Beyond the Ariel - Page 620 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th September 2009, 12:04 AM   #6191
cuibono is offline cuibono  United States
diyAudio Member
 
cuibono's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: City of Angles
While I agree that complex acoustic music (ie, large scale classical) is very useful for evaluating speakers, I think there is a major caveat, similar to Earl's. If you weren't at the original performance, you can only guess what the recording 'should' sound like. Same applies with how it was mixed - without knowledge of how and why something was done in the process of making the recording, you're only guessing.

I think until speaker designers also learn the art of recording, we will just keep going in circles. I've been recording as a hobby the last few years, and I want to emphasize that microphones pick up sound very differently than our ears - what this means is that without some amount of manipulation, a recording will definitely not sound like the original event, and knowing how to do that is both skill and art. Using more than two microphones is also definitely part of the equation.

And my experience with musicians as arbiters of recording/playback quality is similar to Earl's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 12:31 AM   #6192
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuibono View Post
I think until speaker designers also learn the art of recording, we will just keep going in circles.
It's even worse. Toole calls it the "circle of confusion". Recording and mixing engineers also need to learn what stereophony and multichannel is capable of.
They are sitting in non-standardized listening rooms with non-standardized speakers. These widely varying recordings are reproduced in even less standardized rooms.

Best, Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 12:54 AM   #6193
diyAudio Member
 
picowallspeaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Default Ends meet

If live-alike sound has to be appreciated , this means that the system able to reproduce it must introduce in the information the fuzzy-random chaotic perception of normal people in front of the event
So the program will be part of the system and will concur with all the equipment to make the air vibrate .
Conclusion : oh! No! They're coming !
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 01:00 AM   #6194
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
It's even worse. Toole calls it the "circle of confusion". Recording and mixing engineers also need to learn what stereophony and multichannel is capable of.
They are sitting in non-standardized listening rooms with non-standardized speakers. These widely varying recordings are reproduced in even less standardized rooms.

Best, Markus
Markus

What you say is only true of two channel CD. There are standards for film and I suspect this is why film has, in general, the better sound quality. My pianist friend actually noted this and once asked me why that was. he was learning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by picowallspeaker View Post
If live-alike sound has to be appreciated , this means that the system able to reproduce it must introduce in the information the fuzzy-random chaotic perception of normal people in front of the event
So the program will be part of the system and will concur with all the equipment to make the air vibrate .
Conclusion : oh! No! They're coming !
WOW! Is that Martians Or what!? Should I be worried?
















Its scarry how a serious discussion brings things out that that we haven;t seen before.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website

Last edited by gedlee; 27th September 2009 at 01:02 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 01:05 AM   #6195
cuibono is offline cuibono  United States
diyAudio Member
 
cuibono's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: City of Angles
Yeah, I was just going to bring Toole into this. If anyone here hasn't read his book, get it! It is very unique in this field.

The point I wanted to make is that recording is an art, and there may ultimately be no way to get a grasp on what variables matter most, both in recording and playback. The route Toole takes is different, and possibly more successful, while no easier. He (through Harman) arranged large scale, controlled, and long term listening sessions, under various circumstances. In his book, he presents his conclusions about what 'people find sounds best'. Ultimately, it comes down to on and off axis frequency response, and the quality/quantity of bass. I, for one, am very glad he shared his results, because it would be impossible for any one of us to do.

His conclusion is what has prompted me to take dipole speakers as far as possible, in terms of maintaining off axis regularity. I might add that he discounts non-linear distortion as an issue (with reason drawn from scientific studies), and has nothing to say about 'dynamics' associated with high efficiency drivers. The only nod he gives horns is for their ability to play loud. And of course, Toole isn't the final arbiter in things, but he does give ample evidence for his conclusions, more than anyone else I've seen so far. Get the book!

Last edited by cuibono; 27th September 2009 at 01:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 01:18 AM   #6196
RIP
 
pedroskova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: C'ville VA, USA
There's an old story about why all of George Szell's recordings (on CBS in the '60's) sounded so shrill. The story goes that Szell would take home the stereo master tapes and listen to them on his old and highly rolled off system. The next day, he would come back and tell the engineers to "liven them up"...don't know if it's a wive's tale or not.

Re: Deutch Gramophone being "reference quality"...from circa 1970 until present, they have been the biggest "multi-mikers" in the classical music industry (which is a shame, given their catalog). Philips and CBS have been a distant 2nd, although CBS has done a better job of putting Humpty-Dumpty back together. Interestingly, Decca (London) and EMI (Angel/Capital) kept using 4 channel into the early to mid '70's ( in Europe), which might explain why they produced, on average, more natural sounding recordings than DG, Philips, et.al.. In the US, RCA made the more natural and dynamic sounding recordings(to me).

...and then there is the "Mercury Sound" from circa 1954-1965 (stereo). They recorded in 3 channels using 3 omni mic's (as did Everest), with no limiting during the mastering process. RCA also started out with no limiting, but had such a high rate of returned ..."defective" ...records, that they soon started compressing their recordings. If, by chance, you happen to own an original uncompressed RCA LP in mint condition, you could put it on the market and use the proceeds to buy a pair of Earl's speakers. Back to Mercury... they are a matter of taste, but the remastered LP's and CD's from the '90's will test any system for midband dynamics. I find some of them a little "bright".

Anyway, DG is the furthest thing from "reference" that I could possibly think of. They never met a highlight mic that they didn't like.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 01:29 AM   #6197
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuibono View Post
Yeah, I was just going to bring Toole into this. If anyone here hasn't read his book, get it! It is very unique in this field.

The point I wanted to make is that recording is an art, and there may ultimately be no way to get a grasp on what variables matter most, both in recording and playback. The route Toole takes is different, and possibly more successful, while no easier. He (through Harman) arranged large scale, controlled, and long term listening sessions, under various circumstances. In his book, he presents his conclusions about what 'people find sounds best'. Ultimately, it comes down to on and off axis frequency response, and the quality/quantity of bass. I, for one, am very glad he shared his results, because it would be impossible for any one of us to do.

His conclusion is what has prompted me to take dipole speakers as far as possible, in terms of maintaining off axis regularity. I might add that he discounts non-linear distortion as an issue (with reason drawn from scientific studies), and has nothing to say about 'dynamics' associated with high efficiency drivers. The only nod he gives horns is for their ability to play loud. And of course, Toole isn't the final arbiter in things, but he does give ample evidence for his conclusions, more than anyone else I've seen so far. Get the book!
While I agree with Floyd on 90% of his book there are two key areas that I object to. First is his use of "preference" as a judgement. One might get different results if "accuracy" were used as a criteria, but thats far more difficult to test and doesn't help the "mother company" sell speakers. Second is that he discounts the impact of very early reflections (and also dynamics as you correctly state) which is why he can discount the use of waveguides and compression drivers. If he were to take a different approach to the questions being asked he might come to the same conclusions that I have. My speakers meet all of his criteria, except that I add one or two that he doesn't have and that is the supression of very early reflections and diffraction as inhibiting good localization and very low transient thermal modulation.

So in a sense I don't reject anything that Floyd says, I just add a couple that he doesn't consider.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 03:03 AM   #6198
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
What you say is only true of two channel CD. There are standards for film and I suspect this is why film has, in general, the better sound quality.
I wish that would be true. While there are standards for film mixes there are none (or too many) for DVD/Blu-ray remixes. Recently visited a studio that did the DVD remixes for some of the more well known movies without any bass management.
Furthermore standards for film are pretty basic. They should be far more specific (Reflection patterns, speaker directivity, frequency dependent reverberation times, etc.).

Nice (basic) reading from Chris Kyriakakis (Audyssey) on "Preference":
http://www.audyssey.com/blog/2009/05...vs-preference/

Best, Markus

Last edited by markus76; 27th September 2009 at 03:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 03:36 AM   #6199
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Recently visited a studio that did the DVD remixes for some of the more well known movies without any bass management.
And that's as it should be. Some people have full-range speakers that can handle the bass and some have 'small' speakers that can't. Bass management (sending bass from small speakers to the sub) is something that should be done on playback, not when the tracks are being mixed.
__________________
Dennis H
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 04:43 AM   #6200
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SW Florida
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
The audio engineer will happily go about creating a "bad recording" while thinking all the time that he is creating "musical magic".
Oh dear, oh dear. You just don't get it at all, do you? Such a pity. But understandable - because it's unusual.

A really great system can reveal enough information buried in a recording to bring across the emotion and soul of that lie buried beneath technique. It's isn't about enhancing the recording, it's about revealing what is already there. And such a system tends to put the noises, clicks, pops, hiss, buzzes and distortions in another space. You can hear them clearly, but they just don't bother you much, as they don't seem part of the music (they aren't, you know). A system like that will make good recording sound spectacular. But this must be something you've never experienced, or you would certainly not disdain it. It really is NOT a bad thing - it's delightful.

The better my system gets, they fewer "unlistenable" recordings I find. The bad recordings are not magically turned into great ones - it's just that the bad parts become so much less objectionable. The bad is still there, it just doesn't get in the way any more.

But no reason to beat the poor dead horse. If you've never heard it, it may be too hard to believe. As for me, I'm happy to know that there is real treasure buried in many sub-par recordings. Getting it out isn't a goal, it's a result of a great system. A surprising result. For those who don't like that sort of thing - OK. There are plenty of good recordings available. Enjoy them! ( I know I do).
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Wiki