Well, outside of recording "faults" do the instruments sound "real"? The vast majority of systems don't sound real, a solo piano doesn't sound like one, nor a saxophone, etc, etc. And, then when you dump a dozen or so instruments into the mix, and wind up the volume, are all the individual "tracks" still perfectly clear within, or does it blur? The Led Zep I mentioned has a massive level of reverb, done naturally in fact, and I haven't heard another system get it right yet ...
Edit: The recording is completely wasted on a sound blaster, you may get a buzz from the miserable thing farting away, but unless you get a soundstage about a few hundred yards deep you ain't heard it ...
Frank
Last edited:
Richard, about dynamic (and fast decays), just record flat a Beckstein with a good jazz pianist, then, play-it back to the same level. No more...
Did it sound exactly like the original, with the attacks, the hammers, the short strings in the high notes, the strong wooden rich basses, the pedals, the weight, all the little parasite noises of the keys and the hammers double mechanic etc... ? Nothing too bright, too "hifi" ? You have good enclosures.
About soft domes, i hate them. They play trebles. Some king of modulated high frequencies noise "tsss tsss", separated from the body of the instruments...
There is no trebles in the real life. Who think treble, when he listen to real cymbals ?
I tried to add a tweeter to my system, witch decrease after 16kz. Flat result at the measure, time aligned, group delay ok... Never worked..."trebles" where back, real life was gone, see what i mean ?
I can look at them, unplugged...
Did it sound exactly like the original, with the attacks, the hammers, the short strings in the high notes, the strong wooden rich basses, the pedals, the weight, all the little parasite noises of the keys and the hammers double mechanic etc... ? Nothing too bright, too "hifi" ? You have good enclosures.
About soft domes, i hate them. They play trebles. Some king of modulated high frequencies noise "tsss tsss", separated from the body of the instruments...
There is no trebles in the real life. Who think treble, when he listen to real cymbals ?
I tried to add a tweeter to my system, witch decrease after 16kz. Flat result at the measure, time aligned, group delay ok... Never worked..."trebles" where back, real life was gone, see what i mean ?
I can look at them, unplugged...
Last edited:
There is a problem of compression in this recording. The instruments are real, at some moments (good drums), and dirty, muddy at others, not because the level, but because the all mix was limited/compressed. You can hear how the guitar, the bass and the voice modulate the drums or each others...
But, play the album with the old man: you're just in the room. What a fantastic hard rock sound, those drum's you can touch, the amps tubes with the blue light
surrealistic acoustic guitar, what a natural reverb (mikes in the lift stages)... I love-it.
Last edited:
Why don't you read this thread, at least the responses to your posts... ?
It was done, link was provided, DIYers began to provide PCB.
You respond about PA distortions when we were talking about home systems, you says ",yet I am sure that your PA efforts were no better than anyone else." after i explained how and why is did NO efforts... it is not easy...
i will make no comment about second breakdown, as my protection is not supposed to protect an amp against bad design...
And, believe-me or not, i'm sure that your speakers are good enough to gives-you satisfaction. And that is not so easy.
Friendly.
Christophe.
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't get the modulation, nor the dirtiness or muddiness; I do get get a vastness of sound throughout the album which is quite overwhelming. But, I also do worry a very great deal of getting the treble right, IMO unless this is working at what I might call the 100% level then one will always have trouble with some recordings; truly, subjectively, "big" sound depends on the treble quality being audibly lacking in distortion. Ditching the transducer is an easy solution, but the real answers are quite annoyingly fussy, unfortunately ...
Frank
Yes, it is a curse of audio engineers and designers of audio equipment, to hear the garbage and mistakes behind the record and reproduction. I am one of them, in both kinds at once. But I strongly disagree that better system reveals garbage and mistakes better. At least, it adds less of garbage to already existing mix.
Well ok, but if it changes the TSP then one would have to redo the
enclosure (alignment) too, no ?
Last edited:
the Fs and air volume remain the same, so , believe the vents will resonate at the same frequency ?
I have always used-it with a well tuned enclosure ( equal impedance peaks around fr )so i don't know how it turn when it is not. I believe the resulting impedance curve will not be as flat.
Wavebourn, i don't understand. If you make some mistake at the mix, it is not because your monitors were wrong, so you corrected things in a bad way to compensate ?
If a lot of people founded that digital sounded as "aggressive" during first decade, it was because a "Magic room" practice. Lot of the studios monitors where compensated to loose the same trebles and presence than the grooving process of the vinyl.
So, as your mixes sounded a little dull, you compensated in adding some trebles. This will be removed by the vinyl.
As CD were flat, those added treble were disagreeable when the same master tape was used without correction to groove them. Same thing with excessive panoramic positionning, to compensate the "diaphony ?" of the vinyl.
In the movie sound business, we don't cared about the linearity of the reproduction system. and the strange artifacts of the dolby with spacial positionement and EQ. We used the same, or similar kind of equipments than in the movie hall (those voices of theater).
So, monitoring in the same time across the encoding/decoding process, you ensure what you do at mixage will sound like you expect in theaters. It was a requisite of Dolby. Same thing with enclosures during the "optical" good old time, with the "Voice of theater" no treble enclosures.
Last edited:
No, Morinix, 1969 was the year that I was first told by my guru, Richard Heyser, the 'secret' to successful amplifier design. '-) The following years and meetings with other 'prophets' like Matti Otala, Walt Jung, Malcolm Hawksford, etc have allowed me to continue on my journey to learn to make the best audio designs possible.
If you change the TSP parameters (although I cannot see how this would be
the case) the alignment changes (There is more to it than just fs and air volume).
Additionally "equal impedance peaks around fr" by no means do assure a maximally
flat alignment.
I really would like to see some measurements with and without this impendance eq (same enclosure, same driver).
Last edited:
Of course, if you alter the impedance curve by some network and then measure the
TSPs the usual way (deriving them from the impedance curve) by using a current (or
reasonably large resistor) you just have messed up your TSP measurement.
These "new" TSPs have no relationship to the drivers TSP when driven from a low impedance
source (amplifier).
TSPs the usual way (deriving them from the impedance curve) by using a current (or
reasonably large resistor) you just have messed up your TSP measurement.
These "new" TSPs have no relationship to the drivers TSP when driven from a low impedance
source (amplifier).
Last edited:
You got-it !
I feel quite uncomfortable, here, after this strange controversy about horns and this motional compensation.. Obliged to argue like if i had something to sell or promote (including myself).
I do not care about people's opinions on my personal speakers, or even myself.
Just i had myself, and during decades, a very bad opinion about horns, both because my PA experience, and all those poor but loud and aggressive studio monitors i was obliged to work with.
One day, a friend of mine, François Delamare asked-me to go in his workshop to listen to his last enclosure, with some excitation in the voice. Because this guy knows what he is talking about, i ran in his place to listen to what will be the Aeria system.
I was surprised by the form of those horns, never seen before at this time (it was before the Lecleach work). We listened 4 hours, on a good system (amps etc...) and i was...astonished.
Never heard in my all life such a natural system, so powerfull, so dynamic, so free,so detailled, with no audible distortion and no resonances neither donald duck effect. Impossible to notice any compression driver or horn. Just the closest sound to real life. We worked together, with known mastering tapes etc... to tune-it to a perfect tonal balance, with a slowly descending curve, strait (very flat) from the basses to the treeble.
End of the story. I had build a reduced version for my own home system with the same horn calculation, then build big ones for my post production mixing facility.
Till this day, i had never heard something more natural, and the revue i had published here reflect exact what i still feel about.
I do not pretend there is no better system somewhere. I just wanted those of you witch never listened to a Lecleach system (not very far from the Delamare one) to discover-it and change their minds about horns. Google for lecleach, there is full of comments like:
Le Cléac’h horns create natural sounding music, with a deep involving sound stage. There are now many more people out there who can attest to this, and signs are that the Le Cleac’h expansion is gaining ascendancy.
I would like to thank Jean-Michel Le Cléac’h for his beautiful curve, given freely to all – and the brave experimenters who kept me going with their encouragement.
It is "Open source" with a strong DIYer community.
Let-us be clear.
I am unable to modeling-it. I'm not a theoretician in electro-acoustic.
I agree that, if you flatten the motional impedance of a loudspeaker at free air, when it is charged by a bass reflex, the resonance frequency had changed, so this network will not be at the good frequency, so you will expect some up and down in the impedance curve.
But, as astonishing it can be, it is not as-it.
It works. Try-it by yourself, please, as i have done-it hundred times... or forget.
Of course, it will be more precise to measure your speaker in your vented box, then provide two networks for each peak around the resonance. You double the work as well as the price of the expensive inductances and caps.
No need, as, believe-me, please, it works all the time by the way i indicate.
I will try to provide-you some real curves, please be patient.
In 1969 I had a pair of DIY David Weems' "Wild Woofers" and Dyna MKIII's ($60 as kit). An AR TT with M91E was standard for the day.
Confessions: I had an all JBL... home made 3-way horn system, home made tube preamp from wireless world and a home made Dyna amp with super fidelity output transformers. Sourced via a Sony reel to reel and a Garrard Lab 80 turntable with M91E or Stanton 681. And, the PRO 4AA. and a Marantz 20 with scope (ss) for a tuner. And discrete Dolby NR from Advent. Hard core all the way
Last edited:
In 1969, I had a K-horn, driven by Dyna Mk3 at first, then I tried the first solid state Marantz, the Model 14, then after getting listener fatigue, I went back to the Dyna Mk3. Also Dyna Pas3X tube preamp, Ampex AG-500 pro 15'' recorder, Beyer DT-48S headphones, TD150 turntable with Ortofon moving coil cartridge and transformer.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.