I'm wanting to yell "NOT ALL Recordings" like the "not all <x>" I see in so many off-topic-for-diyaudio discussions ... there apparently are (or certainly were, many decades ago) recordings made with just one or two microphones, and little or no "post processing" (compression, EQ, plate/stpring reverb, Autotune and such).
This appears to be an example:
YouTube
I read about "how to do this" as written by a speaker designer on a BBS about 40 years ago. It's impractical to do with an orchestra, but you can do it with a single musical instrument. The example given was an acoustic guitar. Have a guitarist play something on the guitar while also recording it. Now place a speaker where the guitar was, and play back the recording.
This is of course fraught with "errors," the mic pics up the acoustics of the room along with the guitar (thus it should be reasonably close to the guitar, but not so close it hears the "near field"), and when played by the speaker one hears the room acoustics both live and in the recording, the particular mic and patter make a difference in the recorded sound, etc. You also "know" that the second and third time you hear something it's from the speaker (though perhaps the guitarist can do several near-identical sounding performances (the example I saw discussed was a simple chord or open-string strum that's easily reproducible), and the FIRST thing you hear might be through the speaker), and surely more stuff I'm not thinking of.
But you're at least comparing the speaker (and the mic and the rest of the reproduction chain) against the definitive sound that you (allegedly and theoretically) want to hear.
Yes, this can and tis does happen.
Please note that my comment wasn't really about the 'goodness' of feedback, also that it was local feedback, which is very different from global feedback. I definitely do not use and feedback around the output transformer is not something I do (it is a bandpass device after all). This was the output device folding back on to itself, that makes local feedback real time, if you know what I mean. The output impedance on the 8 Ohm tap is 4-5 Ohm and 2-2.5 Ohn on the 4 Ohm tap. This low impedance is not caused by any feedback of the secondary. Oh boy, it sounds really good but has a big drawback, the output stage needs a LOT of voltage swing to drive it, and there are a number of challenges to make it work - took me several years to solve it.
But we agree, when we hear actual information that wasn't there before, when an instrument or voice appears that you were not even listening for, nor expecting, how more objective can that be? It is no different from a visual observation when it is in front of your eyes. Are we also to be totally suspect to what we see with our eyes (yes, there are shortcomings here too, but is there anything better?). Then why not shut down all our perceptions and be damned with it. That will make the problem go away!
This is why I never have much time for this subjectivism versus objectivism stuff. It's just such an inane discussion. As for ABX, listening for differences under those circumstances creates an unnatural stress load on your senses - and I suspect we don't perform very well under stress.
And this war against trusting what we hear, isn't that counterproductive? What's the point of making something sound better (or just sound right where you hear what you need to hear) if it our hearing is not to be trusted? That a definite stop sign to progress.
But I suspect (I hope) that I am preaching to the converted in your case.
Cheers, Joe
My Leak TL10 and ST60 are patiently waiting in line for... 20 years+! 🙂
At least they have more orthodox LTP's.
This isolated Cleverscope is extremely well done.
YouTube
Skip a few minutes in for the teardown.
Software does FRA now too. Priced right, for what you get. I have one of those larger Arria V GX parts on my desk and Intel is asking $1230 for it. Of course they didn’t lower Altera’s pricing at all after acquiring them, but they did get rid of what seems to be the entire customer support group.
YouTube
Skip a few minutes in for the teardown.
Software does FRA now too. Priced right, for what you get. I have one of those larger Arria V GX parts on my desk and Intel is asking $1230 for it. Of course they didn’t lower Altera’s pricing at all after acquiring them, but they did get rid of what seems to be the entire customer support group.
My point was, the speakers aren't placed just anywhere, they are not usually pointed directly at the listener, and they don't necessarily need to be in an equilateral triangle, but they do need to be equidistant.
The question relating to equal pressurisation I asked before; wouldn't it be better to use a balance control and keep the speakers equidistant from the listener?
20+ years here too. It may be unorthodox but works. A small tweak (one pot per side) and it works even better.
I want to get it working as it offends the low/no GNFB tube crowd and measures well for its age.
A puzzling remark. Given the time constants you can calculate the required correction to as many decimal places as you desire. What is there to measure?john curl said:
I thought JC was merely saying that Holman was one of the first to get the right time constants in an RIAA network - they are somewhat counter-intuitive so before the Lipschitz paper most people got them wrong.hitsware said:
Proof 🙂
Plus, in the early 70's, I don't know about you guys, but I was messing with a slide ruler, and getting the decimal places was not as obvious as with a computer today.
Without a (yet-to-be-invented) inverse RIAA, measuring the whole freq range required about 6 different attenuators steps. Add the (in-)precision of the needle of the analog voltmeter, and you were in for a big treat if you wanted to get 0.1dB or 1% tolerance.
Okay, if the speakers are not placed "wherever", .... where are they placed? Is there some sort of method or procedure used? Nobody says anything, including you. So until someone says something, then "wherever" fits.
My post only mentioned triangle, which by definition is equidistant. Toe-in does vary with people and I'm sure there are some who do not do toe-in directly at the listening position.
The equilateral triangle gets mentioned a whole lot, in many places, as the best way to minimize room effects. TT has mentioned it numerous times in this very thread as being essential for best sound. It's very common.
Balance control can be used as a slight adjustment in signal level, if needed. I've done so myself at times. However, in setting up the speaker positioning, the balance control is not a part of that, and never gets mentioned anywhere in that regard, afaik.
BTW, one of your earlier posts had some links for speaker "tests", one of which included a mono signal. Well, if you want to know if your speakers are equally pressurizing your room with sound, just use the mono signal. By definition there is equal signal in to each speaker. If each speaker pressurizes the room equally then that mono signal will always appear to be perfectly centered between the speakers throughout the room. It's a really good check.
Last edited:
If you Google speaker positioning you'll find methods most of which are very similar, personally I listen near field in order to almost completely remove the room from the equation.
Earlier you mentioned that you usually listen with one speaker much closer than the other, this is why I'm asking whether you don't think using the balance control would be better so speakers could be kept equidistant (?)
Earlier you mentioned that you usually listen with one speaker much closer than the other, this is why I'm asking whether you don't think using the balance control would be better so speakers could be kept equidistant (?)
Last edited:
Sorry for spoiling your joke. On this forum humour and foolishness are indistinguishable.hitsware said:
My above post contains a big error.
A triangle by definition is just three sides, and I said otherwise and am too late to edit my post. What I should have said is that for purposes of the speaker-listener triangle, this triangle is most often equidistant from speaker to listening position, though not necessarily an equilateral triangle.
Moving on......................
My post was concerning people responding in this thread, and how they put their speakers in their rooms. I'm not concerned with what Google says. And it's pretty simple to just say, "I use such and such method", which is then self explanatory. Without that it's just "wherever". And that's fine, "wherever" is fine, though it may not be the best.
So, you sit near field. Near field is good. I always have had small rooms and have always listened near field no matter how I put the speakers in the room. But listening near field is not speaker positioning.
Yes, you are correct, I sit off to one side of my room and therefore am not equidistant to each speaker in any way. Balance control is way of compensation for that, but then you ruin the sound everywhere else in the room. I get much more satisfactory results by adjusting the position of one speaker. I do sometimes entertain others who assist me in the design of electronics. I like the sound to be as equal as possible throughout the room, and the balance control is useless for that.
What I do find balance control useful for is to adjust slightly for a particular recording, but only for that and not very often.
I was asking about using the balance control to compensate for sound pressure imbalances due to the room with both speakers equidistant, sorry I don't know how to make it any clearer. I thought you were getting equal sound level by sitting where you are? If not, it's even worse than I thought 🙂
I have a Buddy Holly Album on a CD in my car and it really sounds weak and is lacking in volume, I'm guessing the CD is true to the original.
weak compared to what? and have you heard of this mavellous thing called a 'volume control'?
below is foobar DR output for a random buddy holly album. Looks like done normally
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Buddy Holly / From The Original Master Tapes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 0.00 dB -12.64 dB 2:18 01-That'll Be The Day
DR11 0.00 dB -12.76 dB 2:10 02-Oh, Boy!
DR14 0.00 dB -15.55 dB 2:24 03-Not Fade Away
DR12 0.00 dB -13.97 dB 2:01 04-Tell Me How
DR11 0.00 dB -13.10 dB 2:04 05-Maybe Baby
DR12 0.00 dB -14.98 dB 2:09 06-Everyday
DR10 0.00 dB -11.13 dB 2:14 07-Rock Around With Ollie Vee
DR12 0.00 dB -13.82 dB 2:12 08-It's So Easy
DR10 0.00 dB -12.19 dB 1:58 09-I'm Lookin' For Someone To Love
DR11 0.00 dB -13.03 dB 2:32 10-Peggy Sue
DR12 0.00 dB -13.43 dB 2:17 11-I'm Gonna Love You Too
DR14 -0.09 dB -17.73 dB 1:57 12-Words Of Love
DR9 0.00 dB -10.64 dB 1:51 13-Rave On
DR10 0.00 dB -11.92 dB 2:15 14-Well...All Right
DR12 -0.27 dB -17.15 dB 2:23 15-Listen To Me
DR10 0.00 dB -12.18 dB 1:48 16-Think It Over
DR11 0.00 dB -12.33 dB 2:11 17-Heartbeat
DR12 0.00 dB -14.03 dB 2:02 18-Reminiscing
DR10 0.00 dB -12.81 dB 2:08 19-It Doesn't Matter Anymore
DR11 0.00 dB -14.17 dB 3:02 20-True Love Ways
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
below is foobar DR output for a random buddy holly album. Looks like done normally
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Buddy Holly / From The Original Master Tapes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 0.00 dB -12.64 dB 2:18 01-That'll Be The Day
DR11 0.00 dB -12.76 dB 2:10 02-Oh, Boy!
DR14 0.00 dB -15.55 dB 2:24 03-Not Fade Away
DR12 0.00 dB -13.97 dB 2:01 04-Tell Me How
DR11 0.00 dB -13.10 dB 2:04 05-Maybe Baby
DR12 0.00 dB -14.98 dB 2:09 06-Everyday
DR10 0.00 dB -11.13 dB 2:14 07-Rock Around With Ollie Vee
DR12 0.00 dB -13.82 dB 2:12 08-It's So Easy
DR10 0.00 dB -12.19 dB 1:58 09-I'm Lookin' For Someone To Love
DR11 0.00 dB -13.03 dB 2:32 10-Peggy Sue
DR12 0.00 dB -13.43 dB 2:17 11-I'm Gonna Love You Too
DR14 -0.09 dB -17.73 dB 1:57 12-Words Of Love
DR9 0.00 dB -10.64 dB 1:51 13-Rave On
DR10 0.00 dB -11.92 dB 2:15 14-Well...All Right
DR12 -0.27 dB -17.15 dB 2:23 15-Listen To Me
DR10 0.00 dB -12.18 dB 1:48 16-Think It Over
DR11 0.00 dB -12.33 dB 2:11 17-Heartbeat
DR12 0.00 dB -14.03 dB 2:02 18-Reminiscing
DR10 0.00 dB -12.81 dB 2:08 19-It Doesn't Matter Anymore
DR11 0.00 dB -14.17 dB 3:02 20-True Love Ways
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
Just saw what happened there, when you quoted me you left out the relevant part to my question
- Status
- Not open for further replies.