Hello guys
Recently I've listened to a few studio monitors. I've noticed that what indicates transparency more then anything can be judged in a few seconds, when going from one recording to another:
Before I even concentrate on individual instruments and their sound, I notice what I define as "soundstage shape and matter":
It's easy and fast to recognize if the recording is good by that factor since instruments are all play and defined by the soundstage. By matter I meen this: In each different recordings in a reproduction system, I get the sense that besides the instruments, the air captured is portraited differently as a new substance, influenced by all limitations of the recording process: miking, processing and mixing techniques.
I believe that a ruler flat response is far from being the issue. I think that more then anything else, it's dynamics. But I'n here to get more opinions.
What do you think contributes to revealing this more then anything in a speaker design?
What characterizes the design of the best loudspeakers you've heard that accomplish that?
Thanks
Adam
Recently I've listened to a few studio monitors. I've noticed that what indicates transparency more then anything can be judged in a few seconds, when going from one recording to another:
Before I even concentrate on individual instruments and their sound, I notice what I define as "soundstage shape and matter":
It's easy and fast to recognize if the recording is good by that factor since instruments are all play and defined by the soundstage. By matter I meen this: In each different recordings in a reproduction system, I get the sense that besides the instruments, the air captured is portraited differently as a new substance, influenced by all limitations of the recording process: miking, processing and mixing techniques.
I believe that a ruler flat response is far from being the issue. I think that more then anything else, it's dynamics. But I'n here to get more opinions.
What do you think contributes to revealing this more then anything in a speaker design?
What characterizes the design of the best loudspeakers you've heard that accomplish that?
Thanks
Adam
Well, I'd say that the recording process has the biggest effect. Things like: whether they used directional microphones for each instrument, or a sensitive omnidirectional pair for everything together. The spacing and attenuation between the mics, post-processing, and the characteristics of the studio monitors (including horizontal spacing) where the recording was mixed.
Apart from that, IMHO a loudspeaker's soundstage is all just phantom imaging and other acoustic tricks that don't even work once the mind gets used to them. Depending on the recording, a $35 pair of headphones could outclass a $20k pair of loudspeakers simply because of the headphones' innately superior physics.
So in the end I think that a good loudspeaker is characterised by the "hardware" basics, not so much the exact philosophy regarding the imaging~soundstage and whatnot. Whether it's sealed, dipole, planar, linear array, horn.... I'd say that a loudspeaker still needs clean impulse and step responses, smooth off-axis FR, and of course low distortion.
Edit:
Yeah, that too! I should've refreshed...
Apart from that, IMHO a loudspeaker's soundstage is all just phantom imaging and other acoustic tricks that don't even work once the mind gets used to them. Depending on the recording, a $35 pair of headphones could outclass a $20k pair of loudspeakers simply because of the headphones' innately superior physics.
So in the end I think that a good loudspeaker is characterised by the "hardware" basics, not so much the exact philosophy regarding the imaging~soundstage and whatnot. Whether it's sealed, dipole, planar, linear array, horn.... I'd say that a loudspeaker still needs clean impulse and step responses, smooth off-axis FR, and of course low distortion.
Edit:
Yeah, that too! I should've refreshed...
I agree both with the with the original post and the third post. Assuming you have refference quality speakers and electronics, the staging and imaging are the magical qualities.
A simple thing like recording a piano in stereo ruins it all for me. You don't hear pianoes in stereo. And once I hear that, it screws up the whole image for me.
JMHO
A simple thing like recording a piano in stereo ruins it all for me. You don't hear pianoes in stereo. And once I hear that, it screws up the whole image for me.
JMHO
davidlzimmer said:
I went and recorded a jazz trio in a small club a few weeks ago. I chose microphones adaquate for the style and setting, knowing how I'm going to mix it (with minimum processing, in short)
After working on presice seperation and panning with haas effect on both mics used for the piano, trying to integrate them well one next to another, influenced by the show itself, it turned out that they want more of a modern, upfront sound, with the piano spread left to right. Even the artists has gone bad with "speaker sound"..
Anyway guys, tell me about these transparent speakers you've heard...
Sy hit the nail on the head.
The problem is simply that all speakers are compromises.
You have to pick the compromises that are the ones that don't do "bad things".
Errors of omission are usually less trouble than errors of commission.
But, in the most simple terms, drivers that do not exceed some threshold of distortion (you figure that out fer urselves), AND is reasonably linearly increasing in distortion as SPL increases. Especially the tweeter. I think this is a prerequisite for a high quality speaker.
Many drivers are rather non-linear wrt to SPL vs. distortion(s).
Which, in short is why speakers are not an engineering exercise, nor a scientific project - there's considerable art in the things. The art is intergrating the drivers into a system and balancing the inevitable compromises.
So, Zuf? Eh? Zuf! Whaddya know... that was the invivo name of a certain little girl.
But as far as live venue recording, consider a M-S setup for realistic live sound. Of course, that is only as good as you are at finding the "magic" microphone placement!
_-_-bear
The problem is simply that all speakers are compromises.
You have to pick the compromises that are the ones that don't do "bad things".
Errors of omission are usually less trouble than errors of commission.
But, in the most simple terms, drivers that do not exceed some threshold of distortion (you figure that out fer urselves), AND is reasonably linearly increasing in distortion as SPL increases. Especially the tweeter. I think this is a prerequisite for a high quality speaker.
Many drivers are rather non-linear wrt to SPL vs. distortion(s).
Which, in short is why speakers are not an engineering exercise, nor a scientific project - there's considerable art in the things. The art is intergrating the drivers into a system and balancing the inevitable compromises.
So, Zuf? Eh? Zuf! Whaddya know... that was the invivo name of a certain little girl.
But as far as live venue recording, consider a M-S setup for realistic live sound. Of course, that is only as good as you are at finding the "magic" microphone placement!
_-_-bear
Adamzuf
Congratulations on the question posed by the thread.
I expect everyone to have different views as it such a subjective topic; but here are my thoughts;
*linear responce across frequencies-applies to speaker and amps.
*minimum of added noise/harmonics
*minimum number of components in the signal path
*a direct connected speaker - no crossover in the mid range
*lightweight compact cone/diaphram to ensure midrange detail
*soft suspension able to deliver detail and transients
*rigid/well damped cabinet especially in the midrange
*rigid cone/diaphram
*wide dynamic range
*lack of background noise
The best that I have found todate is a direct connected 5" mid range unit with a kevlar reinforced cone in a rigid cabinet. I believe a sealed box gives more transparancy than a ported box.
I hope you get a lot of responces as it would be interesting to learn from the experience of others.
Don
Congratulations on the question posed by the thread.
I expect everyone to have different views as it such a subjective topic; but here are my thoughts;
*linear responce across frequencies-applies to speaker and amps.
*minimum of added noise/harmonics
*minimum number of components in the signal path
*a direct connected speaker - no crossover in the mid range
*lightweight compact cone/diaphram to ensure midrange detail
*soft suspension able to deliver detail and transients
*rigid/well damped cabinet especially in the midrange
*rigid cone/diaphram
*wide dynamic range
*lack of background noise
The best that I have found todate is a direct connected 5" mid range unit with a kevlar reinforced cone in a rigid cabinet. I believe a sealed box gives more transparancy than a ported box.
I hope you get a lot of responces as it would be interesting to learn from the experience of others.
Don
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.