The 780 has a stark mosfet amp of Valerys design I laid out on a pcb to fit 780 as a daughter card.
The ta7136p have been replaced by a twin triode 6922 tube preamp w 120v reg and low noise -115db power supply, the hpm 900 have a .33mh choke and .47 ohm resistor added to the woofer.
The mid has been phase aligned with an extra Cap. Tweeter has inline 4.7 ohm resistor added.
Have no idea what he is saying but the hpm cone material is very light ridgid and apparently brittle when refoaming. There is a midrange harshness that disappears after the changes. They have very low distortion and can fill a large room.
Turntable preamp has been vastly improved as well.
This has been project to achieve the sound from high end audio systems.
If you have a boutique audio store in your area , listen to dsd 24 bit streamer into a tube preamp then into 250w monoblocks feeding the best speakers they have.
This is the reference.
Listening at a tenth of a watt on up to 80 this thing sounds fantastic.
The ta7136p have been replaced by a twin triode 6922 tube preamp w 120v reg and low noise -115db power supply, the hpm 900 have a .33mh choke and .47 ohm resistor added to the woofer.
The mid has been phase aligned with an extra Cap. Tweeter has inline 4.7 ohm resistor added.
Have no idea what he is saying but the hpm cone material is very light ridgid and apparently brittle when refoaming. There is a midrange harshness that disappears after the changes. They have very low distortion and can fill a large room.
Turntable preamp has been vastly improved as well.
This has been project to achieve the sound from high end audio systems.
If you have a boutique audio store in your area , listen to dsd 24 bit streamer into a tube preamp then into 250w monoblocks feeding the best speakers they have.
This is the reference.
Listening at a tenth of a watt on up to 80 this thing sounds fantastic.
Last edited:
academia 50
that video...french guy not saying much other than spouting his personal opinion on these vintage speakers...
that video...french guy not saying much other than spouting his personal opinion on these vintage speakers...
Back to the topic?
It is possible to recreate a sound in space pretty good - it's called "Ambisonics". You have a (half) dome full with loudspeakers and quite some processing behind it. But you reproduce a 3D sound field in which you can walk around.
Of coourse you also need to record your source with multichannel ambisonic microphones - here is an installation from the university I studied sound engineering, but there are also easier ways for lower order sound capturing.
Sound field reproduction is simply not possible with stereo. And even surround formats like Auro are just a hint to what's possible with sound reproduction.
The "problem" with this technology - it sounds incredibly natural. No big effects, do fat sound - you just hear a guitar/orchester/... as you are used to it in real. The big "WOW" only comes when you switch to 5.1 or Stereo reproduction, the you notice how much is missing with what we hear in our homes.
It is possible to recreate a sound in space pretty good - it's called "Ambisonics". You have a (half) dome full with loudspeakers and quite some processing behind it. But you reproduce a 3D sound field in which you can walk around.
Of coourse you also need to record your source with multichannel ambisonic microphones - here is an installation from the university I studied sound engineering, but there are also easier ways for lower order sound capturing.
Sound field reproduction is simply not possible with stereo. And even surround formats like Auro are just a hint to what's possible with sound reproduction.
The "problem" with this technology - it sounds incredibly natural. No big effects, do fat sound - you just hear a guitar/orchester/... as you are used to it in real. The big "WOW" only comes when you switch to 5.1 or Stereo reproduction, the you notice how much is missing with what we hear in our homes.
Thanks, @IamJF I was beginning to think this thread was descending into another ‘dick-swinging‘ session 🤦♂️
It’s a shame we can’t fully experience Dave’s experiment without being there or recreating it ourselves. He even points out, at the end, that the video is still recorded, and played back in stereo.
It’s a shame we can’t fully experience Dave’s experiment without being there or recreating it ourselves. He even points out, at the end, that the video is still recorded, and played back in stereo.
Thanks for such a detailed explanation. I do not want to detract from your task at all, congratulations on the result achieved.
It's just that I'm very skeptical about changes to vintage speakers, Troels has done several and it seems with good results, and I seem to remember him calling the Pioneer HPM900 a good speaker for his time. There was no CSD analysis back then, but I guess it's not so essential to do it to get a good result.
CJ66 :
I will not deviate the subject further. I have no intention of comparing my "tools" with those of others, in my years of sports I have already had the opportunity to know in which league I play, when after the match we went to the showers......😳
Last edited:
In that speaker the woofer is connected straight to the terminals and displays no apparent breakup. It does have spotty response after 3 to 5 khz. Adding the choke smoothes this out as the mid can get past 15khz.
I have got used to the idea of listening to recordings as they sound in the recording booth, with studio monitors, rather than in a live performance. At least that is the goal. I may move back out of near field sometimes, but hearing all the instruments and sounds on the track whether natural or electronic, is my goal, hopefully in the right proportions, but I will never know.
(Images through Openverse, Creative Commons type licenses)
The concept described is to recreate the live performance as if you were there, as I understand it. Both situations are real.
(Images through Openverse, Creative Commons type licenses)
The concept described is to recreate the live performance as if you were there, as I understand it. Both situations are real.
Yup - listening to what the musicians and producer wanted you to hear is possible. But not in a normal living room situation.
Listening to the original sond of something is not possible - with Stereo.
Listening to the original sond of something is not possible - with Stereo.
Then do we have to go back to the studio where it was recorded? Where then? Given that each room is different, I can see your point.
Up to a point -but then, the majority of artists, engineers and producers don't mix & master albums assuming that everybody is sitting at their mixing desk. The majority of material is mixed & mastered assuming a reasonably broad range of conditions out of necessity, and very few are produced assuming some idealised set of 'audiophile' (whatever they are 😉 ) situations. So it can rather depend on what they did or had in mind -or sometimes what you assume they had in mind.
Last edited:
The typical argument "that the music should sound the way the musicians wanted" now seems to have an addition:
" and the sound engineer "...It's not like that, that's a myth.
Did The Beatles want the sound of an LP to sound the way it was manipulated by Phill Spector, Geoff Emerick, George Martin or someone else who "put spoon in the cooking pot " on the original tapes?
The musician simply plays his work, and expects the resulting recording to be similar to what he played, but is not aware of whether his instrument emitted few harmonics, whether there was distortion at some point and should be removed, etc. He / they simply see the result that they propose before launching the work on the market, and many times they are not satisfied with what they hear. But they can't or don't want to go back most of the time...
So, whether or not the reverb addition is pleasant - I bet not - for a solo singer, depends on a deplorable - in my opinion - judgment of the subject who controls the console.
The musician is immersed in a lot of sound and tries to synchronize himself through the monitors, he can never hear the "everything" like a spectator at a live concert or those who attend a recording session.
Read :
Thus, when McCartney created "Yesterday", the producer added a string section, although the bassist did not want it at first; in "A Day in the Life" (the result of two songs composed by McCartney and Lennon separately), Martin composed the score that was recorded by a 40-piece orchestra to tie the two parts together, and on "Eleanor Rigby," he added four violins, two violas and two cellos to accompany McCartney, in an arrangement that Martin later claimed was inspired by the Psycho soundtrack by Alfred Hitchcock.
But, without a doubt, his most significant participation was in "In My Life", a song written by Lennon about his childhood and adolescence. The musician asked Martin if he could add a baroque piano in the middle of the song. The producer was inspired by Johann Sebastian Bach to play a solo that was recorded with accelerated time to fit with what they had already done."
https://applauss.com/el-legado-inquebrantable-de-george-martin/
Did any of the fabulous four have any of that in mind when they played their instruments ? 😒
" and the sound engineer "...It's not like that, that's a myth.
Did The Beatles want the sound of an LP to sound the way it was manipulated by Phill Spector, Geoff Emerick, George Martin or someone else who "put spoon in the cooking pot " on the original tapes?
The musician simply plays his work, and expects the resulting recording to be similar to what he played, but is not aware of whether his instrument emitted few harmonics, whether there was distortion at some point and should be removed, etc. He / they simply see the result that they propose before launching the work on the market, and many times they are not satisfied with what they hear. But they can't or don't want to go back most of the time...
So, whether or not the reverb addition is pleasant - I bet not - for a solo singer, depends on a deplorable - in my opinion - judgment of the subject who controls the console.
The musician is immersed in a lot of sound and tries to synchronize himself through the monitors, he can never hear the "everything" like a spectator at a live concert or those who attend a recording session.
Read :
Thus, when McCartney created "Yesterday", the producer added a string section, although the bassist did not want it at first; in "A Day in the Life" (the result of two songs composed by McCartney and Lennon separately), Martin composed the score that was recorded by a 40-piece orchestra to tie the two parts together, and on "Eleanor Rigby," he added four violins, two violas and two cellos to accompany McCartney, in an arrangement that Martin later claimed was inspired by the Psycho soundtrack by Alfred Hitchcock.
But, without a doubt, his most significant participation was in "In My Life", a song written by Lennon about his childhood and adolescence. The musician asked Martin if he could add a baroque piano in the middle of the song. The producer was inspired by Johann Sebastian Bach to play a solo that was recorded with accelerated time to fit with what they had already done."
https://applauss.com/el-legado-inquebrantable-de-george-martin/
Did any of the fabulous four have any of that in mind when they played their instruments ? 😒
Last edited:
ah come on,there's enuff going on with the Circle of Confusion (which is a conspiracy to keep music lovers at odds) that to start down the rabbit hole of "WHAT THE PRODUCER INTENDED/CONTRIBUTED/BASTARDIZED/THOUGHT" is going to far...
get some fresh air...
get some fresh air...
Probably true in some cases. But most (genuine) artists / musicians are not passive participants; most have a say / input into, or outright decide on engineering specifics, the choice of studio, staff, producer etc. The latter may well have ideas of their own (you'd hope they do), which they'll run past the artists and may, or may not, get incorporated into the tracks: it's a participation / partnership, not a dictatorship. You get exceptions but it's rare for a producer etc. to take a dominant artistic role over the nominal group -some of Trevor Horn's being the most well-known examples. On the other hand -some of the groups who worked with him went into it both knowing and wanting that.
More prosaically, since the '60s are mentioned: a lot of the popular music was mixed / mastered assuming it would be played on a Dansette or similar, and equivalents still exist today. That's partly (partly) what the compression wars of 20 years ago was about. Many early CD releases sounded ear-splitting, not because of the medium itself or the limitations of the early players, but because they were direct transfers of vinyl masters, which were balanced / EQ'd for that particular medium's physical characteristics / needs. And so on & so forth. Interesting -to a point anyway. 😉
More prosaically, since the '60s are mentioned: a lot of the popular music was mixed / mastered assuming it would be played on a Dansette or similar, and equivalents still exist today. That's partly (partly) what the compression wars of 20 years ago was about. Many early CD releases sounded ear-splitting, not because of the medium itself or the limitations of the early players, but because they were direct transfers of vinyl masters, which were balanced / EQ'd for that particular medium's physical characteristics / needs. And so on & so forth. Interesting -to a point anyway. 😉
Last edited:
Debatable. Two microphones will data reduce two complex multi-directional vector sound fields into two simple amplitude scalars. The technique strips out the bulk of HRTF data two ears require for full localisation. I'm currently playing with a pair of full range sealed box JX92S speakers with passive frequency correction. Material recorded with mics employing semi-binaural techniques such as the examples below which encode some aspect of the originals HRTF often create sound fields larger than the listening room left, right and back.
Adding another microphone was the simplest possible route for transitioning from mono to stereo at a time when the hearing process wasn't widely understood. The audio world is still following a path started in the 1930s.
Attachments
Is my argument going too far? Do you have the link, do you want more examples? I think you missed the point, the MYTH is "what should be heard is exactly the musical work as the musicians created it" Forget it.
I have no knowledge of this gentleman's work, but from what you say, it is "the exception that proves the rule". In short, the vast majority of musical works (of any genre) are altered in one way or another in the path from when it is performed to when you listen to it, whatever the medium (support). There is a lot of "cloth to cut" there.
I would recommend to the staunch defenders that good speakers "should reproduce" what the musician wanted us to hear "to reconsider that premise.
Many musicians were surprised when they heard their own work.
I think that many of those who think here should listen to a live camera concert and then buy the recording. It is the closest thing to what they are looking for. They are probably right there. (if the console knob manipulator has intellectual/professional honesty and does not alter the content )
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar to Scottmoose's initial post about a simple 3rd channel implementation, here is a guy who did a number of different surround upmixers in Max / MSP.
https://www.skimaudio.com/single-post/2017/12/12/Stereo-to-51-Channel-Converter-in-MaxMSP
Max is pretty cool for audio processing, I've got it doing x-over / EQ / delay for my home stereo. I played around with these some. The problem is like IamJF says, a good implementation sounds natural, and so many of these sorts of things are tweaked in to give a 'wow' factor that sounds unnatural after listening for some time. That being said, I think some of these upmixing algorithms could be turned down enough to eventually be satisfying... but I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
https://www.skimaudio.com/single-post/2017/12/12/Stereo-to-51-Channel-Converter-in-MaxMSP
Max is pretty cool for audio processing, I've got it doing x-over / EQ / delay for my home stereo. I played around with these some. The problem is like IamJF says, a good implementation sounds natural, and so many of these sorts of things are tweaked in to give a 'wow' factor that sounds unnatural after listening for some time. That being said, I think some of these upmixing algorithms could be turned down enough to eventually be satisfying... but I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
ok so rabbit holes is where you live...i get it...you are right about one thing there is a lot of "myths" out there, and some of them need to fade into the myst!!!
I "helped out" at a little hifi shoppe, in a small well-heeled town, in the mid 70's. I was 16. The owner was pretty active in the trade show circuits, diy, and retail. He'd kinda seen it all. I learned sarcastic, sardonic, and ironic from this man. A gem. One afternoon he announced...a little sourly...
"One day my booth will be an unmiked trio of live players behind a curtain. I'll introduce it as my latest entry to the loudspeaker market.
Just stand by and listen to the critiques. It'll be hilarious!!"
"One day my booth will be an unmiked trio of live players behind a curtain. I'll introduce it as my latest entry to the loudspeaker market.
Just stand by and listen to the critiques. It'll be hilarious!!"
Last edited:
You don't mean this: (from a Google search. Fair use?)
That's not even a speaker. To be fair, when I first heard the Beatles it was over a transistor radio. A.M. transistor radio. I have better since, which is the problem.