:: The Problem With Hi Fidelity ::

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#122
despotic931 said:


They care, it is very much an issue, and the biggest thing that comes into play is the actual placement of the mic, or if using multiple mics placing them in such a way that minimizes phasing issues. However as with anything it's a series of compromises, place a mic in one location and it lacks the desired sound, place it in another different position and you instead now have extreme phasing issues. The worst is when micing drums sets, I have become a fan of the minimalist approach, less is more when it comes to drum mics in a studio setting. The best you can do is listen and play with different mic positions until you get it close, sometimes days are spent just playing with mic placements in the studio. If it is a simple problem of being 180 deg off though that is just a simple flip of a switch, and isn't an issue as it is pretty noticeable in a studio setting. I hope that answers your question.

-Justin
Click to expand...
Just using the listening method to determine polarity may sometimes be in error when testing mics for polarity. These normally happen when the speaker used for monitoring have XOs designed so that drivers may be polarity inverted to create a smooth SPL response. I have tried this type of design and is showed very weird experience. A more organized way is to have all inputs and output default to non-inverting, and mark the mics to show whether it's polarity inverting or not. One important thing is also to mark the figure of 8 mic to indicate which side in inverting and which side not.

In the home playback system, there are really only two choices. But if the original recording is consistent in polarity of one recording, then we can just flip the switch to our desire to get the best playback.
 
#123
Patrick Bateman said:


Yes, when did the title of this thread change from "the problem with hi fidelity" to "yet another ..........."
Click to expand...

Actually what I said the problem I have with hifi is the recording

Could you imagine if there was such a thing as 'Perfect Sound for Ever"?

I have a handful of CD's that hint at the quality of an LP

SACD is better than CD but little choice

Now we have emerging lower quality formats - how hard is it to have high fidelity to them?
 
#124
Magnetar said:


I surely do - if you are referring to a recording of a performance-

😀
Click to expand...


Again, one must be clear about whether They are refering to the technical or the aestetic. Yes, technically, I agree. It so easy to get these aspects mixed up. If you look closely at a lot of "arguments" they come down to one person arguing from the technical side and another from the aestheitics side. Of course they won't ever agree - they are apples and oranges.
 
#125
Magnetar said:


Actually what I said the problem I have with hifi is the recording

Could you imagine if there was such a thing as 'Perfect Sound for Ever"?

I have a handful of CD's that hint at the quality of an LP

SACD is better than CD but little choice

Now we have emerging lower quality formats - how hard is it to have high fidelity to them?
Click to expand...
I think if we look at all figures in various equipment, most distortion come from speakers, then is the impedance mismatch due to load variation.

Recording issues, other than better mics and correct polarity, probably there is not much that can be standardized on unless the same task force is used at the same location all the time.
 
#129
soongsc said:

I think if we look at all figures in various equipment, most distortion come from speakers, then is the impedance mismatch due to load variation.

Recording issues, other than better mics and correct polarity, probably there is not much that can be standardized on unless the same task force is used at the same location all the time.
Click to expand...

Almost all recordings have faults, I would ay all but I haven't heard them all. I can readily hear these faults with my speakers so i say the speaker is better than the recording.

Yes, we should have recording police that inspect and enforce a standard of quality set forth by the best in the business. Without that we will have to live with the garbage being forced on us today.
 
#131
Magnetar said:



Well it's not secondary or irrelevant if the transducer is good enough to show the flaws in the recording is it?
Click to expand...


I don't follow.

And I don't think that your earlier statement "I can readily hear these faults with my speakers so I say the speaker is better than the recording." is necessarily correct if the flaws are "different". Microphones and microphone placement creates a different set of flaws than loudspeakers and rooms. Thus one could be better in one respect and the other in another respect, which is, I believe the case.

Having designed both loudspeakers and microphones I can tell you that they have a completely different set of problems. One is acoustically small, the other large. One can be extremely inefficient, the other has trouble when this occurs. They have completely different tradeoffs.
 
#132
gedlee said:



I don't follow.

And I don't think that your earlier statement "I can readily hear these faults with my speakers so I say the speaker is better than the recording." is necessarily correct if the flaws are "different". Microphones and microphone placement creates a different set of flaws than loudspeakers and rooms. Thus one could be better in one respect and the other in another respect, which is, I believe the case.

Having designed both loudspeakers and microphones I can tell you that they have a completely different set of problems. One is acoustically small, the other large. One can be extremely inefficient, the other has trouble when this occurs. They have completely different tradeoffs.
Click to expand...

So standardize the recording end of it.. If we don't have good recordings then why care about fidelity to them?
 
#133
soongsc said:

Just using the listening method to determine polarity may sometimes be in error when testing mics for polarity. These normally happen when the speaker used for monitoring have XOs designed so that drivers may be polarity inverted to create a smooth SPL response. I have tried this type of design and is showed very weird experience. A more organized way is to have all inputs and output default to non-inverting, and mark the mics to show whether it's polarity inverting or not. One important thing is also to mark the figure of 8 mic to indicate which side in inverting and which side not.

In the home playback system, there are really only two choices. But if the original recording is consistent in polarity of one recording, then we can just flip the switch to our desire to get the best playback.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm understanding now more of what you meant, you were speaking of purely inverted phase caused by the mics themselves, and the preamps, and using different mics and preamps throughout the recording process that may have phases that are inverted to one another? Not so much about minor phasing issues caused by mic placement when using multiple mics at the same time?

In that sense it is something that is cared about, but it can vary from studio to studio. I've seen marked mics just like you said, and you are correct about setting all outputs to non-inverting. However, most the time it is not something that is written down, and it's getting easier in todays world of digital recordings, now you can push a button and see if anything is out of phase even a little bit. As far as my listening method goes, you are right, but it is much easier if you sum everything to a mono buss and play it through a single full-range speaker, and I am a firm believer that every studio needs this capability as it can reveal so much about a mix.

-Justin
 
#134
Magnetar said:


So standardize the recording end of it.. If we don't have good recordings then why care about fidelity to them?
Click to expand...


Such a standardization would imply an absolutly correct method exists. I doubt that you would get agreement on that point. And there are so many different venues, live in concert hall, live in small club, direct to recording, how do you standardize this wide diversity.

But yes, I find as the playback system gets better, the recordings seem to be getting worse, with a few getting better. But there can be huge flaws on the older stuff too. I actually would have to say that, in general, the situation has remained constant. Some good, some bad. It all about commercial sales and targeting what sells and that has never been high-fidelity.

I had thought that a recent CD from Linda Ronstandt and Ann Savoy sounded very good, and it does in parts. But I kept hearing something that I didn't like and in fact spent some time trying to figure out if the speakers had a problem. Then I found, much to my dismay, that substantial parts of the CD were actually clipped. It was these parts that caused the audible problems.

I wrote an algorithm to fix this clipping and low and behold it was a significant imrpovement. I sent this "before-after" cut out to some "audiophile" friends for evaluation (they were blind as to the differences) and the responses were quite disappointing. Many could not hear a difference - this could be playback issues - but those who did hear a difference almost universally prefered the clipping.

I would love to know if the producer intended this clipping, or if he was unaware of it. Its a curiuos state of afairs.
 
#135
Back in the early 1980’s, I got fairly involved with audio and audio electronics. I started experimenting with solid state and generally would always find that the amplifiers and equipment I worked with had something missing which I tended to perceive as naturalness or natural sound. I tried different circuits, replacing transistors and other components with better components and even used effects such as equalizers, dynamic range expanders and digital delay systems, but somehow everything seemed to lack the natural or live sound I was looking for. It probably had a lot to do with the low quality of the components I was using at the time. The only tube audio that I had listened to before that was from tubed black and white TV sets, which wasn’t high quality.

After reading an article in a 1987 issue of Discover Magazine about tube amps, I decided to build one myself using TV tubes and found that this had much of the natural sound I was looking for. I later modified the amp for hi fi tubes, built some more tube amps and preamps and then started collecting tube amps and tubed radios from thrift stores and antique stores and fixed them up when needed (new tubes, capacitors, etc.). I mainly used old issues of Audio Magazine, Radio Electronics, Glass Audio and books as a guide. Later on, I heard some solid state systems that had that missing natural sound I was looking for and I realized that a lot of it had to do with eliminating distortion, but I still experimented with tubes for a long time. They were close enough to the audiophile’s holy grail for me. I think I’ve come close enough to live sound quality, so I feel that my curiosity has been satisfied in that sense. I think it goes beyond just reproducing the live sound. Maybe it has more to do with understanding the artistic meaning that the musicians are trying to convey. Sound quality can have a lot to do with it. I remember one time experimenting with a stereo spring reverb system that I put together using a single ended EL84 based stereo tube amp that I found in the back of TV repair shop, with a stereo cascode preamp and mixer I built. I hooked it up to the effects loop of a Fisher 500-B (FM radio & stereo tube amp) and listened to some jazz on the radio. I tried sharing one spring reverb tank system between both channels and then tried using independent spring reverb in each channel, both with the same channel and also going into the opposite channel. I found that using independent spring reverb for each channel which goes back to the same channel sounds the best. I remember when adjusting the volume of the spring reverb and listening to someone playing the saxophone on the radio. Without spring reverb it wasn’t too exciting, but when I turned it up, I felt I could understand the musician’s message and could get into the music. I used spring reverb since its physically closer to real life reverb compared to electronic reverb (ie. digital or “analog” bucket brigade devices). Also, using spring reverb in combination with a good quality digital reverb can add interesting effects with musical instruments or keyboards. It seems to improve on the naturalness of the digital reverb.

If a musician could somehow transmit to you via telepathy his musical art/vision could that provide the ultimate musical experience? I had an experience back in the early 70’s which might be relevant to the belief in a purist musical experience. Back then, me and some friends of mine were experimenting with low dosages of LSD (mostly brown window pane and white blotter) and one day I tried a whole hit of blue blotter by myself and found to my surprise that it was a lot stronger than what I was used to. After I saw the corners of my room moving around I decided to go outside and play basketball to relieve the anxiety. Occasionally, I would look into the grass to see how the patterns looked that stood out. The patterns were more intense than any I’ve seen before. I remember one time when I was going after the ball, I somehow realized that I could have an auditory hallucination so I let it come out and I began to hear this incredible music that sounded similar to Pali Gap by Jimi Hendrix (Rainbow Bridge album). It sounded like some sort of half electronic half acoustical organ was playing it. It echoed through what sounded like a thousand of the most finest concert halls that could be imaged. The sound appeared to come from inside my head and outside my head, but I knew my mind created it. I realized that the music was created as an interpretation of what I was feeling and experiencing, a kind of synesthesia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
The music had a dramatic, powerful and eery quality to it. It was as if the LSD was communicating to me and telling me of its power and strange other-worldly properties. Later, I remembered this experience after experimenting with audio electronics and wondered if it represented some sort of pure audio experience. The music didn’t go through anything man made. It didn’t even go through my ears. It was created in my mind and heard by my mind. But, anyway, now that I’m thinking about it. The ambiance could have had better resolution and the organ could have sounded more natural and less electronic for my tastes. 🙂

Jimi Hendrix had far more musical insight than I ever had. This sounds more artistic and complicated than my auditory hallucination.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgIaLL-iP0Y&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EKkpjG3tfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlFBQ--JJ30&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN94JDcE4YQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90V6TwvZrRQ&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3XC7nWjoPo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwg9NSH_fz8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oantfGNykiM


Also: Siren from hell
It has a kind of end of the worldish sound to it which seems appropriate to signal the beginning of a nuclear war. An eery dramatic sound that echos everywhere like an LSD auditory hallucination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BkWigVViAE
 
#136
#140
7n7is said:
I somehow realized that I could have an auditory hallucination so I let it come out and I began to hear this incredible music that sounded similar to Pali Gap by Jimi Hendrix
Click to expand...

You should definitely check out Oliver Sack's new book "Musicophila". Plenty in there about musical hallucinations, as well as other good music and the brain stuff. A good read!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom