Are you sure about that 😎
It depends on your listening position + distance + room & reflections + the distance between speakers.
PS.
It is true that it starts with the microphone & recording 🙂
After 10 years of aligning & calibrating professional tape machines plus 5 years of re-mastering
I can tell you that there is a lot more to noise reduction systems than just the Dolby B switch on a cassette deck.
EG. Apart from 'reference level calibration' > pre & post decoder EQ are 'two different worlds'.
PS.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...AxUnWGwGHexfM8IQBSgAegQIDhAB&biw=1354&bih=640
[ proper implementation requires a symmetrical room ]
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...AxUnWGwGHexfM8IQBSgAegQIDhAB&biw=1354&bih=640
[ proper implementation requires a symmetrical room ]
It's not either or. Depends on application. Wouldn't want really wide dispersion for nearfield listening, as that would be a waste. Best to have it focused close, maximize driver integration close to the speaker, not 10' away. For a bigger room & more distant seating, I prefer wider dispersion -- there's a more room-filling, bigger soundstage effect -- and yet there are variables. I recently found that in a big very reflective room with lots of reverb, wide dispersion all through the frequency range isn't ideal either. (BTW, Martin-Logan electrostatics are hardly wide dispersion. That's a stretch, tho they might be wider than flat ES.)
Back to cymbals: digital recording & reproduction has evolved far enough that it's not the technology that dictates whether a music recording is high fidelity, it's the way it's used, the skill of the operators, the goals for the recording. Digital audio is not the enemy, nor is analog invariably better. (From point of view of pure audio data storage & retrieval, it's really hard to argue that vinyl is better.)
Thank you for the link to that great informative article, Juha. (Circle of Confusion.) I think it's the best exposition I've read on probably the most fundamental and not well understood flaw in the music industry. 😎👍 But written 16 years ago! I wonder what the author would say now? 🤔
Last edited:
Is it not wide dispersion, or narrow dispersion that's important, but consistent dispersion throughout the frequency range?
Those MBL "radialstrada" things sound good, as do the big Tannoys, and other horns.
Those MBL "radialstrada" things sound good, as do the big Tannoys, and other horns.
What Alexig said is confirmed,
Spendors do sound excellent and crisp with all brass and metal sounds, it's fast, realistic and vibrant.
And for cymbals, bells , the vinyl has that extra sparkle and definition, I cant hear that level of realism in dacs, it is exactly like you placed Dolby, great comparison
I compared many recordings and we all listened, the bells sound clear and with all bottom end and spectrum, in dacs, it sounds like noise on impact with lack of spread in low and high, sounds very compressed
Spendors do sound excellent and crisp with all brass and metal sounds, it's fast, realistic and vibrant.
And for cymbals, bells , the vinyl has that extra sparkle and definition, I cant hear that level of realism in dacs, it is exactly like you placed Dolby, great comparison
I compared many recordings and we all listened, the bells sound clear and with all bottom end and spectrum, in dacs, it sounds like noise on impact with lack of spread in low and high, sounds very compressed
I can not hear any difference between vinyl and digital copy of it (ADDA or even ADDAADDA). Every rumble, crack, hiss and cymbals sound just as bad or good.
As well measured dynamics and spectrum are identical, unless I use Audacity to clean the vinyl defects from the digitized copy.
As well measured dynamics and spectrum are identical, unless I use Audacity to clean the vinyl defects from the digitized copy.
I've got around 2000 LPs and 2000 CDs and I listen 50% of my time to streaming. When it comes to user experience, I prefer digital as it is really difficult to beat streaming BUT There are at least 10 times more records in my collection than in my CD collection that get the sound of cymbals right. And like gadbx nailed it, a well mastered vinyl, when it comes to the sound of cymbals and bells has extra sparkle and definition. They sound like they suppose to sound crisp and dynamic. On the other hand in digital they sound kind of washed.
I can't say there is absolutely no bias in my comparison as I have more Jazz records in my vinyl collection and original jazz records are typically better recorded and mastered. For some reason, Spendors are the speakers that emphasize the difference in cymbal sound. I did not have the same experience with Magnepans that actually don't have wide pattern of dispersion. Anyway we are comparing apples to oranges as one is the line and the other is the point source. On my Revels the difference is 30% to what I hear on Spendors. When it comes to midrange and bottom I prefer Revels and I want them to sound better than Spendors but the sound of cymbals ruins my listening experience. I do listen in nearfield with speakers positioned along the long wall as I don't have much choice in my current room.
Last edited:
So are you intimately familiar with the sound of live unamplified cymbals? I trust they don't all sound the same...
Your Spendors could simply have the right characteristic to offset the particular colorations of your jazz vinyl played on your TT system. In other words, isn't it possible that the Revels are more neutral speakers that reveal deficiencies earlier in the chain more accurately while the Spendors have a lucky or perhaps canny coloration that helps correct the same deficiencies?
We simply don't know enough about the source, the way the music was captured & mixed, as this article linked by Juhazi so clearly points out (https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html), to say vinyl is better than digital, period.
Conjecture: It could be that the Spendors were designed largely by designers who used vinyl jazz records like yours to fine-tune their performance, in which case, your observations would be proof of their success. We do know Revel-Harmon use a design process heavily based on listener perception studies of a broad range of music, so they might do better with a bigger variety or sources & recordings even if not matching the Spendors at cymbals on jazz vinyl.
@mikessi
there is only one solution:
buy some cymbals of different size
make a near field recording (1m distance) outside with a better recording devices today commonly available
so you can reproduce your own recording on your speakers AND you can play this instrument in front of your speakers at the same time.
Only like this you know when developing a loudspeaker if it really sounds correct or not
The BBC did this in the sixties with some live playing people in two identical rooms side by side in the other one the loudspeakers as recording technology was not that perfect like today
there is only one solution:
buy some cymbals of different size
make a near field recording (1m distance) outside with a better recording devices today commonly available
so you can reproduce your own recording on your speakers AND you can play this instrument in front of your speakers at the same time.
Only like this you know when developing a loudspeaker if it really sounds correct or not
The BBC did this in the sixties with some live playing people in two identical rooms side by side in the other one the loudspeakers as recording technology was not that perfect like today
For me, what makes cymbal’s sound more real in a HiFi setup is the removal of noise. Particularly if you use digital audio.
@Freedom666
That's a way to develop a high fidelity loudspeaker, in the sense of absolute accuracy, especially if many musical instruments are used for reference in addition to the usual range of measurements. (Input = identical output with gain.)
But the point is, a nearly perfectly accurate loudspeaker will not assure high fidelity reproduction of original musical events or creations captured and mixed commercially. It would be ideal as a studio monitor if the studio acoustics were designed to allow that loudspeaker to deliver that reproduction to the users ears.
It appears that such studios are rare.
Citing 'Circles of Confusion' --
So in fact, a nearly perfectly accurate loudspeaker in a studio would not necessarily produce a recording that could be reproduced exactly even through that very same loudspeaker in another room.
We already know that a loudspeaker with perfectly flat frequency response sounds far too bright with most recordings in most domestic rooms. A loudspeaker with Fletcher-Munson or Harman curve tonal balance does much better, and it's not just because these curves compensate for hearing deficiencies. It's also because they better compensate for typical deficiencies in studio/recording/mixing processes.
Consider the huge range of music recordings we routinely ask our speakers to reproduce, and the multiplicity of audio deficiencies embedded within those recordings. It's an impossible task for any loudspeaker to do well. As long as these variables in recordings remain, speaker builders, both DIY and professional, cannot produce an ideal speaker that can reproduce all of them well. Even if good standards for studios were developed and implemented overnight, the sheer volume of variable quality musical recording that already exist would dominate for years.
No wonder there is such diversity in opinion about the perceived performance of loudspeakers. We all have a unique set of reference music sources, and they vary so widely not only in musical content but in virtually every technical audio detail that can be embedded within a recording.
That's a way to develop a high fidelity loudspeaker, in the sense of absolute accuracy, especially if many musical instruments are used for reference in addition to the usual range of measurements. (Input = identical output with gain.)
But the point is, a nearly perfectly accurate loudspeaker will not assure high fidelity reproduction of original musical events or creations captured and mixed commercially. It would be ideal as a studio monitor if the studio acoustics were designed to allow that loudspeaker to deliver that reproduction to the users ears.
It appears that such studios are rare.
Citing 'Circles of Confusion' --
So in fact, a nearly perfectly accurate loudspeaker in a studio would not necessarily produce a recording that could be reproduced exactly even through that very same loudspeaker in another room.
We already know that a loudspeaker with perfectly flat frequency response sounds far too bright with most recordings in most domestic rooms. A loudspeaker with Fletcher-Munson or Harman curve tonal balance does much better, and it's not just because these curves compensate for hearing deficiencies. It's also because they better compensate for typical deficiencies in studio/recording/mixing processes.
Consider the huge range of music recordings we routinely ask our speakers to reproduce, and the multiplicity of audio deficiencies embedded within those recordings. It's an impossible task for any loudspeaker to do well. As long as these variables in recordings remain, speaker builders, both DIY and professional, cannot produce an ideal speaker that can reproduce all of them well. Even if good standards for studios were developed and implemented overnight, the sheer volume of variable quality musical recording that already exist would dominate for years.
No wonder there is such diversity in opinion about the perceived performance of loudspeakers. We all have a unique set of reference music sources, and they vary so widely not only in musical content but in virtually every technical audio detail that can be embedded within a recording.
In particular I’m referring to common mode noise, but also general SNR, the better the source including upstream networking the better the production of bass (and indeed all frequencies). I’m a source and power first audiophile - if you don’t have this then you can’t create something ‘real’ it will be coloured/muted.
Sorry I can’t be really specific, but delivering on this is multifaceted - it’s the whole system. But starting with source and also mains filtration is a good start if not done so already.
Speakers are actually the least important!
Sorry I can’t be really specific, but delivering on this is multifaceted - it’s the whole system. But starting with source and also mains filtration is a good start if not done so already.
Speakers are actually the least important!
@mikessi
I did exactly what I described and you can adjust like that with several music instruments a loudspeaker up to the point where you cannot hear any difference between original and reproduction.
If your speaker can do that its good for everything else, reproducing any music accurately.
This is important because on some days your ears play you a trick and you think my loudspeaker is not good I have to change something.
Then I make the test with the recorded instruments and I know its only a daily deviation in personal audio perception, nothing else.
I did exactly what I described and you can adjust like that with several music instruments a loudspeaker up to the point where you cannot hear any difference between original and reproduction.
If your speaker can do that its good for everything else, reproducing any music accurately.
This is important because on some days your ears play you a trick and you think my loudspeaker is not good I have to change something.
Then I make the test with the recorded instruments and I know its only a daily deviation in personal audio perception, nothing else.
I am curious to know what sort of "noise" you are referring to with digital audio > what part of the spectrum do you hear the noise in?
PS.
Believe it or not, professional noise reduction systems such as Dolby A, Dolby SR and DBX can still actually be used within a digital system.
They actually work better with digital audio due to the lack of compression that analog tape presents.
I think that some DAC's actually use proprietary pre & de emphasis to reduce noise.
I've had the "That's NOT someone's stereo" experience many times; always instantly know when it's an actual acoustic instrument. Personally, I've always thought its in the dynamic range. Black quiet is obviously -inf db. "Speed" is also a completely transparent thing, as there's nothing electro-mechanic for the sound to go through to reach your ears.
Just yesterday a friend invited other players to jam on tunes in his 4 song open-mic set. Three acoustic guitars with pickups on stage, plugged in to the house PA and a Roland electric piano. I figured I'd stand up by the small stage and just strum along with the three chords, wasnt going to bother to ask for a channel. I look up and all three guitarists are playing lead; guess I'm the rhythm player now! They're lookin' at me for the change, so it was clear they could hear me. Unplugged, that is. So what about the acoustic guitar was it that they were still clearly perceiving, given the situation?
It had to be the dynamics. Somehow I was moving enough air with a dreadnought to still be perceptible within that background.
I recall Billy Cobham commenting that he could make his small China cymbal be "the loudest thing in the room". You maybe can imagine what happens to that 8-10" circular hunk of metal when he hits it. Obviously both sides radiate sound and there's probably sound coming off of every bit of its surface area. I dont think its the 360 radiation pattern so much, because you could put it in a box like the dance organ and still immediately get that its real, or note the "that's real" effect when they open the door of the club.
The other relatable story is I recall when a kid, my parents took me to the boardwalk in NJ, late 60's early 70s I'd say. They had a dance hall, maybe it was a rollerskating rink (in the afternoon) where the proprietor hired a drummer with a full kit, to drum along with the music coming out his house speakers. Why would he do that, pay the guy good money for that service? Because he added something that his house system just couldnt do and that was - I believe - irrefutable dynamics onto the, I assume, records sourced music he was playing. It was attractive, got people's attention. He was playing on people's instant recognition that the sound they heard coming from his place was live, not "Memorex".
TL😀R; I think it's SPL dynamics that make real instruments, such as a cymbal, snare, or string so immediately identifyable as "not someone's stereo".
There are quite a few 'main-stream' albums that have been recorded & mastered with impeccable mix-balance and high fidelity.
This is one of them, even although YouTube would not be your highest quality of source. It really shows how good recording can be 🙂
PS. I have no idea whether it was recorded Digital or Analog.
This is one of them, even although YouTube would not be your highest quality of source. It really shows how good recording can be 🙂
PS. I have no idea whether it was recorded Digital or Analog.
Here's an album that was basically recorded with condenser microphones using 'single takes' > all playing at once > It is called ROUGH MIX.
When I received a quarter inch 'copy master' to transfer to DAT for archive purpose, the Dolby A reproduction required high frequency EQ.
It is a wonderfully 'DRY' and analog recording 🙂
When I received a quarter inch 'copy master' to transfer to DAT for archive purpose, the Dolby A reproduction required high frequency EQ.
It is a wonderfully 'DRY' and analog recording 🙂