Granted. I don't disagree with this at all. We can override the acoustics of our rooms with enough care, however my point is, we're overriding it with something that (imho) is never going to be highly truthful to the original performance. Truthful to the recording, maybe...we can re-amplify using vibrating membranes something that was captured with a vibrating membrane...and our brain can enjoy that for what it's worth, but it's still always going to be "Yeah, that sounds like that place." but it's never going to be "We're sitting in that place." because to the brain, there's too much evidence to the contrary, I.E "I still see my walls, I still smell my air freshener, I still feel my chair, I still sense the confines of my own space.
It's just like when I put on a bluray of a concert. It's suddenly quite a bit easier to "feel" the space (a 90" screen helps ¬.*¬) ..my brain has to do less reconstructive surgery on the signals it's getting and the sonic illusion becomes an order of magnitude better.
I guess I'm not strong on the visual side being important - that's something that doesn't concern me. Obviously, if the visual cues are very intense that helps - but, video is not something that I'm particularly interested in.
I've seen a few examples of large scale, superb visual quality, but they're very expensive - and the source material has to be up to it ...
I've seen a few examples of large scale, superb visual quality, but they're very expensive - and the source material has to be up to it ...
If you are patient, go to Euphoria Speaker Design - My Obsession . Read the crossover section, and pay attention to the things like; no multistrand wire should be used, the big bulky interconnect housings smear the 'music', clean up the electricity coming out of your wall's, and CD's are on the bottom rung.
Vinyl will give you that 'they are in the room with you' feeling, SACD's are not far off.
Vinyl will give you that 'they are in the room with you' feeling, SACD's are not far off.
"This is one of the myths of audio, that you can't listen very close to intense sound. "Well, musicians do it all the time - try standing as far away from a drumkit in full cry as the drummer is - there ... intense, visceral sound which overwhelms your senses, takes you to another place. That's the goal ... what the speaker should project when you're that close. Of course, many speakers just sound nasty, aggressive, bludgeoning - which are the symptoms of flawed sound ..." ...... most musicians have plugs in there ears to stop themselves from getting hearing damage, those that don't end up being the guys that get the job mixing the the "music" that you are trying so hard to reproduce in your sound system.... do you know why drummers install "butt kickers" under their seats? (hint: its because they are ####### deaf)
__________________
__________________
Here's a suggestion that may help some readers like me.
At the start of your post, please indicate if you've read Toole's recent book, the comprehensive summary of the field and thus are acquainted with what is the substantive and broadly accepted body of knowledge of speakers and music reproduction, or if your thoughts are entirely creative, first imagined by yourself, and using terms of your own devising.
Thanks very much.
Declaration: I have read Toole's great book and, on a good day, can remember somethings about speakers and psycho-acoustics.
Ben
At the start of your post, please indicate if you've read Toole's recent book, the comprehensive summary of the field and thus are acquainted with what is the substantive and broadly accepted body of knowledge of speakers and music reproduction, or if your thoughts are entirely creative, first imagined by yourself, and using terms of your own devising.
Thanks very much.
Declaration: I have read Toole's great book and, on a good day, can remember somethings about speakers and psycho-acoustics.
Ben
Last edited:
Actually, the main purpose of my post was to tout Toole's book so more people could learn solid information about speakers instead of thinking it was just a matter of my personal opinion (and superior ears) versus yours.
You ask a fair question and, in many circumstances, present a fair point of view. One that I ordinarily strongly share.
But I think earnest DIY people turn to this forum for trustworthy information. In the case of speakers, there are many debates and ranges of opinions.
All the more reason for people who post to take care to self-edit their remarks so as to avoid harming the understanding of others when good information (taken from Toole's great book) is mixed with imaginative posts.
Some forums - like how to fix your Ford 150 truck - have moderators who routinely weed out misinformation or posts that are obviously nothing but "word salad." For our subject-matter that would not be possible or desirable.
Ben
Last edited:
While we're at it, why not have everyone indicate whether they are on top of the recent work in basic ontology, phenomenology (with special emphasis on the ontology and phenomenology of sound), the logic of relations, and so on.
A little ridiculous (not to mention pretentious), don't you think?
You know, it seems like most here are trying to associate the reproduction through their systems with live music in a venue. Most of the times recorded live music in a venue sounds horrible.
As a musician I associate live music as also being in a studio environment and in small quarters the music is still live but that reverberation of a large venue is non existent. I can record a live session and play it back through a large system with horns and bass cabinets with multiple amps and electronic crossovers (not this fu fu wimpy hi fi full range 4" crap and flea watt tube amps full of distortion that everyone touts around here. Tube amps are for guitar amplification, not mixed music reproduction.) and it will sound just like the live session in the room. It takes good mics, a good board, a good multi track adat and good speaker system with gobs of clean power.
It all depends on what you want to associate realistic with.
As a musician I associate live music as also being in a studio environment and in small quarters the music is still live but that reverberation of a large venue is non existent. I can record a live session and play it back through a large system with horns and bass cabinets with multiple amps and electronic crossovers (not this fu fu wimpy hi fi full range 4" crap and flea watt tube amps full of distortion that everyone touts around here. Tube amps are for guitar amplification, not mixed music reproduction.) and it will sound just like the live session in the room. It takes good mics, a good board, a good multi track adat and good speaker system with gobs of clean power.
It all depends on what you want to associate realistic with.
Do you have some recent professional references for us to read of these topics as related to loudspeakers (esp. web and readily accessed)?
Ben
Not sure what you mean by "professional references," but the positivist tone of your comments (i.e. search under "positivism"--the Wikipedia article is actually not bad on this) suggests you may thumb your nose at anything I might suggest.
Nevertheless, if you're game then a quick search using the keywords "ontology of music," "ontology of sound," "ontology of relations," "phenomenology of music," and "phenomenology of sound" will bring up enough decent papers to help give you a feel for the field, if you will.
I realize you are expecting something specific to loudspeakers (which is in keeping with the positivist tone of your comments), but please keep in mind that the primary function of loudspeakers is to produce sound (and more specifically musical sounds, at least in the cases being discussed here). Hence questions relating to the nature of sound and music play directly upon the topic at hand. A detailed history of ontology in the Western tradition would also help, by the way, but that would take years of intense study and I wouldn't expect anyone to undertake that kind of program unless they had a particular passion for that kind of topic.
Best Wishes.
I think what might be more helpful is a more 'empirical' approach. Frank (FAS),[not me], is striving to describe the changes he gets in the musical presentation he hears when he makes changes to his system.
This he calls phenomenological, if I understand rightly what he means.
Fair enough, he's trying to stick to a descriptive program, but as I see it he's sticking rather too closely to part of the "figure" - the electronics but not the electro-mechanical and room - and thus his description of the subjective result (the "ground") doesn't come off convincingly. [Note the double quotes]
I don't think "phenomenologizing", as in bringing all the verbal paraphanalia of philosophy to the subject is helpful.
What can be helpful is perhaps digging out some of the rigorous descriptions that exist in work like Griesinger's and seeing how they might apply to our situation.
My opinion is that however deficient our present transducer technology might be - its deficiencies pale compared to most of its implementations.
This he calls phenomenological, if I understand rightly what he means.
Fair enough, he's trying to stick to a descriptive program, but as I see it he's sticking rather too closely to part of the "figure" - the electronics but not the electro-mechanical and room - and thus his description of the subjective result (the "ground") doesn't come off convincingly. [Note the double quotes]
I don't think "phenomenologizing", as in bringing all the verbal paraphanalia of philosophy to the subject is helpful.
What can be helpful is perhaps digging out some of the rigorous descriptions that exist in work like Griesinger's and seeing how they might apply to our situation.
My opinion is that however deficient our present transducer technology might be - its deficiencies pale compared to most of its implementations.
I agree that more empirical work is needed in the study of loudspeaker design and construction, if by empirical you mean knowledge gained from concrete experience. No objections there. But phenomenology is empirical, that's one of the things that distinguishes it from many other branches of philosophy.
No offense, but I would also suggest that critical, philosophical reflection can bring much more to the table than mere "verbal paraphanalia." There are deep-seated, problematic theoretical, ontological, and even metaphysical assumptions that are taken for granted and lay unquestioned in many of the accounts people give of things like 'music' and 'sound' that philosophy can be invaluable in helping to bring to light.
Since the topic has changed I'm coming back with a few more comments.
I have read Toole's book.
Ironically, he disagrees that loudspeaker technology is truly primitive in the first paragraph of the introduction when he states "It is all very high tech, all very convenient, and all very enjoyable. It is also all very good." He repeats the "all very good" sentiment several times throughout the book.
The book isn't comprehensive on any topic. He covers a great deal of different topics but doesn't cover ANY of them comprehensively.
In fact there isn't a huge amount of information in the book. It's incredibly verbose, in some cases he takes an entire chapter to present an idea that could be adequately described in a single sentence, and there's a huge amount of repetition. It is a very good book and well worth reading and I did learn a couple of things but it's nowhere near a comprehensive summary of audio.
While this book contains a lot of useful info, it is by no means all broadly accepted, not even by yourself. Toole argues that multi channel is the only way and stereo can't possibly produce a realistic reproduction, for example. And on almost every single page he directly or indirectly speaks to the importance of measurements, something that some people are loathe to do. I could go on but suffice to say that after reading the book I highly doubt that he would endorse any aspect of your system.
You seem to be suggesting that if Toole didn't say it in this book it isn't true. There are hundreds (thousands?) of other books and resources and a lot of them are far more comprehensive with regard to the topics covered in this book. And the topics covered in this book are only a small part of audio science.
There's nothing in the book that isn't covered by a dozen different sources, most of this info is readily available on a bunch of different websites and in Toole's previously published papers.
No problem.
Stating that you have read one single book is not a technical argument. Please indicate which part(s) of the book you think apply to this conversation and why in your opinion almost every aspect of your own system is allowed to violate Toole's recommendations and yet people who haven't read the book are not qualified to post here.
I have read Toole's book.
Ironically, he disagrees that loudspeaker technology is truly primitive in the first paragraph of the introduction when he states "It is all very high tech, all very convenient, and all very enjoyable. It is also all very good." He repeats the "all very good" sentiment several times throughout the book.
The book isn't comprehensive on any topic. He covers a great deal of different topics but doesn't cover ANY of them comprehensively.
In fact there isn't a huge amount of information in the book. It's incredibly verbose, in some cases he takes an entire chapter to present an idea that could be adequately described in a single sentence, and there's a huge amount of repetition. It is a very good book and well worth reading and I did learn a couple of things but it's nowhere near a comprehensive summary of audio.
While this book contains a lot of useful info, it is by no means all broadly accepted, not even by yourself. Toole argues that multi channel is the only way and stereo can't possibly produce a realistic reproduction, for example. And on almost every single page he directly or indirectly speaks to the importance of measurements, something that some people are loathe to do. I could go on but suffice to say that after reading the book I highly doubt that he would endorse any aspect of your system.
You seem to be suggesting that if Toole didn't say it in this book it isn't true. There are hundreds (thousands?) of other books and resources and a lot of them are far more comprehensive with regard to the topics covered in this book. And the topics covered in this book are only a small part of audio science.
There's nothing in the book that isn't covered by a dozen different sources, most of this info is readily available on a bunch of different websites and in Toole's previously published papers.
No problem.
Stating that you have read one single book is not a technical argument. Please indicate which part(s) of the book you think apply to this conversation and why in your opinion almost every aspect of your own system is allowed to violate Toole's recommendations and yet people who haven't read the book are not qualified to post here.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.