Beyond the Ariel

[soongsc]

I think we should all thank Lynn for opening this thread, and creating a cozy environment of discussion.

Once, we had a short talk with the Director of Meilon, whom pretty much has been with speaker driver building. He shared his experience in the industry, and pointed out that people with different living environments, clutural bacground, etc. all influency what they prefer as good sound reproduction. So as designers, we either have to go out and find commonalities and differences to satisfy the target customer base, or we can focus on trying to create masterpieces appreciated by very few, or nobody at all. I take, for example the Exaltation active speakers:


These started out as a quest to find out how good reproduction of sound could be accomplished with a certain cost limit, size limit, and features. What we see here is one of the various listening and commenting session in various environments. During this session, the Audiophiles were asked what difference they determine based on thier experience in listening to various versions of the BBC LS3/5a (note that it was intentional to a void the "which is better" question). Some expressed the sonic qualities were similar, some comments were the LS3/5a is a bit "stickier" in sound, some thought the bass of the LS3/5a had a bit more punch, some felt the Exaltation had a bit more bass. This was valuable information, because with each comparison, it's important to figure out what a designer might have missed in the process of looking at data and the designer's own listening preference.
Sometimes when we put systems together, each combination will sound different. The most mind boggling thing is to figure out what is causing a system to sound the way it does. I recall once I build a sort of simple peak unlimiting circuit just to know how it would sound like. Well, it delivered the most dynamic piano performance I had ever experienced. I did not know why then, but now I think I have better understanding of what was going on now.
Personally, I think if we always admit what our current design limits are, then we can hope for further improvement; if we think that "this is it", what do we have more to look forward to? For example, there is a very much sought after monito speaker made by Yamaha even though it's out of production. After listening to one, and also reading the book recommended by Lynn, I was convinced speakers of this quality would have to be listened to in a very quiet and well damped room; they would sound terrible otherwise.
As for faithfull reproduction. It is important to really go to any live performance and feel what the performer is trying to convey, feel the emotion, feel the effort they put into a good performance, feel the skill of each instrument. Once you get that feeling, go to the design board and figure out what improvement can be made technically to present something just a bit closer to that experience hopefully without losing other good aspects in the sound system. Don't rule out anything, just prioritize it. If changes that improve on a high priority issue does not result in the improvement we expect, maybe the prority needs to be changed.

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by panomaniac

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).

I don't think many have heard this kind of quality..

The best way I can describe it to another is the difference between a full open-real quality tape transfer vs. a 44.1 CD. ..and unfortunately, precious few have even listened to good open-real recording on any system, let alone one that's good.

Both expose good and bad from a recording, but to me one sounds far more *real* than the other. The clarity from the tape is so great, that by contrast it doesn't sound initially as "clear" as the CD, largely because venue reflections are now much more pronounced, with even the venue's humidity level apparent (..where instrument harmonics change). It sounds "thicker" and "larger". Sources aren't as pin-point, yet are still more "present" and more identifiable in location without thinking about it. Sources are also more dynamically apparent, with even fairly quite passages often having a "startling" quality with no more than a modest change in pressure or tempo.

And yes, some tape hiss is also usually present, but separate from the performance.

[john k...]

Originally Posted by panomaniac

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.

Boy, this is a case of 1/2 full vs. 1/2 empty if I ever saw one. I've had a close relationship with one of the premier audio stored in New England for over 30 years. I've heard and designed systems of all qualities. I would say that the highest quality system, those that can reveal the lowest level of detail,...... also reveal, unmercifully, the flaws in poorer recording. Personally I am not interested in listening around those flaws for the hidden magic when I can find a recording of the same material free of those flaws. But I can understand where you are coming from. I just don't want to be there. It's not sour grapes (what ever that was suppose to refer to???). It's just taking out the trash.

[picowallspeaker]

John K
you called "It's just taking out the trash"what I wanted for concluding my phrase , but didn't want to type.

[markus76]

Originally Posted by catapult

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.

Don't think so. They used Genelec speakers that have extended bass. But how deep is deep enough? Those speakers won't play a 20 Hz explosion as loud as they should. When listening with a bass managed system that explosion will be much louder because now the subwoofer is capable of reproducing the actual volume.
Apart from that the LFE is another channel not a physical speaker (subwoofer). When you apply bass management (fancy word for crossover) a low-pass filter is applied to the LFE. Information gets lost.
Furthermore there probably is a difference how 5 or 7 low frequency sources from "large" speakers sum acoustically when compared to a summed (bass managed) subwoofer output.

Best, Markus

[Pano]

Originally Posted by john k...

...... also reveal, unmercifully, the flaws in poorer recording.

That's a shame. The systems I'm talking about might be said to "mercifully reveal" those same flaws. There are there, they are obvious, but somehow they aren't nearly as annoying as they are on other systems. For me, that's a good thing.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater? There are many old recordings (and some new bad ones) I've enjoyed that simply don't exist in any better form. I don't want to have to throw those out because they may be "bad". The music on them certainly isn't. I don't want to have to limit myself to "good" recordings. Yeah, I like Diana Krall, DSOTM, Jazz at the Pawnshop, chamber music, etc. But they are not the only things I want to listen to.

But I guess I'm just not up to describing it well enough, if no one understands it. My bad. If you heard it, you would understand. A lazy coward's statement to be sure - but I have not been able to do better!

ScottG says he does not think he has heard this kind of quality, but then does a good job of describing it - and more. =)

with even fairly quite passages often having a "startling" quality with no more than a modest change in pressure or tempo.

That's so true.
Thanks for you comments.

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by markus76

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

"The film industry adheres to a set of strict standards that are used in the creation of the content and in the reproduction of the content in movie theaters."

He seems to contradict your claim that the standards are "pretty basic". And your saying "not so" for DVD's? Doesn't "the film industry" control DVD production as well?

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by panomaniac

Oh dear, oh dear. You just don't get it at all, do you?

There are plenty of good recordings available. Enjoy them! ( I know I do).

Well one of us is mixed up - I agree. I'll let readers decide who is making more sense.

There ARE plenty of great recordings availble. I never said otherwise.

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by john k...

Boy, this is a case of 1/2 full vs. 1/2 empty if I ever saw one. I've had a close relationship with one of the premier audio stored in New England for over 30 years. I've heard and designed systems of all qualities. I would say that the highest quality system, those that can reveal the lowest level of detail,...... also reveal, unmercifully, the flaws in poorer recording. Personally I am not interested in listening around those flaws for the hidden magic when I can find a recording of the same material free of those flaws. But I can understand where you are coming from. I just don't want to be there. It's not sour grapes (what ever that was suppose to refer to???). It's just taking out the trash.

Again John, I couldn't agree more.

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by panomaniac

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)

Are you sure you're not the one confusing loudspeaker/soundwaves "system" with brain process/filtering "system"?