Marketoid measurements are one number. eg o.005%THD. It tells nothing about the makeup of the distortion other that it exists.
Marketoid measurements are also based on the preconceived notion that the measurement presented it of importance.
A 16 W amp is only 3dB more powerful than an 8W amp. Does 3dB matter?
I respectfully disagree.
Given that we wish to listen to a music passage at some optimal level, the amp with greater power (given that both can reproduce 95% or more of the music at the same level) will have lower noise and distortion (along with possibly the difficult to define parameter 'micro-dynamics' we have been discussing) given that both are of proper design.
Yes?
So the amp which has more output power may produce the same passage with different (more desirable) characteristics than the lower output power amp.
Thus it is not solely a question of one amp having 3dB more power than another, but the characteristics that may accompany the difference in power capability.
Given that we wish to listen to a music passage at some optimal level, the amp with greater power (given that both can reproduce 95% or more of the music at the same level) will have lower noise and distortion (along with possibly the difficult to define parameter 'micro-dynamics' we have been discussing) given that both are of proper design.
Yes?
So the amp which has more output power may produce the same passage with different (more desirable) characteristics than the lower output power amp.
Thus it is not solely a question of one amp having 3dB more power than another, but the characteristics that may accompany the difference in power capability.
Last edited:
Larry Coryell has done a few low compression, minimalistically miked live take CDs. 'Traffic' (Chesky) is a stunner, musically and sound quality wise.
Hey All,
If there is ample head room ( i am thinking there is plenty of SET power into my headphones). I would rather see 3db less 60 Hz and multiples on the noise floor. Any audible noise lessens the illusion of being there.
DT
All just for fun!
If there is ample head room ( i am thinking there is plenty of SET power into my headphones). I would rather see 3db less 60 Hz and multiples on the noise floor. Any audible noise lessens the illusion of being there.
DT
All just for fun!
and big amps is where it really gets difficult
Yep. Bigger transformers, more capacitance, more iron, more resistance... But 16 Watt vs 8 Watt is not a big deal, in terms of transformers.
That got a chuckle. Yeah, this audiophool-speak is on the edge of nonsense. I totally agree. E.g., Define "detail."
OK, what did I mean by what I said? Well... As Wavebourn alluded to, in musical instruments (and other noisemakers) timbral changes go hand in hand with dynamic changes.
Stroke a drumhead with your finger and you'll hear more fundamental vs. overtones in its harmonic make-up, and the envelope of the resulting sound will be "smooth" (smooth transition from attack to decay and sustain into silence).
Whack the drumhead with your finger (not your whole hand) and not only will the sound be louder, it will have less fundamental, more overtones, and probably the harmonic content will have more odd-order harmonics. The envelope will be different too. The timbre will be different. It will be less of a "tone" and more of a "thwapp" sound.
I've heard very highly thought of hifi systems make cymbals sound like splashes of hiss. I've heard other less highly thought of hifi systems let cymbals sound more like cymbals. As I recall, I noticed this when I was shopping for power amps at Stereo Exchange in NYC, many years ago. I compared a lowly pair of Dyna MkIII to an Adcom amp. The rest of the system was the same (I can't remember what the speakers were). We played some Blue Note record with Elvin Jones on drums. I remember when the MkIII's came on that all of a sudden the cymbals had that complex mix of harmonics, with a nice attack from the drumstick head, nicely separated. The Adcom seemed to make the cymbal sound like a splash of louder hissy noises. At the time I attributed the difference to tubes vs. transistors. I know it's more complicated than that, but that's an illustration of what I mean by micro-dynamics.
I think micro-dynamics are very much a form of linearity. No compression of low-level dynamics. It might also have to do with time/phase coherence. Attacks coming at you at the proper time, so that the smaller dynamic changes don't get muddled.
We don't want the dynamics to get as muddled as my writing! 😀
Chesky makes some really good discs. I haven't heard that one, but is it mostly electric instruments on that?
McCoy Tyner "New York Reunion" on SACD is a real challenge (the CD is good too). The quartet is all acoustic, except that Ron Carter's bass pickup provides a direct feed to the mixing console, mixed with the bass's acoustic sound. Otherwise it's all minimally miked, acoustic. Those guys can play LOUD, but then get all sensitive. Not Bill Evans sensitive, but they get mellow. To have all the tracks on this recording sound good on one system seems to be a real accomplishment.
The loud tracks on this SACD don't seem to sound good through the low-power SET amps I've heard with it. They tend to sound harsh. Actually, this SACD tends to sound harsh in general, until you hear it on a system that can handle it. I remember it sounding pretty good on some behemoth early 1990's solid-state system through B&W 801's. I didn't like the 'personality' of that system (kind of big, beefy and somehow 'slow' -- didn't seem to let things flow free and easy), but I was impressed that it held together so well through the huge dynamic crescendi. Now if it could only convey the textural details of the drums as played by Al Foster...
That might be a good test of "micro-dynamics" right there.
I know this kind of music isn't everybody's favorite, but has anyone else heard this recording?
Chesky Records: McCoy Tyner "New York Reunion" 2 channel SACD - SACD206
There's a multichannel version as well (SACD334) but I haven't heard it.
How many mics did you use on your last recording?
I do know it's very easy to make a very crappy recording using a lot of microphones. Examples abound 😉 I've fixed a lot of horrible mixes by muting 1/2 the channels.
I did a live sound+recording gig Wednesday where they wanted 12 mics. I was so glad when all was said and done there were only 6 mics on the performers and a coincident pair of 414s for the hall.
Ditching the PA entirely and doing a fully acoustic recording with 3 or 4 mics would have been even better (for the recording and for the performers and for the audience) but even acoustic musicians have expectations like rock stars these days.
Cheers,
Michael
The've obviously never heard themselves from the audience location.
I agree with you 100%.
Regards, Allen
Right. "We want the same sound you do when we stand on 3-5 feet distance from microphones, but we need floor monitors!" 😀
I really struggled with this when I was recording ensembles at a certain jazz college in NYC. It's one thing to record a well-balanced, completely acoustic ensemble from the perspective of an audience member sitting in a prime spot in a good-sounding room. It's another entirely to please the musicians and "get their sound" when they hear the currently-fashionable recorded sound in their heads, rather than the actual acoustic sound as heard in the room.
Ex: Jazz records are now made with a super-plump, bigger than life bass. I've been told this is an influence from hip-hop (great...). Horn players demand dynamic compression, believing this is how the horn actually sounds in the room. Piano players also expect dynamic compression so that the piano doesn't sound overly percussive, even when they're playing really hard/loud.
Listen to a CD from Josh Redman or Roy Hargrove. That's the sound I mean.
The interesting thing about that McCoy Tyner SACD I mentioned is that it *was* recorded in an acoustic, "purist" fashion. That is very unusual for a jazz group. Chesky does that as an audiophile label, but I don't know if a more commercial label could get away with that.
Note that just about ALL supposedly acoustic music like jazz, acoustic singer-songwriters, bluegrass, etc. is just about never heard acoustically any more. Everybody hears acoustic bass wih a pickup and amplifier augmenting it, microphones on the piano, acoustic guitars with those awful piezoelectric bridge pickups fed into the PA, and of course microphones on all the singers. When was the last time you heard a jazz piano trio with a vocalist? Was there a mic on the singer? Was there an amp for the bass? Were there mics on the piano? I mean even in a quiet little cafe somewhere!
I remember several great, veteran jazz musicians telling me that Rudy Van Gelder would put up one or two microphones and capture the whole band for those classic Blue Note recordings. (With the implication, "Why can't you learn to do that?") Now go listen to a classic Blue Note record like Wayne Shorter's "Speak No Evil" or Cannonball Adderley's "Something Else." Do you hear a multimic recording? I do, although these are extremely simple ("purist") recordings by today's standards. But the musicians were convinced that there were only a couple of mics out there!
Listen to the mono Columbia recordings of Duke Ellington and his Orchestra (e.g. "Masterpieces"). Do you hear a 3-mic recording? I don't. But maybe only 6 to 8 total for the whole 17-piece big band. That's completely minimalist by today's standards.
So even back 60 years ago, multimiking was the standard way to make recordings of jazz and pop. But it's just out of control these days.
My point is that it may not be entirely fair to judge recording quality by how many mics are used. Yes, there are generally too many channels thrown at recordings these days, just because it's easy. Who really needs three mics on the piano and six mics on a four-piece drumset?
That doesn't mean there aren't really good sounding multimiked recordings being made. How about Danilo Perez "Motherland"? (Al Schmitt was the recording engineer.)
Just my
--
PS --
Sounds something like the compromise I've seen competent engineers wind up with for live-recording situations for jazz groups that aren't total "bashers."
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.