Yes, the relative levels of the reflections after the main peak. I tried to get them down as far as my girl allowed me to (I'm currently under strict orders not to add more damping panels).
I could put down numbers here, but that could start a whole new debate.
The more down the reflections are, relative to the peak, the less they will influence frequency and phase of that first wave front.
In a dedicated room one could re-direct that energy to use it later.
I can agree to that too! I do not experience a long transition period from one recording to the next one with a different ambience/environment.
I could put down numbers here, but that could start a whole new debate.
The more down the reflections are, relative to the peak, the less they will influence frequency and phase of that first wave front.
In a dedicated room one could re-direct that energy to use it later.
Yes, the disappearing speaker is very enjoyable and certainly a worthy goal.
As for the changing of acoustic space from recording to recording, I love it. Some people like roller-coasters, but I have my own thrills.
I can agree to that too! I do not experience a long transition period from one recording to the next one with a different ambience/environment.
Last edited:
Notes
Why no brass instruments, no woodwind instruments or no percussion instruments; such as, triangle, xylophone, and the like? I am looking for those with pronounced overtones.
How are you miking the instruments? And the total performance to get the "sauce"?
The acoustic signature of the microphone(s) also remains along with the 'dead' acoustic signature of the anechoic chamber.
The output of single instrument is easer to reproduce than that of an ensemble. Those rich in overtones will be harder to reproduce as well. Only if the space where reproduced is anechoic, will there be convincing case for equality; and, only if blindfolded before entering the listening space, as well as proper recording and reproduction of the "sauce".
Short video of recording in the anechoic chamber[/QUOTE]
Regards,
WHG
During the XFI Premium Hifi Show (in the Netherlands) my company Dutch & Dutch and the audiophile music label TRPTK will do a test that as far as I know has never been done this thoroughly before.
We are going to do a comparative listening test, with music pre-recorded in an anechoic chamber and the same music played live in our demo room. We are going to listen to voice, a snare drum and cello.
Why no brass instruments, no woodwind instruments or no percussion instruments; such as, triangle, xylophone, and the like? I am looking for those with pronounced overtones.
How are you miking the instruments? And the total performance to get the "sauce"?
The acoustic signature of the microphone(s) also remains along with the 'dead' acoustic signature of the anechoic chamber.
The output of single instrument is easer to reproduce than that of an ensemble. Those rich in overtones will be harder to reproduce as well. Only if the space where reproduced is anechoic, will there be convincing case for equality; and, only if blindfolded before entering the listening space, as well as proper recording and reproduction of the "sauce".
Short video of recording in the anechoic chamber[/QUOTE]
Regards,
WHG
You won't be successful with those little speakers. But with a listening to a line array that is actively crossed floor to ceiling with a 4 way, using a long line of ribbon tweeters, a line of mid ranges(not crossing in the three octaves of Fletcher-Munsson sensitivity), a line of mid bass, and at least two 12-15 inch sub woofers in each channel....just might.
Get a friend of mine in the tests who has no hearing above 8khz.
Get a friend of mine in the tests who has no hearing above 8khz.
This is a great thread.... one where, even though there are various and differing opinions, nearly all are correct at some level. Is it real or is it Memorex, as it has been pointed out, has been around from Edison forward.
The thing is, the shear number of variables throughout the recording - playback process makes meaningful comparisons - conclusions marginal at best. Can one be fooled, heck yes! Have been one of those fools myself! Several times.
But, over 99% of the time, not fooled at all. It's all illusion. One could make a reasonable argument the initial event itself is an illusion. And then it goes down hill from there. Has to. It's like trying to freeze the moment. Some how capture reality in a bubble of some sort.
With that said, the most obvious degradation from a live performance vs a playback performance is dynamics as well as the visceral clues we take for granted. The brain wants to make it seem real. That's it's job... to make sense out of an event so it can react if needed to the perceived event(s) of the moment. Psycho-acoustic and other inputs. There is an old saying that "Reality is nothing more than a collective hunch". If that ever applied, it applies here. Hope to see more on this topic here.
The thing is, the shear number of variables throughout the recording - playback process makes meaningful comparisons - conclusions marginal at best. Can one be fooled, heck yes! Have been one of those fools myself! Several times.
But, over 99% of the time, not fooled at all. It's all illusion. One could make a reasonable argument the initial event itself is an illusion. And then it goes down hill from there. Has to. It's like trying to freeze the moment. Some how capture reality in a bubble of some sort.
With that said, the most obvious degradation from a live performance vs a playback performance is dynamics as well as the visceral clues we take for granted. The brain wants to make it seem real. That's it's job... to make sense out of an event so it can react if needed to the perceived event(s) of the moment. Psycho-acoustic and other inputs. There is an old saying that "Reality is nothing more than a collective hunch". If that ever applied, it applies here. Hope to see more on this topic here.
If you can reach a point where you find yourself saying as I did:
"I think I'd like to put in a line of woofers next to the mid array, but tht would obstruct the music of the drums from back behind them....Oh wait... there are no drums...I'm listening to speakers, not live music."
This really happened to me with my line arrays. I had to keep reminding myself that Frank Sinatra was not standing at a mic 10 feet from me crooning away.
Of course, it does require very well recorded music. MP3's definitely did not work. and recordings that were of low quality did not work. You can really hear/feel the difference between sessions with not enough microphones or with compression.
"I think I'd like to put in a line of woofers next to the mid array, but tht would obstruct the music of the drums from back behind them....Oh wait... there are no drums...I'm listening to speakers, not live music."
This really happened to me with my line arrays. I had to keep reminding myself that Frank Sinatra was not standing at a mic 10 feet from me crooning away.
Of course, it does require very well recorded music. MP3's definitely did not work. and recordings that were of low quality did not work. You can really hear/feel the difference between sessions with not enough microphones or with compression.
How do you mean? For the purpose of this experiment wouldn't one mic positioned equivalent for each speaker (one or two) be best?
You misunderstand. I wasn't talking about the mic-ing of the speakers, I was talking about the mic-ing of the live music.
With my line arrays, I could easily hear music on commercial CD's that was simply DEAD, and music that was full of life. I can only assume that it was the difference in the recording, the lack of compression, and the number of microphones and position of them in the session. Music from famous Record Labels tend to be way better than that from those somewhere in eastern Europe.
If you are going to compare between live music and the speakers, then the recording of the live music must be the best possible, with the highest frequency bandwith, and zero compression(so the highest dynamic range), and the lowest stn levels.
I meant miking of live music, but for the sake of this experiment positioning them where the speakers would be (or equivalent position) for the replaying. There are many compromises in this test but still interesting.
Re the dead or lively recording this would either be due to the acoustics of the room for a live recording and/or clever processing/mixing especially for a constructed recording. I don't think it's about the numbers of mics, one or more often two can capture the acoustics of the venue
Re the dead or lively recording this would either be due to the acoustics of the room for a live recording and/or clever processing/mixing especially for a constructed recording. I don't think it's about the numbers of mics, one or more often two can capture the acoustics of the venue
If you did not intend "live music" to mean "music as we experience it live [and can therefore compare it it's reproduction due to previous experience]" then surely your definition is too vague and the only criteria is that it happens in real time. Well, that is ALL music surely - anything we hear is in real time, no matter what the source, unless it is imagined?? I guess that would make what you said a truism..
But the guy who wrote the article cannot be using that same definition.
The other option would be calling music made only by acoustic instruments "live music" - it would be very unusual to dismiss any performance using electric instruments mic'd and amplified, or music from a sampler/synthesizer as not being "live" . Live DJ set?
So "live music" in this context can only surely refer to "the experience of listening to music in a venue as a live event" .
Aren't you agreeing with my second point but just framing it as being a good thing because that's what you'd want them to hear, musically speaking? I'd agree with that, although maybe with less of the sense of control over how it sounds to the audience - that is entirely dependent on the physics of the space etc
No, I am not agreeing with your second point. If you have a recording of a solo violin, put it on one speaker at what you would consider a live level bearing in mind the distance, and the size of the room. Now put your left ear 4 inches away from the tweeter (better with a full range). Have your head turned about 45 degrees away. That approximates to what a violinist hears. I would much rather hear what the audience hears than what the violinist hears.
...and in real space, not truism at all
because when instruments are individually closely miked in an unnaturally dry acoustical environment and recorded on separate tracks and only then mixed together with added space effects - such recording can be exciting and aesthetically satisfying but it's not the real thing and as such it is useless for purposes of testing the quality of HiFi reproduction
in fact one cannot talk about reproduction in such a case because what really is being reproduced when there is no original live event at all?
Its all in the brain and the ears. Speaker designers rarely know anything about how the brain Processes Sound. FEW people know, for example, that any reflective sound that comes to the ears less that about 40 millisec after the original direct sound, is simply ignored by the auditory cortex of the brain. And so people are all into reflective sound being important, when its only a measurement artifact. Unless you train your brain to hear it, and then actively listen for it, you cannot. But then again we are doing this in an anechoic chamber, which is not a normal listening environment to begin with. And we are using two dinky little speakers that don't have a snowball's chance in Hail of reproducing the frequency range, the dynamic range, or the nearfield experience of the music.
And probably the speakers have a passive crossover, which introduces even more variables.
Yeah...too many hairs.
And probably the speakers have a passive crossover, which introduces even more variables.
Yeah...too many hairs.
Wrt why we hear what we hear in small room acoustics and the precedence effect, this presentation by JJ Johnston provides insight: AES PNW Meeting Report - Acoustic and Psychoacoustic Issues in Room Correction
As an ex-recording/mixing engineer, I applaud your efforts. With careful micing and proper recording techniques, it is amazing how close one can get to the real thing.
As an ex-recording/mixing engineer, I applaud your efforts. With careful micing and proper recording techniques, it is amazing how close one can get to the real thing.
That was indeed completely unknown to me! Interesting.
They're full-range active 3-way DSP-based speakers, actually. They have very constant directivity, because I used to believe reflections have a significant effect on the sound we perceive.
http://dutchdutch.com/assets/images/8c-spec-sheet.pdf
not so fast
suppose You are listening to some music in Your room - please define the original direct sound in the constant "streams of superimposed air pressure variations at your eardrums" (as Linkwitz put it)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.