Don't get me started on "source material" - thats too bigt a can of worms for me to even begin to try and sort out. After years (ne decades) I have found a few key CDs that I use as gospel in evaluations. I have no idea how "good" they are, but I cannot discern any real flaws either. But the fact is that I know them extremely well and that is the key.
I have said many times that I can tell a serious listener when they come over by what they bring (or not - bringing nothing clearly meaning not serious at all). Serious listeners have a range of very known pieces. In some cases I really liked thers, in others they really liked mine.
I have said many times that I can tell a serious listener when they come over by what they bring (or not - bringing nothing clearly meaning not serious at all). Serious listeners have a range of very known pieces. In some cases I really liked thers, in others they really liked mine.
Lately my brother came to my house with some CDs he wanted me to listen to - and keep them, if I liked them. He shares my interest in music, but not the same quality of speakers. 
We heard one CD and he commented the nice bass resolution. After that he wanted me to listen to another CD which should have the same bass quality. Was he disappointed when he discovered that the bass on the second CD had been recorded significantly worse. His system at home had not been able to reveal the difference.
This illustrates how your "source material" can only get as good as your system allows to discriminate. And yes, there is a curse in it: Regularly I have to give one half of those CDs back to my brother, because the (missing) recording quality takes the fun out of them (at least for me).
Some people say that the fun should be in the music and not in the recording - but I'm the wrong guy for that. I even prefer to listen to Cecilia Bartoli on CD more than to listen to the local school choir live.
We heard one CD and he commented the nice bass resolution. After that he wanted me to listen to another CD which should have the same bass quality. Was he disappointed when he discovered that the bass on the second CD had been recorded significantly worse. His system at home had not been able to reveal the difference.
This illustrates how your "source material" can only get as good as your system allows to discriminate. And yes, there is a curse in it: Regularly I have to give one half of those CDs back to my brother, because the (missing) recording quality takes the fun out of them (at least for me).
Some people say that the fun should be in the music and not in the recording - but I'm the wrong guy for that. I even prefer to listen to Cecilia Bartoli on CD more than to listen to the local school choir live.
I completely agree with you . . . in principle. In practice, however, this would be akin to asking for some sort of objective rating system for speakers, food, etc. As Dr. Geddes has pointed out many times, the long-established industry standards (for speakers anyway) rely on metrics that are not really indicative of speaker fidelity. I can almost guarantee it will be the same for recordings.
Add to all that the cry that some sort of quality or technical standard for recordings would kill artistry. There is certainly some truth to that. A direct-to-2-track analog recording from the past with no dynamic compression might fail somebody's standard because it has a S/N ratio of 50 dB.
As much as I love the music of Beck, and other pop/rock artists, I can't listen to a whole album in one sitting, even in my car. I like the music; Clarity, balance, etc are good, but after the first few bites it's just another microwave dinner. "Excellent" S/N ratio of 100 dB . . . dynamic range 20 dB. Why bother
?I would LOVE to have the option to choose between Non (or lightly) compressed "artist's cut" and "producer's treadmill cut" versions of recordings at the point of purchase. It's absolutely do-able, but I'm not holding my breath.
The best you can do is find the record labels/artists/engineers that seem to produce consistently "good" recordings, or seek independant reviews from ears with kindred sensibilities to your own. At least independant exchange of ideas is so much easier today than 20 years ago! Newstand magazine reviews were the best I could hope for.
At the end of it all, the wish for an objective quality rating for recordings is summed-up in (your own) purely subjective terms: "good", "bad", "lousy", "improved soundstage", etc. What "improves" soundstage? Some people love early reflections, as they "broaden" (blurr?)and "improve" the soundstage. So much for "fidelity".
Sure, I agree with all these criteria -- who wouldn't?
Last edited:
Like you say, I feel some recordings could have used more care because they can become thie limiting factor to our enjoyment.
I find that if the imaging doesn't work, you might find it collapsed into a kind of background noise. Sometimes it isn't readily apparent that there is anything left to be desired from such a rendition. Often I have found this is true of only part of a recording depending for example on several factors in the reproduction chain I'm listening on. For me, it wasn't as if some of my image got wider for some reason. It was clearly meant to be there but wasn't before.
Last edited:
If it would not be about the "special effects" we wouldn't put instruments into concert halls or organs into churches.
I'd say the fun should be in the music AND the recording should faithfully deliver it. If the venue, the music, or the performance stinks, then so be it. After all, "Hi-Fidelity" by definition means Truth. For many reasons, very few recordings are approached with that goal. Many audiophools have forgotten this fact, and don't realize that they have no real basis for judging the fidelity of recordings or playback systems.
-- Mark
Last edited:
Halalluia to that! When you realize this then its easy to see how objective data, at least, has some hope, but "Sounds good to me." - whats the basis for that?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to achieve with your query, but is this a spatially averaged read?
If woofer location(s), phase, etc haven't been optimized first, it's kinda moot to guess at the cause. There wil be dozens of interactions occuring in the frequency range shown. Unless the room is hemi-anechoic with only one boundary, it's simply too complicated to worry about in the real world.
Dr. Geddes correct me if I'm mistaken: As I understand it, boosting should only be done as a very last step to correct broad deficiencies of a few dB after everything else has been optimized. There really shouldn't be any deep notches left at that point.
-- Mark
AllenB :
I arrive after the party, but if you examine this passage in a sound editor, you will probably see that the two signals Right & Left at this right moment are roughly in opposition of phase for the concerned frequencies.
Can be post-production elaborated mixing or very good positioning of the mikes.
For passing the message at home you need to have your speakers at a precise distance where these tracks will keep the same phase shift (congrats)
......and of course already a very good piece of gear.
I arrive after the party, but if you examine this passage in a sound editor, you will probably see that the two signals Right & Left at this right moment are roughly in opposition of phase for the concerned frequencies.
Can be post-production elaborated mixing or very good positioning of the mikes.
For passing the message at home you need to have your speakers at a precise distance where these tracks will keep the same phase shift (congrats)
......and of course already a very good piece of gear.
Hi Mark
I'd agree that EQ should only be done after the multiple subs have been placed and optimized for gain, phase etc. But there is still a high probability of a valley in the response somewhere. But a valley should almost never be EQ'd up to 0 dB that could end up being too much gain at a single frequency.
Have some trialling to report on. The previous plot was one main from the listening position. After new sub locations, this plot is the entire system at the listening position.
The significant thing is that the subs are being employed at full level until 300Hz, where they shelve by 12dB until 800Hz. This has improved the midrange dramatically. Localisation is very minor, and barely of concern considering the improvement.
This leads me to feel that there is a grey area for an octave around fs. I'll need another sub to target the sub 100Hz region but I will not need any high Q filtering, especially if I can tweak the dip at 300Hz.
The significant thing is that the subs are being employed at full level until 300Hz, where they shelve by 12dB until 800Hz. This has improved the midrange dramatically. Localisation is very minor, and barely of concern considering the improvement.
This leads me to feel that there is a grey area for an octave around fs. I'll need another sub to target the sub 100Hz region but I will not need any high Q filtering, especially if I can tweak the dip at 300Hz.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.