Damn , I don't know any of those songs. Had to look up that Kit don't flow piece and I didn't know that Lufgren guy either. Didn't he fight Rocky Balboa IV ? 🙂)
I got to -48dB listening through my speakers (Klippel recommended headphones I believe) which I think is equivalent to 0.5%THD which is the distortion figure published for the Tannoy Little Reds I was using.
Are yo sure you listened to the right thing within the song?
I mean even if you are naturally gifted some thing still needs to be learned/identifyed by training.
that was my point. my 10 year old had no training and no experience with the song and i thought that would equalize the two of us, it did not.
I think in a test like the Klippel THD one (blind, forced choice) it is not particularly helpful if you know the song and if you know the song well it is best if it is one you do not particularly like or dislike. But that's just me...
I think krivium has the answer. There is a pretty strong training factor here, apparently. My not-so-young ears (66) on third try managed to get to -69 dB before I couldn't easily hear the difference. I think with one more try, I might be able to go full-scale.
I'm using loudspeakers in-room. (I don't do headphones.)
Chris
Last edited:
If i could have answers! 🤣
But more seriously, yes i think there is a learning curve and some artefacts needs to be 'learned' to be identified.
Mordikai,
I've been guinea pig in ABX tests and i found unknown material to me was 'easier'.
In tracks i know too well, i tend to loose the step back needed for technical assessment.
I would not give too much weight on whatever happened on such tests: there is a lot of factor which can affect your mood, capacity of focus, etc,etc,...
At best it is anecdotal evidence which would need repeatability to have any significance.
I'm sure that with one week training on headphone ( with calibrated level if possible) you would have surprise.
It is fun and instructive to try.
But more seriously, yes i think there is a learning curve and some artefacts needs to be 'learned' to be identified.
Mordikai,
I've been guinea pig in ABX tests and i found unknown material to me was 'easier'.
In tracks i know too well, i tend to loose the step back needed for technical assessment.
I would not give too much weight on whatever happened on such tests: there is a lot of factor which can affect your mood, capacity of focus, etc,etc,...
At best it is anecdotal evidence which would need repeatability to have any significance.
I'm sure that with one week training on headphone ( with calibrated level if possible) you would have surprise.
It is fun and instructive to try.
The "fatigue factor" is pretty strong. I took a break in the middle of the test. SPL is important, too. I probably had the volume turned up to 80-85 dB to hear the very slight differences. Then it was pretty easy to hear each time, until -63 dB (in my room).
Assigning blame to the loudspeakers as to why one couldn't hear any deeper into the signal is problematic. I do think that hearing the direct arrivals and not nearfield reflections is pretty important, as well as having low phase growth in the loudspeakers--so that the "spikes" in the resultant waveforms are not reduced in amplitude relative to the other main frequencies.
I found even turning my head just a few degrees has a very strong effect on my ability to hear the differences. Once I found an optimum angle, it was pretty easy to hear. YMMV.
Chris
You prompted me to play Cure for Pain after not hearing it for a few years. Great album sound and music. Thanks!!
I suppose this has been asked, but why would you be worried about YouTube videos of loudspeakers playing in listening rooms? The audio has been converted to lossy AAC, and stereo playback of stereo loudspeakers on videos with AAC codecs is not a good way of hearing their limitations or advantages. Recommend listening in-room...or finding something else to talk about.
Clearly, someone likes it. The albums/music tracks have sold many copies.
I do think that there are some general guidelines that should be used to pick among music tracks to test or demo loudspeakers in person (not on YouTube videos), i.e., the music shows weaknesses of loudspeakers and/or room acoustics. What are those weaknesses? Typically:
1) lack of fidelity in transfer function (SPL and phase response, especially at low frequencies)
2) lack of dynamic range without distortion, including thermal (implying very quickly heating voice coils on transients)
3) lack of good stereo imaging
4) lack of clarity and detail at higher SPL
5) lack of controlled directivity vs. frequency (i.e., tonal distortion...especially below 1 kHz and when placed nearer room walls for bass room gain)
6) lack of good/solid bass extension
...
There are probably more categories.
What kind of music tracks show these playback issues? Not that many--since the practice of "translation" (i.e., the mastering term) seeks to specifically hide those recording characteristics by using lower quality loudspeakers in the studio as guides to degrade the music tracks to some "lowest common denominator" as-released condition.
So why do so many people pick music tracks that don't specifically show up these loudspeaker/room acoustics limitations? They probably just want to play some music they like at the moment, not what actually shows the performance of the loudspeakers.
Why? That's not difficult to guess.
Why do others gripe about this phenomenon occurring online? That's also not difficult to guess.
Chris
Last edited:
I bought my copy 20 some years ago and luckily have the FZ approved version without added reverb. Where can I find the analog remaster, is that vinyl only?
FWIW the FZ approved version is still very good sounding. A small notch below the remaster of Joe's but Joe's is a few years newer production too.
On a fully horn-loaded and dialed-in 5.1 setup that I believe can handle that composition at concert volume, when I play Carmina Burana in 5.1 (from the DVD-A by the Atlanta Symphony and Chorus, Runnicles, 2001) vs. the stereo layer off the same disc, the difference is so startling that I wonder if it's actually the same performance.
Have you heard that kind of difference off a hybrid multichannel disc before? This implies to me that the direction of the sound from the echo surround channels is pretty critical to hearing that particular composition in a way that convinces the listener of the authenticity of the performance.
There are many other music compositions that I find this effect to be true, and some, not so much. The stereo layer and the 5.1 layer are not so far apart--but the sense of envelopment is still extremely different. I believe the point is that there are some extremely difficult musical compositions to reproduce well.
In the past, I remember when the sound of pianos and female voices was difficult to reproduce, as well as pipe organ and piano, solo clarinet, solo violin, and massed string orchestras (which sounded steely and unnatural). Since then, I've found that in about 50% of those cases nowadays, it's the mastering guy that needs to be hung up by his toes (i.e., playing with EQ and smashing the mixdown tracks in dynamic range more than the recording engineer did--all to make the resulting tracks louder--which is something I didn't ask for, and no alternative un-smashed versions were offered from the mixdown tracks). Some of the issues were related to analog tape recorders having unsteady speed through the pinch rollers and very limited dynamic range (SNR), especially at low frequencies. Digital recording eliminated most of those issues and later higher sampling rates and bit depths eliminated the sound decay issues of earlier digital recorders.
In the remaining 50%, the introduction of 5.1 recordings and playback eliminated perhaps 25% of the problems with these types of demanding recordings, and DSP crossovers with flattened transfer function loudspeakers and much better designed controlled directivity horns provided the elements to eliminate or control the remaining issues not in the bucket of recording (microphone placement and type) or mastering issues.
JMTC.
Chris
Last edited:
How loud is "concert volume"?
In what hall, at what distance, how large and type of orchestra and chorus?
When I go to classical concerts, I'm always annoyed by people whispering or sneezing. "Concert level" is obviously not very loud ....
In what hall, at what distance, how large and type of orchestra and chorus?
When I go to classical concerts, I'm always annoyed by people whispering or sneezing. "Concert level" is obviously not very loud ....