Yes and no, looking at it reminds me of 3000 year old mozaïek but lacking the beauty of it.
I get lost in it.
I have to dive deep again, because I can't recall where I have read it.Yes, that is another part of the complex processing"sound like so it must be"
But they have done quite some experiments in how we can really fool ourselves.
It's actually so bad that if we REALLY think we hear something, there is even a measurable pulse in our brain that is exactly like a real sound.
So basically this means that if we really think we hear something, we ACTUALLY hear something.
Even when it's not there.
Extremely similar to like phantom pains and such.
Fascinating stuff.
Perhaps, although hanging out with musicians really helps. (old joke: what do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians? the drummer)
Experiencing drums live, for example, is a whole other experience from listening to them through most systems. In person the crack of a snare drum is rude. If you're beside the drummer it'll make you blink the first few times you hear it. Kick drums go thwack, not thud, and so on. Different things get elided depending on where the crossover point is set: 4th order at 250 Hz makes a snare polite, 100 Hz muddles the kick and bass guitar some, and I haven't yet tried 160 Hz equidistant between the two; at a guess it'd probably mess up the tom-toms, and the results you report are within the realm of reason.
That's why I favour linear-phase crossovers in that region: the effect on group delay is nil. Moreover slightly better rolloffs than LR4 can be had beyond the crossover point if one stays sane and avoids the temptation of going for a zillion dB/octave slopes. That way lies madness and lousy transient response off-axis, which as you noted can be important when listening more than a metre away from the loudspeakers.
Dear Drummer/ @DSP_Geek
Intersting thoughts about linear phase/group delay. IRRC @kimmosto thinks that aiming for 1ms ~100Hz is worthwhile, though I can't recall how much evidence there is regarding that.
What are your thoughts about dynamic range? I mean most kick drums seem to be 16" or more. I mean, just ENORMOUS, compared to the piddly 10" estimated cone area of a 12" woofer, let alone 5-6" cone area of a 6.5" to 8" 2 way speaker.
How much relevance do you think this has?
BR,
Thanh-plays Keys occasionally-Tran
Intersting thoughts about linear phase/group delay. IRRC @kimmosto thinks that aiming for 1ms ~100Hz is worthwhile, though I can't recall how much evidence there is regarding that.
What are your thoughts about dynamic range? I mean most kick drums seem to be 16" or more. I mean, just ENORMOUS, compared to the piddly 10" estimated cone area of a 12" woofer, let alone 5-6" cone area of a 6.5" to 8" 2 way speaker.
How much relevance do you think this has?
BR,
Thanh-plays Keys occasionally-Tran
A snare hit with a rimshot is the loudest most dynamic part by far. You need a big room or a highly damped one to really lay into a drum kit without hearing protection. A standard kick drum is 22", Fusion size is 20", 24 or 26" are still relatively standard.
Yeah real instruments get crazy loud compared to "hi-fi" loudspeakers. Any real life sounds like chain saw or a motor cycle. Even a coffee grinder gets pretty loud, let alone Dyson vac, crazy loud. It requires quite formidable loudspeaker system to reproduce any of these with realistic sound and SPL full bandwidth. Tip, it probably has compression driver as a tweeter and at least 15" woofer(s) or something along the lines. Anything one can carry around comfortably is probably too small to handle.
But, those examples are really too loud and not comfortable to be around without hearing protection. Luckily its not too difficult to get comfortably loud capable system together, probably still has compression driver and 15" woofer(s) though Just forget playing realistic levels, its fun for a minute or two but any longer one wants to wear protection and is really not necessary for home hifi.
ps. on a pub gig with small rock band its tough to get vocals louder than acoustic drum kit with any of the "small pa" systems I've had access to, the plastic boxes. Or, on a rehearsals my bass rig with single 15" is about enough with a drummer in the same room.
But, those examples are really too loud and not comfortable to be around without hearing protection. Luckily its not too difficult to get comfortably loud capable system together, probably still has compression driver and 15" woofer(s) though
Just forget playing realistic levels, its fun for a minute or two but any longer one wants to wear protection and is really not necessary for home hifi.ps. on a pub gig with small rock band its tough to get vocals louder than acoustic drum kit with any of the "small pa" systems I've had access to, the plastic boxes. Or, on a rehearsals my bass rig with single 15" is about enough with a drummer in the same room.
Last edited:
Music releases (analog or digital) are always edited and compressed, they never mimic real life sounds. There are also many miking techniques to record drums, piano, trombone, guitar etc.
Good reference
https://www.soundonsound.com/microphones-miking?f[0]=node%3Afield_section:6971
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/recording-drum-kits-only-two-mics
Good reference
https://www.soundonsound.com/microphones-miking?f[0]=node%3Afield_section:6971
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/recording-drum-kits-only-two-mics
A track that really tests a system’s dynamic range (or amplifier clipping) is Ricky Lee Jones’ Ghetto of my Mind:
Dynamic range of 24.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/97252
Dynamic range of 24.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/97252
Nor are they mic-ed at postions where you would listen, if recorded with mic.
So little or no values for reference.
As a person who takes meticulous anechoic measurements and then painstakingly blends them with the fair field measurements, it’s quite frightening to see how musicians ann recording engineers are recording musical instruments, or “guitar (loudspeaker) cabinets”
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/understanding-nearfield-miking
There seems to be much much MUCH more art than science!
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/understanding-nearfield-miking
There seems to be much much MUCH more art than science!
Yeah the intent is just to make nice good sound that delivers a feeling, I think, emotion. The playback system needs to be fine enough to deliver what the artist / producer chain thought was what they want, not ruin it. If one wants original sound one should buy an instrument or get to acoustic live show etc.
ps. for increased reality make one speaker system per instrument, the instrument should be recorded from various directions and then played back from a ~location to various directions. Kind of opposite what a stereo recording and playback process is, where multiple sources are reproduced by two locations. See this:
So multichannel per instrument if you search realism. Be sure to move your playback system to a pub if you want to listen to ZZ top, or to a church if its organs, to maintain proper realism. And, prepare to make your own recordings Realistic option for home listening is the stereo / mono / multichannel system we have recordings available for, just be sure its fine enough system and properly setup in relation to room acoustics so that as much of the original intent comes through and you get the emotional impact that was included.
ps. for increased reality make one speaker system per instrument, the instrument should be recorded from various directions and then played back from a ~location to various directions. Kind of opposite what a stereo recording and playback process is, where multiple sources are reproduced by two locations. See this:
So multichannel per instrument if you search realism. Be sure to move your playback system to a pub if you want to listen to ZZ top, or to a church if its organs, to maintain proper realism. And, prepare to make your own recordings
Realistic option for home listening is the stereo / mono / multichannel system we have recordings available for, just be sure its fine enough system and properly setup in relation to room acoustics so that as much of the original intent comes through and you get the emotional impact that was included.
Last edited:
To convey a emotional message is true, and for me most important. Point however is that like it is recorded and then processed is not how it sounded if i were in the hall listening.
( i tend to listen with eyes closed, even during live performances)
Nor is the playback level at home anywhere close to the live levels .
Still for me the emotion and illusion of being there is most important.
( i tend to listen with eyes closed, even during live performances)
Nor is the playback level at home anywhere close to the live levels .
Still for me the emotion and illusion of being there is most important.
As was said, unless you record it yourself pretty well all music is compressed to a certain extent. Even classical is compressed, although to a far lesser degree than BoyBandOfTheMoment. If you do know the sound of live drums, the Sheffield Drum Record has two tracks of drums with minimal processing for a good idea of how a system would reproduce the real thing. However, I was once seduced by a speaker which played drums with a You Are There feel -- but when a vocalist came on a huge kank in the lower mids around 200-250 Hz made itself manifest. That peak tricked me into thinking the system did well with the snare drum's thwack; lesson learned.
On the Best of Chesky Classics & Jazz & Audiophile Test Disc Vol 2, there is a set of unprocessed drum tracks in a dry and live room recorded at different distances. These are good from an unprocessed realism perspective.
One of my favourite test tracks is Moby Dick from Led Zeppelin II, a raw drum kit being hit hard enough to overload the recording chain in parts.
One of my favourite test tracks is Moby Dick from Led Zeppelin II, a raw drum kit being hit hard enough to overload the recording chain in parts.
Hi, I've been into "near field" sound lately, listening close enough so that local room disappears mostly and whats left is mostly whats on the recording. My current task is to try and extend this all the way to practical main listening position, I'm not about half a meter short at 2.2m
I've been writing about it in various threads and it seems this is not what many people want or have with their hifi setups. Since you like to be there and try to get into the illusion I wonder what kind of speaker and listening setup you have?
I noticed distinct transition between two states of stereo sound at home: being too far to speakers, too big of a stereo triangle, and sound is on front of me and bit blurry. When listening distance is close enough and I'm inside the recording almost, certainly much clearer phantom center and sound is more enveloping, and this transition is about one step like what Griesinger writes about which has taken me to speculate its the same / similar thing here in small room loudspeaker systems. It seems to be just direct to reflected sound ratio, something just snaps in place with hearing system and perception changes when close enough, when direct sound is loud enough. Since you seem to be familiar with Griesingers work, what do you think about it? Have you experimented with listening distance yourself? what do you prefer?
Last edited: