Piano recording varies, but the reason why I mentioned this particular album from Reference Recordings is that the literature mentions mic location rigt behind the head location of the player. This is a location where the player listens to his own playing and emotionally interacts.
A key issue is when we do not feel the emotion, how do we know where to look from listening to the music from what is lacking.
A key issue is when we do not feel the emotion, how do we know where to look from listening to the music from what is lacking.
Last edited:
I would start with change in tonality as the volume varies - I have a pretty dreadful recording of my HT system doing piano, linked to in my blog, which is an attempt to demonstrate this. Apologies for the quality, the simple camcorder overloaded badly on the higher volume levels ...
maybe...maybe not
Sounds gimmicky.... unless you play piano and want to "listens to his own playing and emotionally interacts", so to speak, this is no more realistic than crappy miking. Who listens to piano right behind the head of the performer, unless one is a teacher??
maybe a key issue for you, not for me. Too many assumptions built into this perception.
Sounds gimmicky.... unless you play piano and want to "listens to his own playing and emotionally interacts", so to speak, this is no more realistic than crappy miking. Who listens to piano right behind the head of the performer, unless one is a teacher??
maybe a key issue for you, not for me. Too many assumptions built into this perception.
Last edited:
True, not everyone wants to listen to music the same way. But if one wants to make a speaker that is good for all kinds of music, various music and recording listening experience is necessary because each will reveal certain flaws to different degrees.
Bear in mind that kits of piano recordings pretty much have your head sticking under the hood. These need to be taken into consideration when tuning a system.
Bear in mind that kits of piano recordings pretty much have your head sticking under the hood. These need to be taken into consideration when tuning a system.
Last edited:
I wouldn't use such under the hood recordings. To me it is sacrilege to mic a piano in this manner and have had more than one argument over such practices. When doing an A/B of piano tracks mic'd under the hood and then a better arrangement replayed under the same exact conditions was most often dismissed for something the speaker/room was doing, when it was quite clear which sounded best. Out come the headphones (HD650's) Oh you can't use them for critical listening, it must be at performance levels to hear correctly blah blah blah excuses and denial. Most Pro's see audiophiles as extreme elitists when most aren't and they're normally grouped together as full of caca. But there is nothing worse than a sound/recording engineer who is convinced bad practice is better. The heck with status quo 😉
Thought I'd reprint PANO's excellent quote from post #6200
----"The better my system gets, the fewer "unlistenable" recordings I find. The bad recordings are not magically turned into great ones - it's just that the bad parts become so much less objectionable. The bad is still there, it just doesn't get in the way any more."-----
One of my favorite bands is Shield Your Eyes. This bands latest LP is self pressed. The Recording quality could be the worst I have but the music making is magical and when played on the most revealing system, I feel transported to the original event and this is pure pleasure.
Many of dedicated Audiophile Recordings that I've heard bore me, the music is just to stiff for my tastes
----"The better my system gets, the fewer "unlistenable" recordings I find. The bad recordings are not magically turned into great ones - it's just that the bad parts become so much less objectionable. The bad is still there, it just doesn't get in the way any more."-----
One of my favorite bands is Shield Your Eyes. This bands latest LP is self pressed. The Recording quality could be the worst I have but the music making is magical and when played on the most revealing system, I feel transported to the original event and this is pure pleasure.
Many of dedicated Audiophile Recordings that I've heard bore me, the music is just to stiff for my tastes
Last edited:
More please (davewantsmoore).
Anyone!? I am just about to commit to the woofers (-6dB @ 80 and 320) for my own "beyond the ariel"... and these are also my two candidates.
My thoughts have been similar --- TD15M is too optimised for higher frequencies, and higher output, which I don't need
Traditionally deeper cone have been associated with stronger bass punch. However when you have a curved cone and phase plug, your get seemingly better measurements, but you actually trade off certain aspects that contradict with goals for cleaner sound. Personally I have never heard a satisfying direct radiating driver with a phase plug. These kinds of designs are better for needs of small system with high power output as first priority.
I have two drivers with shorting rings to reduce Le, what they have in common is probably use the same motor, and one common sonic coloration is that they seem to have a certain mushy nature in the frequencies above some 3KHz.
I guess you already know my thoughts on this--I can't think of a reason to prefer the TD15M over the GPA416 alnico in that frequency range, unless your output levels are extraordinary.
Gary Dahl
True that motor helps but at the end resonances and cone damping still matters.
Electronics aside, many pro and cons for those frequency when mid and tweeter must play in the same band. Best is to find the drivers that blend well. Colouration always exist, I guess we have to settle for best sonic compromise, can't get it all.
Regards,
Hartono
Gary,
Thank a lot for your measurements and thoughts, much appreciated!
This makes me want to try the GPA as a midbass, in the same range as you did.
You said that you prefer the 416 over the 515, probably due to the better balance.
If I read Lynn correctly, both the GPA 515c and 416b share the same moving parts, and only differ in their motor strength (+40% for the 515).
If that is the case then the only difference should be a higher mass breakpoint frequency for the 515, which would probably only result in a rising amplitude response (higher sensitivity in the higher frequencies of the range).
Simple EQ (maybe even just moving one pole of the LP filter) should then be able to tame this and the two drivers would then have the same balance (as well as bass capabilities), making comparisons easier.
In these condition I wonder what the stronger magnet of the 515 would bring to the party. This would demand less power to the amplifier for sure, and would also reduce any power compression (the instantaneous one) in the small 3" underhung VC.
I understand that you don't want to use fancy EQ in the final product, but this would at least be interesting during the design process, and could probably be accomplished with simple passive filter tweaking (moving one pole, etc.).
Same could probably be done for the 745Be (same symptom with a higher mass breakpoint frequency) and would make the comparison with the 745AL more sound.
Thank a lot for your measurements and thoughts, much appreciated!
This makes me want to try the GPA as a midbass, in the same range as you did.
You said that you prefer the 416 over the 515, probably due to the better balance.
If I read Lynn correctly, both the GPA 515c and 416b share the same moving parts, and only differ in their motor strength (+40% for the 515).
If that is the case then the only difference should be a higher mass breakpoint frequency for the 515, which would probably only result in a rising amplitude response (higher sensitivity in the higher frequencies of the range).
Simple EQ (maybe even just moving one pole of the LP filter) should then be able to tame this and the two drivers would then have the same balance (as well as bass capabilities), making comparisons easier.
In these condition I wonder what the stronger magnet of the 515 would bring to the party. This would demand less power to the amplifier for sure, and would also reduce any power compression (the instantaneous one) in the small 3" underhung VC.
I understand that you don't want to use fancy EQ in the final product, but this would at least be interesting during the design process, and could probably be accomplished with simple passive filter tweaking (moving one pole, etc.).
Same could probably be done for the 745Be (same symptom with a higher mass breakpoint frequency) and would make the comparison with the 745AL more sound.
Gary,
Could your impressions of the 416 and 515 in the same Vb also be a reflection of a personal preference for a higher Qtc value? Comparing them side-by-side in different enclosures with the same Qtc may have produced different results.
Is there anything the TD15M does better that you are going to miss?
Would you say that the 416 Alnico has that larger-than-life 'Technicolor' sound they are so famous for?
Could your impressions of the 416 and 515 in the same Vb also be a reflection of a personal preference for a higher Qtc value? Comparing them side-by-side in different enclosures with the same Qtc may have produced different results.
Is there anything the TD15M does better that you are going to miss?
Would you say that the 416 Alnico has that larger-than-life 'Technicolor' sound they are so famous for?
yeah... sort of
This highlights the two extremes of listening to reproduced music.... does one listen for content or quality of the performance, or listen for reproduction quality? Most of the time, I'm about 40% content and 60% quality, seeing as I spend an inordinate amount of effort refining my system, I tend toward the technical side.
However, given that some music "takes me back" or "evokes a visual experience","have a flashback" since, over 50 years ago, I played pieces by Holst, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, etc.... in orchestral settings, it doesn't much matter what the quality of the recording is (although I do get pissed if they really screw it up, since I have insight into how it SHOULD be played)
John L.
This highlights the two extremes of listening to reproduced music.... does one listen for content or quality of the performance, or listen for reproduction quality? Most of the time, I'm about 40% content and 60% quality, seeing as I spend an inordinate amount of effort refining my system, I tend toward the technical side.
However, given that some music "takes me back" or "evokes a visual experience","have a flashback" since, over 50 years ago, I played pieces by Holst, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, etc.... in orchestral settings, it doesn't much matter what the quality of the recording is (although I do get pissed if they really screw it up, since I have insight into how it SHOULD be played)
John L.
Last edited:
I don't know whether the point is reached for a trade off or not, I just have not studied the issue enough. But starting to do so out of necessity since one driver is a variant of what I use now, it would be interesting to go back and figure things out. Since this is a single wide band driver, it would be very interesting to compare.
Yes.
This was information that I received from Bill Hanuschak at GPA in a phone conversation, and passed on to Lynn.
It's not just the rising response; the Qts is also lower. In a box, the F3 is a bit higher, and the total system Q is of course lower. The stuffing lowers the Q yet more, and the result is subjectively lean. I could work with the crossover to mitigate the rising response, but it would still sound lean.
I wondered the same thing, which is why I spent the money to find out. It seemed like a very reasonable thing to try, because the Q was still very close to optimum (before the addition of stuffing, at least). But in this case, the additional motor strength is wasted. The increase in efficiency is comparatively small, and equalization would probably throw it away completely. I listened carefully for something special in its sound that would make it worth equalizing, but came to realize that it would be a challenge to make the 515 sound as good as the 416 in this system. Trying to accomplish this would make no sense; one could buy three alnico 416's for the cost of a pair of alnico 515's.
Would a different enclosure change the results? Possibly, but it would take yet a smaller sealed enclosure to get higher Q with the 515, and the F3 would be even higher. The bass band-splitting frequency that I am getting with the 416 works really well, so I'd rather keep it where it is.
I was well aware when I started that the 515 was designed for a different type of use (VOT horn), but thought it was worth a try.
I agree that the 745Be might sound better still with a bit of EQ, and might try it sometime in the future. But its superiority over the 745/alu isn't a matter of frequency response. The breakup behavior of aluminum diaphragms cause problems that detract from the natural reproduction of many orchestral instruments, especially woodwinds and strings. I can hear it easily through differences in frequency response.
The Be diaphragms are still not perfect, but they do appear to present a legitimate path to getting acceptable sound from a compression driver and horn (I was really beginning to doubt that it was possible).
Gary Dahl
Yes. In my listening room, it was obvious when the Qtc had reached the sweet spot.
No.
Yes. 🙂
Gary Dahl
It is looking quite likely.
It's always been a toss up between one of the AE drivers (but which one) or only a handful of other drivers to cover (-6dB) between 80 and 320 as a direct radiator sealed box midbass.
To tell the truth, I'd always been secretly barracking for the 416 too :-D