So what is? If the recording doesn't represent the intent of the artist, then I'm pretty sure nothing else does, either. If accurate reproduction of the recording doesn't get us closer to that intent, then what does? I don't think it is practical to equip one's listening room with multiple monitors that might have been used in a recording studio, over a long period of time, and apply room damping like might have been used in a recording studio, and use the same amps that were used, etc etc. Do we all have to put a big glass window in our listening rooms to more accurately reflect the artist's intent?
Or do we equalize the heck out of everything until it sounds nice to our ears, and never mind what what was put on the recording? I can seen advantages both ways, but as a rule I prefer "flat", "accurate" reproduction of the recording, warts and all (perhaps barring some very old and "bad" recordings that need help, but even then I probably wouldn't play them on my main system, which lacks tone controls). I guess that is just a preference decision I made a long time ago. I want to hear what is on the recording, and I don't really care what the "artist" (or producer) heard when it was recorded.
Why is that strange, and what does it even mean?
Why? Why is that "the ideal"? That is far from ideal in my tiny world, it is the last thing I might be interested in. (But then, I don't use Led Zep as a reference.) My system is specifically designed to do many things very well, but playing loud is not one of them. I have heard lots of bands live in big venues (eg., Arcade Fire at Madison Square Garden), and I love it, but that is absolutely NOT the sound I want in my living room, even if I had a few thousand friends drop by.
'Strange', merely because many suggest that headphone and speaker listening are quite different experiences ... but, sound is sound -- a transducer excites the air, so there should be a very strong crossover in the subjective impression.
High SPLs for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't want to be stuck in a chair at a prime position to hear the good stuff, I like it to fill the house, as does my wife. If I go to the far end of the internal space of the house I still want the impact of the musical 'event' to register strongly - but then be able to also go directly in front of the speakers, in passing so to speak, and the sound to still be 'right'.
Secondly, what is loud? My last couple of setups have been very low powered, and that really demonstrates the tremendous range of subjective, apparent volume ranges of recordings - I have many classical CDs and a few older, popular recordings where the volume control is jammed hard on maximum, I'm struggling to get enough gain for a decent replay level. Yet, put on a recent pop recording and my ears will overload in a matter of minutes at anywhere near that setting, I drop it down to about 2/3rds, to be able to live with the sound.
So, the 'loudness' aspect is really about dynamic range, being able to sustain the crescendos cleanly - these high points are the mark of natural, acoustic sound. If a system can handle an overcooked pop recording at higher volumes, then it will also do the job, 'effortlessly' as they say, when a peak of sound arrives, in a solo piano piece or orchestral ...
High SPLs for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't want to be stuck in a chair at a prime position to hear the good stuff, I like it to fill the house, as does my wife. If I go to the far end of the internal space of the house I still want the impact of the musical 'event' to register strongly - but then be able to also go directly in front of the speakers, in passing so to speak, and the sound to still be 'right'.
Secondly, what is loud? My last couple of setups have been very low powered, and that really demonstrates the tremendous range of subjective, apparent volume ranges of recordings - I have many classical CDs and a few older, popular recordings where the volume control is jammed hard on maximum, I'm struggling to get enough gain for a decent replay level. Yet, put on a recent pop recording and my ears will overload in a matter of minutes at anywhere near that setting, I drop it down to about 2/3rds, to be able to live with the sound.
So, the 'loudness' aspect is really about dynamic range, being able to sustain the crescendos cleanly - these high points are the mark of natural, acoustic sound. If a system can handle an overcooked pop recording at higher volumes, then it will also do the job, 'effortlessly' as they say, when a peak of sound arrives, in a solo piano piece or orchestral ...
Last edited:
Headphone and speaker listening are quite different experiences - the acoustic environment is quite different. That is why headphones and speakers are different items optimised for different purposes. Using either to substitute for the other will at the very least give a poor frequency response. However, they use the same transducer physics so for an uncritical listener they can in an emergency act as substitutes.fas42 said:
No, it is your ears/brain which change tonality with volume. Cheap systems used to add 'loudness' controls to partially counteract this but hi-fi has generally avoided them. A hi-fi system should sound different at different volumes.fas42 said:
Last edited:
Peter d´Antonio and George Massenburg did a interesting presentation about the historical development in studio acoustics:
http://www.rpginc.com/docs\Technology\Presentations\Studio Design From Mono2Surround.pdf
A good explanation for one of the possible meanings of "high fidelity" is:
The goal of sound reproduction is to create an sound event at a different place that lead to a most similar perception as a listener would have had if he had been present during the original sound event.
(Original in german from Wolfgang Hoeg)
This definition is clearly bound to technical requirements and the perception of human listeners as well.
I´ve tried to describe the reasoning behind this approach a couple of weeks ago in
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-4202.html#post3574033
I think we've been here before,
. I have a certain, subjective 'effect' in mind, which mirrors the experience when hearing live, acoustic sounds at various distances - which I get when a system is working at a high quality level. I don't perceive this happening when systems are working below this standard, with changes in volume.
Thanks. However I don't see any mention at all of transducers, which is what my point was focusing on.
se
No, if there's segregation, it should be between the group of thoughtful people who design and build gear, do experiments, and give useful inputs versus the group of people who write long, gassy, content-free posts devoid of any data but chock-full of inapt analogies and speculation, and who have never designed so much as an RCA plug nor apparently built anything.
The former group often has disagreements with one another. These disagreements lead to rational argument, resulting in better understanding* and education among the less experienced; the latter group produces confusion, gas, and perpetuation of nonsense, relying on sheer volume of words and unshakeable self-confidence rather than analysis and evidence. They cannot be reasoned with, so the best solution, IMO, is to deny them sustenance.
*The first interaction I recall having with you involved you telling me I was all wet about a technical issue. You provided a tight and logical analysis in support of your point. I walked away smarter than I was before.
Even WITHIN that original context, "the intent of the artist" was not "fully represented". That was only what they signed-off on, at the time. And on a different day, their interpretation and performance would have been a little different, too. (And maybe they were even thinking that someday there would better speakers and then it would sound more like they intended.)
So what? What's your point? What's your recommendation? It's already less than perfect so it's pointless to strive for accurate reproduction?
I'm not trying to belittle your original observation, which is obviously valid, to some variable extent. I like pointing out flaws and turning rose-colored glasses brown as much as the next guy. (Although, for me, it's much more satisfying if I can then provide some solution or information that makes everything way better than before.)
I don't think that it's a significant problem. There is far more variability from other factors. We have to take whatever we can get and run with it (or not). But I still want to hear each particular recording as accurately as possible.
And it seems clear that the vast majority of what the artist chain wanted us to hear is present in every recording, almost regardless of sound quality. Maybe we can enjoy 50% of the composer's intent by hearing it rendered by a kazoo, and 75% with any real instruments, and 90% if the sound quality is high and the performers are professionals. Using a superb reproduction system could squeeze out a few percent more, which could be the difference between merely wonderful and sublime. On the other hand, acquiring the 1959 recording of David Oistrakh with the Philadelpia Orchestra, playing Tsaichovsky's Violin Concerto in D might provide a much greater improvement than any increase in system quality could, for that piece. (But I'll take both!)
With more-modern music that typically has only one performer or band that owns it or is well known for it, there is a related phenomenon. I have favorite recordings that I have heard hundreds of times. When I hear a different recording of the same song by the same performers, or a recording of a live performance of the same song by the same performers, often I don't enjoy the experience (although I was fascinated by Heart's acoustic version of "Crazy On You" from their album "The Road Home", when I first heard it). The first few times I experienced that, when I was young, it really jolted my thinking about "the artist's intent".
The passing of time, the changing of venues, everything changes what we get to hear and how we perceive it and how that makes us think and feel.
I think that maybe it all dwarfs the typical deviations due to recording studio conditions. It also dwarfs differences in our systems' reproduction accuracies, in one sense. But we can control THAT and making it better makes it better, because it gives us more information and more-accurate information.
(Or were you going to propose eq'ing based on which studio and era a recording came from? That might be interesting.)
Last edited:
In principle I agree with you (SY, post 44174), but how do we warn newbies? Do we just leave them to decide for themselves which group to listen to?
How do we resist the temptation (often quite strong) to 'park our tanks on the lawn' of a cable thread? (Or 'rain on their parade' or whatever metaphor you prefer)
How do we resist the temptation (often quite strong) to 'park our tanks on the lawn' of a cable thread? (Or 'rain on their parade' or whatever metaphor you prefer)
Last edited:
As I said, an effects box. Furthermore making points with a possibly flawed "reference" design is rather a waste of time. You know me I'm interested in things that look like one of those little 8-legged buggers but has only the 3-legged things inside.
The PSRR problem is probably a flaw in the original, that circut has maybe 60dB open-loop gain so the PSRR is no better. In a mic-pre if you start pushing gains over 40dB the gain accuracy and tracking are questionable and as you said the distortion is significant.
gootee - What would the picture look like if the rails were each 5 - 220 amp-hour lead acid batteries?
Last edited:
I could be flippant and say, "Think of it as evolution in action," but instead I'll observe that the latter group thrives on attention rather than accomplishment. One cannot deny accomplishment, but it's easy to deny attention.
No authority exercised as far as I can tell but a suggestion to not feed trolls. Threads are closed when the out and out abuse starts.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.