I retrospect I would like to take another stab at the NS-10 question. I still have a pair of NS-10s, and the old Bryston-4B I used for driving them. Of course they are nearfield monitors that can be very useful for mixing. Don't know of anyone is seriously using them for mastering, but maybe someone has. My NS-10s were supplemented with a pair of subs so I could go down to 40Hz without having to feel the cones on the NS-10s. Also know about the tissue paper and have used a very thin layer of at times.
Is it possible to hear as much detail using the NS-10s versus if using the Sound Lab ESL panels? No Way.
Have I moved mics around and heard the difference in sound? Yes.
Regarding pianos I have heard a lot of them, anywhere from in my living room (way back when) to on stage, sometimes with mics, and occasionally with a Helpinstill inside too.
Regarding hearing the difference between pianos from a recording, its probably most applicable when talking about a grand in a concert hall setting, tuned to concert pitch (not stretch tuned), and regulated pretty close to factory feel; and if using single pair of condenser mics to pick up sound from the stage and some concert hall ambience too. In a studio setting a piano can be made to sound like a lot of different things. The question about being able to tell the difference from listening is as to whether it is virtually ever possible. For one thing some dacs make can make pianos indistinguishable. The whole system needs to be up at the same level as the speakers. In studios the equipment often uses line level transformers to prevent ground loop problems. I never could stand the sound of coupling transformers in a serious hi-fi system until just recently heard a very unique pair of prototype transformers (wish I didn't have to give them back). If you haven't experienced what I am talking about, or for no particular reason at all, I would invite you to come visit Auburn sometime and see what you think of the system. You might be rather surprised.
Last edited:
Some info on them at: https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/The-Complete-White-Paper.pdf
Main website: https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/
Last edited:
Who ever talked about mastering? As we already discussed about your past experience in recording ( and mine) i supposed it was evident i was talking about tracking, where the use of multiple loudspeakers (to have an average) is a prerequisite ( mains being the ones used mostly as they have wide bandwidth and the dynamic capability to reproduce acoustic instruments).
But my remark was related to the fact that even on poor loudspeaker the sonic signature of instrument like a Bosendorfer and a Steinway is obvious: one being 'shiny' and very 'transient emphasising' the other 'mellow' and 'softer' regarding attacks.
Your point of view. My experience with panels loudspeakers ( in pro context) is they are very nice on some instruments , unusuable on others. The rendering dipole have is not 'universal' either. It is always some compromise and if you have found the one who please you then we are glad for you. That doesn't mean they'll please others are solve the hunger issue in world.
So you totally missed the point talking about gear: what about the difference in rendering between let's say a NOS couple, an ORTF, an A/B, X/Y, a Jecklin or M/S?
What about their angular distortion messing with the stereo image? What about the directivity of used mic coloring the frequency response? About their respective SRA and the issue they bring regarding center image?
How your group of 'guinea pig' reacted to this?
Maybe you could teach me how to evaluate those issues rather than talking about gear we use and my ability to assess this kind of issues in a condescending tone?
Lol.
I kinda feel it's been a long time since you recorded a pianist: in my experience there is no 'factory' tuning or feel but as much tuning and feels as there is players and partition to be recorded.
At least it was what i experienced in studio*: piano delivered two days before session ( to allow it to adapt to humidity/temperature conditions of room) then a day of tuning to the desiderata of player.
Then you start locating mics given the will of producers/artist esthetical choices. More often than not it's a single pair of mics than 12. Maybe you seen pictures of a bunch of couples located all over: i will tell you a secret, it's for comparison sake when time is short or producer doesn't know what he want ( it happen very often), with at the end at most a pair of close mic and an ambiance pair, most often only a pair of mic as it should be imho...
* studios are not all pop/rock/variety oriented. The commercial ones i used to work in were able to do anything from orchestra to techno with everything in between: multiple tracking room ( studios) with different acoustics from live ( Studio A) to dead space ( dubbing rooms).
LOL. Don't listen to any classical recording using a 'grand A/B': the standard practice is to use U47 Tube mics for the 3 mics used you'll have an heart attack!:
Tt
Ah yes... put to junk anything produced before 80's( and only produced with GML gear... ) LOL.
Thank you for the invitation but we have same kind of system in there EU. And i visited some of this systems. Been thrilled by few. Probably because i was sitting in front of some which was on par. Disliked them too most often. It's because i know what i want and like...
I am with waxx on this issue. I don't find NS-10s good enough to reproduce a soundstage and small details of sound like Sound Lab speaker can. NS-10s are good for mixing if someone is familiar with them, yes. Mastering is just one example where better speakers than NS-10 are needed for some listening tasks.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about piano attacks, and regulation has to do with a piano tech adjusting the escapement mechanisms to produce a certain feel to the pianist, and that adjustment is also part of what shapes the timbre of the instrument.
So, if not hard/soft attacks, and not FR, then what makes a particular piano sound unique? To me part of it, but not all of it, is the chordal textures they produce when multiple notes are played at once. Part of that sound is made up of beat notes which don't show up on FFTs as new frequencies. Rather they are the perceived sound of the envelopes that result from adding frequencies, which is a linear process. For example:
Image from: https://www.mq.edu.au/about/about-t...s/speech-waveforms/adding-waveforms-and-phase
IMHO and IME, there is a certain 'richness' of piano chordal 'texture' that is characteristic to the sound of different pianos. Of course there are more little details than that just like there is more to that is unique to someone's face than is used for facial identification using cameras and computers. IOW, its hard to list every little detail that the eye/brain system may use for facial recognition. Similarly hearing what is unique to a piano may not be exactly like the way we tend to analyze/classify sounds conceptually so as be able to speak about them.
Last edited:
In case of any interest on the part of readers regarding piano voicing, some info on the subject at: https://kawaipianostlouis.com/whats...-explained-adjusting-the-sound-of-your-piano/
My point is using a known brand & model piano instead of some pop track for system qualification is accuracy. Listening to a known sound with all frequencies, I can tell the reproduction system is good or **** without a frequency sweep, a speaker turntable, $3000 of test equipment. A0 is 27.5 hz, the plik noise of the hammers hitting the top octave hard has frequencies way above the string overtones. The reproduction sounds like a Steinway 11' grand or it doesn't. I also use tinkly bells brush cymbal, & bass drum to point out problems with those frequencies. I know what those should sound like live, also.
Pop, rock, electric instruments, you have no idea what it is supposed to sound like. Even voices are modified by electronics since the 90's. My point about Alison Kraus off-stage voice. You can buy or build a system to make your accustomed sound on some favorite track, but you weren't there in the mastering room to see what it should sound like.
Mastering fads come & go. In the 50's 60's 45s were mastered to sound good on a 6x9 speaker in a metal car dash with 4 watts power. In the 00's and 10's mastering was done for car systems with a buzz tube in the trunk - CD sound was compressed to where there were no louds or softs.
Reproducing stage shows is different than reproducing everything in my home music room. Modern performance venues now are too wide, too shallow, curved to get the audience close to the act. May require different speakers for different acts. They certainly did a bad job at my near circular church. The sound suits the deaf old men who pay the bills though.
The proper acoustic performance venue IMHO is long narrow & tall, Vienna concert hall. No delay lines or particular speaker type required to make Wein Philharmonica sound good. I've set up my music room the same way, 14' wide, 11' tall, 33' long. Lots of deadening bookshelves, record racks, instruments, acoustic tile, carpet, couchs. Speakers on poles at the narrow end. I can walk all around from 10' to 33 ' away and with speakers 6 db down over 90 deg hori 40 deg vert, the sound doesn't change except in volume.
BTW the Serkin recording I used to buy my last speakers was recorded in 1958. The very earliest era of condensor mikes. I don't know what Colombia was doing but it sounds right. I can achieve similar accuracy these days with a pair of $120 Shure KSM27's if I put a foam spit guard over it to kill the high freq emphasis.
Last edited:
I found the technique to be very effective for evaluating, and it diminished the uncertainty.
There are decades of research demonstrating that differentiating audio components using memory is a task fraught with errors, largely as our ability to recall is diminished seconds after hearing an event. There is also the element of expectation bias. Results were worsened by distractions or changes in hearing thresholds that occurred when listeners removed themselves from the listening position, as one would to change component connections or activate mechanical switches.
These were among the problems that inspired the idea to record the output from different devices. I recall capturing two devices along with a third recording of the original track from the source, level matched them in an audio suite, and listened to them on quality headphones. It permitted a more informed decision making process by toggling instantly between gear without pause, even before vs after changes, and without all the guesswork that accompanies memory recall.
Like I say, I spend far more on music now than I do on audio gear!
Today’s audio interfaces are remarkable performing devices, having noise and distortion below the sweeping majority of consumer audio electronics. Recording the sonic performance envelope of different components is an easier accomplishment than ever before.
The way dacs are commonly measured misses some distortion and or noise that doesn't show up in PSS (periodic steady state) measurements. However, most IC dac chips are designed to excel at standard measurements because it helps sales. Most people don't know the non-PSS noise/distortion effects also exist and can be measured.
wow this thread has taken a turn for the worse. lots of bad faith reading and arguing esoteric menusia that most either don't know, don't care, don't believe or all of the above.
I'm sure the author got as much enjoyment writing this paper as I got from reading it 😉
No problem with any of that. You don't have to believe in things you don't want to. Occasionally a dac manufacturer will talk about some but not all of the things they know about, as ESS did several years ago. Some of the effects are described in a Linear Audio article by our own @MarcelvdG , and made freely available by Jan Didden: https://linearaudio.net/sites/linearaudio.net/files/03 Didden LA V13 mvdg.pdf
Last edited:
Yeah, I know. But that's what there is. At least there are a few tidbits of possible interest. Maybe this about diaphragm thickness, for example: "...the material used in Sound Lab speakers is only 0.00012 inches thick"
Obviously these speakers are made in way that is more or less analogous to a condenser mic as compared to a dynamic mic. Likely that many people have some experience with the differences in sensitivity to small details between the two basic types of transducer technologies, at least when it comes to mics.
Yes, well maybe and maybe not.
I have built plasma tweeters, if one want's to talk about mass. The way that mass fits into the equations doesn't support the notion that lighter sounds better.
Better or not better is a different issue from transducing low level details. Sometimes at less detailed mic sounds 'better' for a given application.
Ordinarily mass affects sensitivity evenhandedly.. Then at the top end when mass gets in the way, the response rolls off. If you then compensate by increasing the drive, the response is made flat again and the problem goes away.
FR is one type of conceptual model. Suspension flexibility nonlinearity, magnetic hysteresis, and other small and or non-linear effects may also have some effect in magnetic transducers. It is also well known that the 'state' of a magnetic speaker motor is dependent on acceleration, velocity, and position. The state of the speaker affects its dynamic accuracy. Dynamic effects can be hard to measure with PSS FFTs simply because steady state analysis requires fixed level test signals for the resulting spectral view to be easily understandable by humans.
Nonlinearity is known not to be a significant issue in any reasonable modern speaker. Besides, aren't electrets subject to hysteresis too?
Here is the problem as I see it with the FR explanation: If someone measures FR and sees a difference then there is a human bias that causes the brain to automatically construct a story to the effect that what you know must explain everything. By default such stories are accepted as true by conscious awareness without careful deliberative thought. IOW, people tend not to ask the question, "is there some significant missing information I don't know about?"
Professor and Nobel Laurate, Daniel Kahneman dubbed the bias effect by naming with an acronym: WYSIATI
https://facilethings.com/blog/en/what-you-see-is-all-there-is
Professor and Nobel Laurate, Daniel Kahneman dubbed the bias effect by naming with an acronym: WYSIATI
https://facilethings.com/blog/en/what-you-see-is-all-there-is