are sending the world to hell. All this, even though often it (Classical, Jazz etc) is subject to the very same process and can just as easily be subject to bad production, despite quality musical performances.
basically its all this separatist stuff and rigid/inflexible views, along with the ever increasing stupid pricing of high quality commercial audio gear that the hobby of music and music technology appreciation (aside from bragging rights for the rich) may well die out along with the industry that relies on it.
Last edited:
This argument reminds me of the time a guy walked into a room and listened for a few seconds to the music and walked out. What he was saying is I can not listen to that system, the channels are obviously switched, I know that guitar player should be on the right and not the left. the music is ruined and the system is therefor a totally unlistenable system! When the technical aspects completely outweigh the listening experience then it only becomes a technical mind game.
I think by now anyone in this hobby or industry should understand that you can never recreate the live event with a playback system. It is not possible and the Holy Grail will never be reached with a two channel system. If that is your end game you might as well just give it up.
Dr. Bose has been very successful selling what most of us would call a mediocre sound, it has never been highly accurate or very accurate in its frequency response. His philosophy has always been that what is missing will not be missed, that the complete accurate reproduction of the bandwidth and detail is not necessary. A close approximation with the majority of the sound is good enough to fool the majority of the people. And for the majority of people he was correct, but that is not the end game here. We are looking for as close to accurate as we can attain within the limits of a two channel playback system. Asking for more than that is just never going to happen.
I think by now anyone in this hobby or industry should understand that you can never recreate the live event with a playback system. It is not possible and the Holy Grail will never be reached with a two channel system. If that is your end game you might as well just give it up.
Dr. Bose has been very successful selling what most of us would call a mediocre sound, it has never been highly accurate or very accurate in its frequency response. His philosophy has always been that what is missing will not be missed, that the complete accurate reproduction of the bandwidth and detail is not necessary. A close approximation with the majority of the sound is good enough to fool the majority of the people. And for the majority of people he was correct, but that is not the end game here. We are looking for as close to accurate as we can attain within the limits of a two channel playback system. Asking for more than that is just never going to happen.
Dr. Bose is the king of the smiley face. I don't think the frequency inaccuracy is a mistake, at least not for the typical dip around 2.5KHz. It makes psycho-acoustic sense to do that with speakers you want to sell to a large audience.
Vacuphile,
I think that there is more than a single frequency dip in most Bose products. The high frequency response is nothing to speak of and the bass from any of the base tuned systems is nothing more than a two tone simulation of a smooth bass response. Basically a dual chamber transmission line with two peak frequencies. That is what is in the Wave Radio and many other boss systems. Now if we talk about their noise cancellation headphones that is where I think they have used some very good science. But I for one do not expect a 2" or 3" speaker and a subwoofer to give a great frequency response across the entire frequency spectrum.
I think that there is more than a single frequency dip in most Bose products. The high frequency response is nothing to speak of and the bass from any of the base tuned systems is nothing more than a two tone simulation of a smooth bass response. Basically a dual chamber transmission line with two peak frequencies. That is what is in the Wave Radio and many other boss systems. Now if we talk about their noise cancellation headphones that is where I think they have used some very good science. But I for one do not expect a 2" or 3" speaker and a subwoofer to give a great frequency response across the entire frequency spectrum.
Kindhornman,
What you are describing here is a control room, and that is quite different from a mixing room. The control room does have glass in the front of the room so you can see the techs, performers, and the conductor(if you have one). My own personal mixing room for music has dead front walls, ceiling to floor high quality bass traps in all corners, diffusion(especially the back wall and ceiling), and very targeted placed acoustical panels designed to remove as much of the "sound signature" of the room as I can. Room neutrality is the key for mixing rooms, not so much for control rooms. This is a music mixing room.
Yes. But the reproduction has to be sufficiently accurate (that word again!) for the perception to be subjectively convincing. It is not as simple as perceiving reverberation, but rather that the reverberation in the recording, as well as the direct sound, has to be accurately reproduced! Distorted reverb is worse than none, which is why many recordings can sound a "mess".
I have many 80's recordings which have absolutely massive spaces "artificially" encoded; unless the playback correctly decodes these the sound is extremely wearing ...
Frank
I'd recommend a listen to the Bose SoundDock, guys (this isn't a post for the objectivist - I have no measurements to back up what I say).
I was given a faulty one a while ago, and it sat under my bed for ages.
In the end, I opened it up, gutted all the circuit boards, ran some wires to each driver through the bass port, hooked up a 120w/ch amp and hit play.
What immediately surprised me was that, actually, it sounded quite good.
Tori Amos sounded something like her usual self, bass bounced along nicely, and the treble, while slightly recessed, was detailed enough.
Further testing indicates that there's not much output to speak of below ~80Hz (Hornresp, interestingly, indicates a ~40Hz tuning).
I have only listened to it via a clean amp, ie, with no clever DSP. I suspect that there's a not-inconsiderable amount of DSP at play in one of these things (the boards I took out had rather a lot of chips on them), and would expect rather good performance as a result. If Hornresp is correct in its 40Hz tuning prediction, then eq could be applied to boost that range, giving a rather impressive 40Hz output from a couple of 2.5" drivers.
A slight treble boost and a compressor/limiter would give a rather neat little system, and is exactly what I expect they've done.
So yes, if you do happen to pass by one of those places, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
For reference - its the smaller of the non-portable docks.
Chris
I was given a faulty one a while ago, and it sat under my bed for ages.
In the end, I opened it up, gutted all the circuit boards, ran some wires to each driver through the bass port, hooked up a 120w/ch amp and hit play.
What immediately surprised me was that, actually, it sounded quite good.
Tori Amos sounded something like her usual self, bass bounced along nicely, and the treble, while slightly recessed, was detailed enough.
Further testing indicates that there's not much output to speak of below ~80Hz (Hornresp, interestingly, indicates a ~40Hz tuning).
I have only listened to it via a clean amp, ie, with no clever DSP. I suspect that there's a not-inconsiderable amount of DSP at play in one of these things (the boards I took out had rather a lot of chips on them), and would expect rather good performance as a result. If Hornresp is correct in its 40Hz tuning prediction, then eq could be applied to boost that range, giving a rather impressive 40Hz output from a couple of 2.5" drivers.
A slight treble boost and a compressor/limiter would give a rather neat little system, and is exactly what I expect they've done.
So yes, if you do happen to pass by one of those places, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
For reference - its the smaller of the non-portable docks.
Chris
Chris661,
I would question that hornresp 40hz output that is for sure. Trying to get a 2 1/2 cone device to go that low would be instant destruction at any kind of excursion I would imagine. The efficiency would go down with decreasing frequency and I wouldn't expect that they put much power in one of those docks. I am not saying that it couldn't have decent sound for the size, but 80hz would probably be a lower limit I would think.
I would question that hornresp 40hz output that is for sure. Trying to get a 2 1/2 cone device to go that low would be instant destruction at any kind of excursion I would imagine. The efficiency would go down with decreasing frequency and I wouldn't expect that they put much power in one of those docks. I am not saying that it couldn't have decent sound for the size, but 80hz would probably be a lower limit I would think.
Agreed, it doesn't seem like a good idea.
However, the port's ~4cm^2 (roughly rectangular), 20-25cm (roughly) long, in a cabinet of around 2L.
All the calculators point to tuning circa 40Hz (maybe up to 50-60, if the numbers are massaged correctly - still a fair way off 80Hz).
The drivers are very capable for the size, but even so, its a 2.5" driver. I'd say you can get 4mm p/p out of them with a fairly clean sound. Maybe further, but the 10w/ch amp I installed gave up at that.
The PSU supplied with the dock I received was 18-0-18, both rails 1A rated. You're probably looking at 15w/ch. Not a huge amount of power, but apparently enough.
All I can say is listen and see what you think. I was very impressed with what I got out of that speaker cabinet, without trying to improve it.
Chris
However, the port's ~4cm^2 (roughly rectangular), 20-25cm (roughly) long, in a cabinet of around 2L.
All the calculators point to tuning circa 40Hz (maybe up to 50-60, if the numbers are massaged correctly - still a fair way off 80Hz).
The drivers are very capable for the size, but even so, its a 2.5" driver. I'd say you can get 4mm p/p out of them with a fairly clean sound. Maybe further, but the 10w/ch amp I installed gave up at that.
The PSU supplied with the dock I received was 18-0-18, both rails 1A rated. You're probably looking at 15w/ch. Not a huge amount of power, but apparently enough.
All I can say is listen and see what you think. I was very impressed with what I got out of that speaker cabinet, without trying to improve it.
Chris
It is pretty dated IMO. Most mixing rooms don't just have absorbers any more, it is a combination of diffusion and abortion. It is not just willy nilly thrown up on the walls, it is placed there based on very sophisticated room modeling and analysis software(this didn't even exist in 1994). The best sounding mixing and mastering rooms were built from the ground up this way.
I don't think based on my experience this paper is the best example of how we build rooms today. It is too simplistic and general at best. Now back in 1994/5, it may have been accurate, but that was almost twenty years ago and a lot has changed. Nobody builds dead studios any more, that practice is long gone.
And I guess you have to when you use cheap drivers and crossovers.
When the Staples Center in Los Angeles was first built, Bose got the contract to install their P.A system. Now Staples Center has one of the most sophisticated arena acoustical control systems in the business, and Bose used its own room modeling software to position the speakers. This combination should have been a slam dunk, but it was a complete failure.
It was unable to play loud enough, had too much reflected energy all over the place(speaker design), it didn't do bass frequencies very well, and speech had a very low intelligibility factor. They quickly snatch out that system, and replaced it with the industry standard JBL system. Staples Center is now one of the best sounding arena's in the NBA.
Clever does not always equal ideal.
Last edited: