on electric guitars - definitely!
other than that: it depends.
second harmonics, for example seem to be pleasing for most people.
[IMHO]
Hearing is a sense.
Senses involve biological-psychic-neurological spheres, and who knows what else will be discovered tomorrow.
Audio is a technology.
Technology responds to physical laws and sometimes it wanders them.
Physics is a very changing subject, but in relation to Audio it has not (yet) evolved too much.
Measurements are an agreement.
An important and necessary agreement, but still an agreement.
Nothing on Earth is still able to tell you if listening through that equipment with perfect measurements the highs will come out rough, hissing, or silky.
No measurement can (still) describe or predict your listening.
It takes intellectual humility because the knowledge is a lot, but it is not enough.
If/when a genius, an engineer, a technician, a physique or a passionate will discover the way we measure the above then, perhaps, something will change seriously.
But first it is necessary to discover the existence of that physical dimension corresponding to that sonic features.
I would call it Differential Comparative Euphony. 🙄
I imagine it just as a kind of enormous database with a lot of sound/sonic features that emerge listening, measurable and shared.
Some engineers and some physicists and some technicians and some other ones should be a little more humble intellectually because believing that what many sacrifices have made for then it is everything (ALL) that really matters is not an indication of a high level of open mindedness.
[/IMHO]
"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open".
-Frank Vincent Zappa
Hearing is a sense.
Senses involve biological-psychic-neurological spheres, and who knows what else will be discovered tomorrow.
Audio is a technology.
Technology responds to physical laws and sometimes it wanders them.
Physics is a very changing subject, but in relation to Audio it has not (yet) evolved too much.
Measurements are an agreement.
An important and necessary agreement, but still an agreement.
Nothing on Earth is still able to tell you if listening through that equipment with perfect measurements the highs will come out rough, hissing, or silky.
No measurement can (still) describe or predict your listening.
It takes intellectual humility because the knowledge is a lot, but it is not enough.
If/when a genius, an engineer, a technician, a physique or a passionate will discover the way we measure the above then, perhaps, something will change seriously.
But first it is necessary to discover the existence of that physical dimension corresponding to that sonic features.
I would call it Differential Comparative Euphony. 🙄
I imagine it just as a kind of enormous database with a lot of sound/sonic features that emerge listening, measurable and shared.
Some engineers and some physicists and some technicians and some other ones should be a little more humble intellectually because believing that what many sacrifices have made for then it is everything (ALL) that really matters is not an indication of a high level of open mindedness.
[/IMHO]
"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open".
-Frank Vincent Zappa
Probably all this 2nd and 3rd is a substitute for correct reproduction of overtones that are in reality really there but dont come out properly via the recording/reproduction chain. People give up trying to build a system that reassambles what they hear at the concert hall and resort to 2nd. harmonic distorsion to do a reasonably job... sad really. But recording part is a big hindrance I'm afraid - all this close mic-ing is a disaster wrt. how instruments really sound to a normal concert attendant. The system solution (mic-2-ear) don't hold water.
//
Most do listen single (square) waves;-) Only;-) And thd-, tmd...- distortions in %-)
Please, distinguish audio- and video-measurements: hearing-measurement and looking-measurement.
To build audio-equipment it is fundamentally to use hearing-measurement.
;-)
WHO goes to the concert hall?
I used to work at a concert hall, presenting everything except "popular music", in a dense and moderately wealthy state. We had maybe 600,000 people within a 30 minute drive, but rarely filled 660 seats. (I knew folks at the other venues in the area, and except the explicitly "popular" halls, the trend was similar.) I sure was glad my salary was backed by state money, not ticket-sales. Nevermind my income: I observe that not even 1 in 1,000 people go to a concert hall.
As in infinite bandwith?
No, nobody can, edges will be more or less rounded, but the waveform, may very well be 99% of a squarewave.
As far as overheating, stressing, etc. ... "same thing"
I know what happens when I feed a squarewave into a speaker .... I make Guitar amps and speakers. 🙂
They must stand twice the nominal RMS amp out and they´ll work 24/7/365 , no big deal.
The typical Marshall head is 100W RMS, and is Factory coupled with a 320W cabinet, go figure.
In the old Led Zeppelin/Jimi Hendrix/Deep Purple days, they were used with two cabinets, each loaded with 4 x 25W speakers or 4 x 30W ones.
Do the Math.
In USA? Not surprised.
Now in highly cultured Europe, think again.
Example: Vienna Symphonic Summer concert , they bring so much people in (think Rock Festival size crowds) that they HAVE to do it in open air.
Of course, lots of people of all ages regularly listen to Classical Music at home, on the radio, etc.
Of course.
This engulfs and overpasses any concert hall.
I´m showing the HUGE POPULARITY of Classical Music in Europe.
I can fill 20 pages of this thread with pictures of wall to wall filled huge concert halls, just don´t want to hijack the thread, so posted "just one" which surpasses them all.
Ok, now that I´m here, I´ll ´post "one" example following the rules 🙂
Enjoy 🙂
This engulfs and overpasses any concert hall.
I´m showing the HUGE POPULARITY of Classical Music in Europe.
I can fill 20 pages of this thread with pictures of wall to wall filled huge concert halls, just don´t want to hijack the thread, so posted "just one" which surpasses them all.
Ok, now that I´m here, I´ll ´post "one" example following the rules 🙂
Enjoy 🙂
i think that audio recording first and video recording then have been extraordinary inventions
Moreover for the people who can afford that i believe that a great playback system installed in a great listening room could provide a very satisfying experience
at concerts first of all the location can be not optimal and the neighbors annoying
And it is the only way to listen to artists no more with us
Moreover for the people who can afford that i believe that a great playback system installed in a great listening room could provide a very satisfying experience
at concerts first of all the location can be not optimal and the neighbors annoying
And it is the only way to listen to artists no more with us
I was commenting on:
Your wall-to-wall and all-of-outdoors concerts are all the same techniques but without the wax. 99 close-mikes. Probably 1500 bands of EQ. Speakers bigger than a house. And to blurr the brutally over-processed sound, digital 'reverb'.
I know you been in hundreds-heads halls with acoustic and small-electric instruments, and no "house PA"?
Yes but a PA is not reproduction as I see it but a part of the "instrument".
Reproduce that! ;-)
(In the outdoor gigs there is amplification for sure...)
//
Reproduce that! ;-)
(In the outdoor gigs there is amplification for sure...)
//
Ekuar, my former business partner, kept the Live PA and recording side, plus processors and keyboards, I kept the manufacturing aspect; when needed we help each other.
He got the contract for Gustavo Cerati´s full symphonic tour, needing over 100 microphones, each and every instrument needing a closeup pickup.
He used 100 high quality Panasonic electret capsules , mainly for space and mounting reasons, regular handheld or Studio mikes being too large, clumsy and heavy while the custom made ones weighed a few grams, including mounting clamps.
Remember it was a live tour, everything had to be assembled and disassembled for he next show, from Chilean South to Mexico City, some 15-20 times in total.
He made the mikes themselves, I made the preamps and the sub-mixers; no way you send 100 symphonic mikes plus all others needed to an operator, my boards allowed pre-mixing groups of 4 and up to 8 into "violins left-center-right", etc. which are easier and more logical to handle.
How was each individual mike adjusted?
By good old closer-farther away and varying angle positioning ; besides each individual preamp had a screwdriver adjustable gain trimmer.
It took some time to set up, but then it stayed for the whole tour.
Result was quite good, here is a free sample:
Analyze a square wave with FFT, it's the sum of all the odd harmonics.
They are not "stuffed with them". Fender/Marshall/Ampeg amps have an output transformer and that's it.
And someone please point a science finger to the areas in the attached chart providing definitive proof of the 'pleasing distortion' audibility of line transformers operated within normal design parameters. Also demonstrate why the complete separation of device grounds - breaking loops, isolating chassis differentials, etc. - plays no positive role in any perceived changes and how all changes are proven objectively negative to accuracy.
If I haven't been annoying about this enough, 2nd order THD manifests as an asymmetrical waveform distortion. Two series devices manifesting this behaviour can result in more or less 2nd harmonic on the final output reaching the listener depending on the relative phases of the series devices. TLDR example: amplifier 2nd harmonic THD can add or subtract from a loudspeaker's 2nd harmonic THD depending on driver phase. Or headphone phase.
The 'truth abouts' dropped in this thread are closer to audio tropes than hard science.
If I haven't been annoying about this enough, 2nd order THD manifests as an asymmetrical waveform distortion. Two series devices manifesting this behaviour can result in more or less 2nd harmonic on the final output reaching the listener depending on the relative phases of the series devices. TLDR example: amplifier 2nd harmonic THD can add or subtract from a loudspeaker's 2nd harmonic THD depending on driver phase. Or headphone phase.
The 'truth abouts' dropped in this thread are closer to audio tropes than hard science.
Attachments
I know, I know. I've told myself a million times to stop exaggerating.
The best parts of your great comment IMHO 🙂. Arrogance and a lack of humility definitely run deep in the world of hifi.
A couple years back I did a contest at a speaker show we put on with (the late) Jeff Bagby and Meniscus Audio. We built 3 pair of the same, identical speakers. We just did this for fun, and I'm not really sure what useful information the results told us.
Jeff had to design a xover for one pair using nothing but measurements, he couldn't voice (or even listen to) the speakers at all outside of sweeps for measurement purposes.
I had to design a xover for another pair using no measurements at all, but I could voice the speaker.
Then Meniscus used an off-the-shelf 2 way xover that they couldn't modify at all.
At the show, in front of about 50 DIY enthusiasts we played each pair, no one knew which was which, to the crowd they were simply "A, B, & C". To my amazement, all 3 came in fairly close, but the garbage, off-the-shelf xover actually won, and IIRC Jeff and I tied with our speakers. Also to my amazement, Jeff and I ended up with very similar xovers. In the end, we were supposed to get together and measure, voice and finalize one of the designs and do the contest again against the speaker that won, but sadly we never got that opportunity.
I will say, in blind tests, the music that gets used is absolutely critical. Not only does certain music reveal flaws better than other music, but being familiar with a track if you're taking part in a A/B test is very crucial. And even more, depending on the track used, one speaker might sound better using a certain track and vice-versa.
Only sharing because I figured it was relevant to the discussion. Measurements matter when I'm designing because they show me obvious flaws. But I have sacrificed a flatter frequency response for a better sounding speaker (to my ears). So IMO, in the end the only thing that matters is what your ears tell you. I have seen speakers that measured flat sound bad, and I've seen speakers that measured terribly sound good to me.