I've been talking about this for many, many months on diyAudio - check some of my posts.
In summary, a system needs to go loud without audible distortion. Most systems can go loud enough but generate so much audible distortion at that point that the illusion of realism is impossible, they start to SHOUT AT YOU ... which obviously is a no-no ...
In summary, a system needs to go loud without audible distortion. Most systems can go loud enough but generate so much audible distortion at that point that the illusion of realism is impossible, they start to SHOUT AT YOU ... which obviously is a no-no ...
With you there - especially doing that on choir+organ yet not losing the sense of being in the venue on the quiet passages
I will (continue to) do so!
Frank its not possible and worst very not possible from a 2ch point source system. Ever heard a Grand piano in a house before , a drum set , a big linesource or ESL PANEL can provide the illusion , in reality not even close.
listening live is the easiest most sure way of being disappointed with your HiFi
System ...
Well, I don't have any problems with piano - we don't have a real grand, but a reasonable upright in the same room; my wife plays and a recording by a significant player gets the volume right, and the tonality of the instrument on the recording is quite superior - as it should be, of course.
Drum set is harder, the transients on the hits are very high in SPLs in real life, need much more headroom than I have at the moment.
I do make a point of sidling up to players of live acoustic sound when I find it, just to check the 'calibration' of my hearing - I'm happy with where I'm at ...
Drum set is harder, the transients on the hits are very high in SPLs in real life, need much more headroom than I have at the moment.
I do make a point of sidling up to players of live acoustic sound when I find it, just to check the 'calibration' of my hearing - I'm happy with where I'm at ...
you should give this up, if they beleive their system can be as realistic then the real thing, more power to them!
But I honestly thing its a ridiculous statement, but hey!
who said that my goal in building great audio system is to make it as realistic as possible?
I am not against to make it realistic sounding, or accurate, but that's not the goal for me, goal is musical pleasure
there is nice article some where on the web about fallacy of accuracy in audio
music is an art form, so is the reproduction of the music, it never was about realism or accuracy
is a picture of a coutryside more realistic than the real thing? off course not! but it may be more artistic, more emotional, or may convey some message...
I think you went quite far from addresing the causes of listening fatigue in my opinion
I am not against to make it realistic sounding, or accurate, but that's not the goal for me, goal is musical pleasure
there is nice article some where on the web about fallacy of accuracy in audio
music is an art form, so is the reproduction of the music, it never was about realism or accuracy
is a picture of a coutryside more realistic than the real thing? off course not! but it may be more artistic, more emotional, or may convey some message...
I think you went quite far from addresing the causes of listening fatigue in my opinion
Murphy,
Well, respectfully, yes.
Having provided sound reinforcement for hundreds of jazz artists (including one from your top 5 list) in both small rooms and large, and having listened to the artists both acoustically, reinforced and recorded, getting close to the dynamics, the power, the presence of a real band is actually not a problem, given good, accurate microphones and sound system.
With the right tools, "realistic presentation" is quite possible to achieve, and has been demonstrated when speakers behind a screen and live performers have been interchanged without the audience reliably telling the difference.
Listening fatigue for me stems not from the source (reproduced or live), but from short room reflections above a transitional sound pressure level determined by the room dimensions and reflective qualities.
For me that level of fatigue is now approximately 90 dBA SPL centered in the 2000-6000 Hz range accompanied by short room reflections (reverberation), the source can be pure acoustic instruments, loudspeakers reproducing the same, or a combination thereof. The SPL required to reach the "discomfort zone" has reduced somewhat as I have aged.
Outdoors, or in large halls lacking the short room reflections, the level can be much higher with acoustic instruments or amplified music and not cause listening fatigue.
I do not doubt that some are very sensitive to distortion, and distortion may be responsible for some portion of their hearing fatigue.
That said, most pop music uses very distorted electric guitars (and other instruments), if one appreciates the sound of a particular genre, distortion does not seem to contribute to listening fatigue.
At any rate, whether the listening fatigue short room reflections cause is due to the messed up phase relationships or some other factor, short reflections of loud upper mid/high frequencies are the only thing that regularly cause listening fatigue for me.
Art
Last edited:
I agree. But the Fletcher Munson stuff demonstrates that a change of volume setting is also a change of EQ - as perceived by your ears (but not to measurements). Trying to choose your perfect system by auditioning at the 'wrong' volume i.e. louder or quieter than you would play it in your home means you would certainly get the wrong system, and then forever wonder why it didn't sound quite right.
1) All program material is compressed.
2) All speaker systems introduce even more compression.
I'm sure I've heard of 'audiophile' material being recorded without compression being deliberately applied. And good microphones can have very low distortion (= no compression/clipping which would be a nonlinear effect..?). And then it's digitised using ultra-linear ADCs. Are you sure all program material is compressed?
most recordings are purposely compressed
but you can find some telark and teldec recordings which claim to apply no compression, eq or processing of any kind what soever
I got a bunch of such cds, bach's cantatas, mozart's string quartes, I can provide cd numbers, if any one is interested
I naively thought they will sound great because of that (they do not sound that great to me...)
but you can find some telark and teldec recordings which claim to apply no compression, eq or processing of any kind what soever
I got a bunch of such cds, bach's cantatas, mozart's string quartes, I can provide cd numbers, if any one is interested
I naively thought they will sound great because of that (they do not sound that great to me...)
Yes, this has been my experience, it's all about the real capabilities of the reproduction system, rather than the theoretical ... when I went to the recent audio show in Sydney there was not a single demo, playing piano music, that was anywhere close.
If you go to my blog you'll find a thread there where I started doing some primitive recording experiments on my gear. I posted some files there to try and demonstrate a couple of things - unfortunately the recording device is very limited and lacking, it struggles to handle input overload, and crackles badly when subjected to sound levels too high.
The first, very large file unfortunately, shows how piano reproduction should perform - you just have to ignore the recorder not being able to handle the sound intensity and distorting ...
I am totally with Adason's post 288. the only thing that makes sense to me and best of all has nothing to do with ego.
jamikl
jamikl
