Compression is certainly not used in every recording and classical the very least, but you can bet there has been plenty of sneaky gain riding (-: Less compression or none, well the very reason that I prefer jazz. At some point you get where you hear what we are doing to everything. Bob Katz, he really exposed this quite some ago, much to his credit.
Two points:
1. It isn't an explanation of anything.
2. It only "stands" in the sense that it hasn't been removed from the server.
Apart from that, it's spot on.
Doesn't have to be an explanation - I'm emphasising what matters to me: creating the illusion of a real piano being played, irrespective of my distance from it. The acoustic it's in, and whether the image of it has stereo or mono qualities are of minor importance for me - the tonality, the impact of a crescendo of notes, the rich texture of harmonics when the damper is up, that's what counts. And most piano reproduction does a poor job there ...
The previous discussion was about whether there was a 'correct volume' at which to play a recording. Fletcher Munson was mentioned - the phenomenon you dismiss - and how the distance of the mic from the performer is related to the recorded ambience & stereo image and not just the amplitude level.
The Fletcher Munson phenomenon says that you will hear a sound's "tonality" differently depending on its volume. "The impact of a crescendo of notes" will be quite different at different volume levels because of this, and there can only be one level setting that sounds truly 'realistic' given a 'straight' recording and assuming everything else is working properly, flat EQ etc.
I don't remember where it came from, but it's mostly misunderstood. The 10,000 hours have to be spent in hard work, continually pushing one's abilities. Just doing something for 10,000 doesn't count - it has to be work done to improve the talent. Most of us don't put in the time with work on improving what we do.
Of course 10,000 hours of doing anything should make you good at it. I've probably spent 10,000 hours typing on a computer keyboard and I'm now up to a blazing 30 words per minute.
This, I fundamentally disagree with. For other people's systems, for how they're set up, the level of tune they're in, their acoustic environment, it may be different - and that's fine, if the person is happy with that arrangement then it's not for me to say it's 'wrong'.
However, that's not how it's works for me - when a system is functioning well there is no right volume: I can turn it up to being deafening, or drop it back down to pure background, elevator music levels - and it still sounds 'right'! My mind automatically adjusts for the 'real' SPLs, compensates completely unconsciously -and the tonality does not, subjectively, appear to alter ...
Again, I'm sorry, this is precisely how it works, at least for me, the same as with "real" music. If a brass band marches up the street, from in the distance, and goes past me, just feet away, the band always sounds 'correct' - the sense of what I'm hearing doesn't keep changing because the SPLs of that band keeps changing.
Now, with a non-optimum system, of course, it's easy to have those sort of issues: if the volume is a little too low then the sound is flat, uninteresting, easy to dismiss as nothing worth listening too; and if slightly too 'loud' then it becomes jarring, unpleasant, shouty - if particularly bad then there is a tiny range of volume which is 'just right', either side of which the perceived quality falls into one or the other 'pits'. This sort of sound I'm familiar with, have heard it many times - but I'm not interested in that type of thing ...
That's true. I have thought that this is because the designers have relied on measurement alone, especially FR. I'm not saying that Fletcher-Munson is wrong but people might have used it inappropriately as excuses.
At low volume it should sound as if you are listening a live music from a distance. Of course it is a bit difference because the real one cannot be as perfect (I have lived very close to a facility where people perform live performances).
Poorly designed ones do , properly balanced they will have same bandwidth from soft to high levels ...
On the money, Jay ...
That Fletcher-Munson thing is thrown in every time there's discussion of volumes - and it's not relevant. Real live sounds have FRs that go all over the place, for myriads of reasons - none of which affects the quality of the sound you subjectively hear. A live brass band quite some distance away doesn't sound dreary and boring - it has an 'aliveness' about it which makes one prick up the ears - yet a conventional hifi playing a 'perfectly' recorded version of same, at low volumes, will come across as nondescript, filler sound ...
That Fletcher-Munson thing is thrown in every time there's discussion of volumes - and it's not relevant. Real live sounds have FRs that go all over the place, for myriads of reasons - none of which affects the quality of the sound you subjectively hear. A live brass band quite some distance away doesn't sound dreary and boring - it has an 'aliveness' about it which makes one prick up the ears - yet a conventional hifi playing a 'perfectly' recorded version of same, at low volumes, will come across as nondescript, filler sound ...
I finally think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from.
Let's consider video. Yes, I can enjoy watching a film on a 17" screen with 2" speakers. I can immerse myself in the story and the plot just the same as if I was watching a 32" screen. Indeed, as long as the contrast, sharpness, colour, gamma and linearity are 'correct', the absolute size of the screen or how bright it can go are not particularly important to the experience. Just like the volume control on your stereo which doesn't affect your overall experience of music. Subtleties like Fletcher Munson don't really enter the equation. Badly mess up the colour or contrast settings, though, and the experience would be ruined (= frequency response, distortion in audio).
But if I want to experience the 'real thing'... if I want to be so immersed in the experience that it's overwhelming (or even unpleasant! - I'm thinking of the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan), then the 17" Aldi TV isn't going to cut it. It doesn't stimulate peripheral vision, it doesn't dazzle with brightness, the 2" speakers don't convey the explosions physically. In this case there is no substitute for the cinema, or 50" plasma TV or 3D projector with uber-surround sound system etc.
Personally, I don't have a huge TV, as I feel I can get 90% of the 'experience' on a smaller TV (as long as it has great colour, contrast etc.), because film and TV are primarily about plot.
With music, however, while there is some element of 'plot', a lot of it is to do with physical sensation. I find that I can enjoy my favourite music on any half-decent music system, but that a true hi fi system opens up the range of music I can enjoy, simply because I can hear and feel it better, at levels that actually convey something of the experience of 'being there'. If I'd never heard a real hi fi system, I'd probably be happy with a 1970s Alba music centre, just as TV viewers in the 1950s were happy with their 8" monochrome screens.
Edit: Maybe people in the audio world are often arguing at cross purposes: half of them are interested only in the colour, contrast, sharpness, gamma of their 17" screens (with amazingly developed Golden Eyes) while the rest of us are seeking the IMAX experience, and baffled why anyone would want to watch a tiny - but perfect - screen. And those of us into DSP active speakers are attempting to go beyond the flawed but highly-developed CRT, LCD or plasma and into the brave new world of OLED. Or something like that.
Last edited:
The Aldi is 46" actually - the 2" speakers are correct though. I've spent a fair bit of time getting the colour calibration, etc, right - it beats the pants off the major brand, 60"ers, down at the electrical store, simply because I've put some effort into getting the video close to optimum - it doesn't have the cartoon-like, orange people syndrome, etc.
Interesting you mentioned Saving PR, I saw that at a local cinema that just had a 'proper' audio setup installed by the fairly obsessive local hifi retailer guru - far superior to the usual cinema complex, Klipsch type rumbler - this had proper treble, amazing!! And those opening scenes were overwhelming - the sound of the gunshots had the bite of the real thing, very impressive.
Yes, it's about the physical sensation. Most systems don't do high intensity sound well, including the "real" ones - very few can go to higher volumes without starting to degenerate into PA quality sound - which is not what it's about ...
Has to be, if you have a small screen.
DLP is still King. And with the new laser light engines, it will be for some time. OLED does have a bright future for direct view.
Showing what's possible, a $60,000 SIM2 projector at the recent audio show outdid what the local cinemas manage, just from a Blu-ray disk - couldn't fault the, I guess about, 20ft screen image for resolution.
Only trouble is, the audio FRs are always tilted to make sure that something like the slamming of a car door sounds like a 10 ton weight hitting the ground. Well, it may be cute, and impress the friends - but it gets irritating and tiring, before too long ...
Only trouble is, the audio FRs are always tilted to make sure that something like the slamming of a car door sounds like a 10 ton weight hitting the ground. Well, it may be cute, and impress the friends - but it gets irritating and tiring, before too long ...
"to create the same experience" is not equivalent to, "to sound the same". The experience I speak of is the subjective impression of a real piano being played ...
Simple question: you're blindfolded, then led some distance and into a room where there is the sound of a piano being played. You're asked, with blindfold still on, is this playback of a recording, A, or a real instrument being played, B? Would you answer:
a) I can't tell unless I see what's there
b) There's always an obvious audible difference, to me it's plain that it's A, or B
c) It's impossible for A or B to be anywhere close in sound, it's obvious that it has to be A, or B
d) Maybe it's A, maybe B - I can't tell ...
Feel free to nominate another answer ...
Simple question: you're blindfolded, then led some distance and into a room where there is the sound of a piano being played. You're asked, with blindfold still on, is this playback of a recording, A, or a real instrument being played, B? Would you answer:
a) I can't tell unless I see what's there
b) There's always an obvious audible difference, to me it's plain that it's A, or B
c) It's impossible for A or B to be anywhere close in sound, it's obvious that it has to be A, or B
d) Maybe it's A, maybe B - I can't tell ...
Feel free to nominate another answer ...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.