That seems to beg the question what kind of speakers/rooms do they assume audiophiles have?
Last edited:
I guess it would be a typical audio shop listening room. Direct radiator in a carpeted hotel like room with some absorbers and/or diffusers. Less wet at high frequency than the average normal person's living room.
But more importantly, I think many audiophiles just love the sound of reverb, and sensitive to it.
Last edited:
Interesting, but quite pricy
. I make do with the much more affordable Lexicon plugins. I especially like the Random Hall plugin.That use was inspired by reading lots of David Griesinger papers
. Just a hint of it on my ambient channels (not mains!) works very well!Disclaimer: I aim to please myself. That means I'm after a pleasant sound for my ears. Others might have totally different taste.
I believe that the Griesinger presentations and papers are some of the best kept secrets in this pastime. I particularly have paid attention to the discussion of relative phase of higher harmonics of direct arrivals. This topic basically says that the phase response of your loudspeaker-electronics setup does make a big difference in terms of clarity of the audio presentation (a big deal in the discussion of direct radiating vs. horn-loaded). Fascinating stuff. I believe this is part of the subject at hand.
Also, the contentious subject of high efficiency loudspeakers and high output impedance amplifiers (like SETs, OTLs, and transconductance amplifiers) versus lower output impedance amplifiers generally available...I believe can be simulated using a very short delay reverb unit turned down to very low amplitude level, especially if you can control the reverb vs. frequency, and match the reverb levels to the lower input impedance frequency regions of your loudspeakers (ref. Bob Carver conversation on a Home Theater Geeks video-starting at minute 51). This is another fascinating subject--room/loudspeaker microphonics--but again, that's probably considered to be off topic a bit to this thread (although I don't personally believe that it actually is off-topic).
Chris
Also, the contentious subject of high efficiency loudspeakers and high output impedance amplifiers (like SETs, OTLs, and transconductance amplifiers) versus lower output impedance amplifiers generally available...I believe can be simulated using a very short delay reverb unit turned down to very low amplitude level, especially if you can control the reverb vs. frequency, and match the reverb levels to the lower input impedance frequency regions of your loudspeakers (ref. Bob Carver conversation on a Home Theater Geeks video-starting at minute 51). This is another fascinating subject--room/loudspeaker microphonics--but again, that's probably considered to be off topic a bit to this thread (although I don't personally believe that it actually is off-topic).
Chris
Last edited:
(The following really is a little off the beaten path--but I think adds some further dimensions of consideration to the original argument of this thread)...
By the way, I've apparently seen the effects of the Griesinger clarity vs. phase finding in the referenced presentation when I'm demastering the EQ of music tracks. I've noticed that when one gets very close to the apparently as-recorded or even downmix stereo condition (vs. as-mastered) condition of the tracks by introducing undoing EQ to the obvious boosts and cuts applied during mastering EQ (...but not mixing EQ--which is another subject of interest...), the tracks' clarity suddenly improves. Additionally, there is extremely heightened sensitivity of the tracks to very small further changes in EQ (along with a recognition of the envelopes of the presented SPL vs. time of unaltered tracks vs. heavily EQed tracks from mastering). It's like the sweet spot suddenly reappears. I see the tracks suddenly get "spikier", too. Go figure.
This--at least to me--says that the tracks' upper harmonics are again lining up with their lower order harmonics and fundamental frequencies, ostensibly due to IIR filter inverse phase shifts to undo the IIR filter shifts imposed during mastering--and improved clarity results.
It also implies--at least to me--that you really can't do "translation EQ" while listening on your typical Auratone or NS-10M Studio monitors during mastering without paying a significant price in terms of the resulting track's clarity. This coincides with my experiences listening to the original recorded stereo tracks vs. the ones released after "mastering translation EQ" is applied.
This is a little further off the subject of this thread--so I'll just add the tag here referred to as: "just sayin'". It's at least interesting to me that my own experiences seem coincide with Griesinger's clarity presentation. YMMV.
Perhaps there is a systemic difference in the phase response of horn-loaded vs. direct radiating loudspeakers. I know that I've always preferred the clean, clear sound of well-implemented horn-loaded loudspeakers (i.e., not the poorly done ones) to direct radiating ones.
We really haven't discussed modulation distortion differences piled onto the clarity of the presentation in conjunction with the subjects immediately above, but that usually results in typical knee jerk reactions, so I'll pause.
Chris
By the way, I've apparently seen the effects of the Griesinger clarity vs. phase finding in the referenced presentation when I'm demastering the EQ of music tracks. I've noticed that when one gets very close to the apparently as-recorded or even downmix stereo condition (vs. as-mastered) condition of the tracks by introducing undoing EQ to the obvious boosts and cuts applied during mastering EQ (...but not mixing EQ--which is another subject of interest...), the tracks' clarity suddenly improves. Additionally, there is extremely heightened sensitivity of the tracks to very small further changes in EQ (along with a recognition of the envelopes of the presented SPL vs. time of unaltered tracks vs. heavily EQed tracks from mastering). It's like the sweet spot suddenly reappears. I see the tracks suddenly get "spikier", too. Go figure.
This--at least to me--says that the tracks' upper harmonics are again lining up with their lower order harmonics and fundamental frequencies, ostensibly due to IIR filter inverse phase shifts to undo the IIR filter shifts imposed during mastering--and improved clarity results.
It also implies--at least to me--that you really can't do "translation EQ" while listening on your typical Auratone or NS-10M Studio monitors during mastering without paying a significant price in terms of the resulting track's clarity. This coincides with my experiences listening to the original recorded stereo tracks vs. the ones released after "mastering translation EQ" is applied.
This is a little further off the subject of this thread--so I'll just add the tag here referred to as: "just sayin'". It's at least interesting to me that my own experiences seem coincide with Griesinger's clarity presentation. YMMV.
Perhaps there is a systemic difference in the phase response of horn-loaded vs. direct radiating loudspeakers. I know that I've always preferred the clean, clear sound of well-implemented horn-loaded loudspeakers (i.e., not the poorly done ones) to direct radiating ones.
We really haven't discussed modulation distortion differences piled onto the clarity of the presentation in conjunction with the subjects immediately above, but that usually results in typical knee jerk reactions, so I'll pause.
Chris
Last edited:
Going by the pictures I've seen posted on audiophile fora most of their listening rooms are very, very poor and far too lively.
Usually I see almost empty rooms, bare walls, leather seating, no treatment or carpet.
It has got a wee bit better recently though and I think word is slowly getting around that the biggest improvement to listening pleasure is to treat the room.
I asked a friend who records and mixes his own music if he had ever considered making different mixes of his music, one for headphone listening and another for “legacy” setups (ie two loudspeakers in a room).
His response was “why would I do that?”
I replied that the largest and fastest growing segment of music consumers were listening to music almost exclusively on headphones.
He just looked at me blankly.
[This person mixes on NS-10s]
I’d wager that escalating rents in major urban centers are going to indirectly exert an influence on mixing and mastering practices in a much more profound way than we might expect. Mixing and mastering engineers will continue to modify the assumptions they are making about playback conditions and I can’t help but think that monitors that provide Constant Directivity might have a leg up in this regard.
His response was “why would I do that?”
I replied that the largest and fastest growing segment of music consumers were listening to music almost exclusively on headphones.
He just looked at me blankly.
[This person mixes on NS-10s]
I’d wager that escalating rents in major urban centers are going to indirectly exert an influence on mixing and mastering practices in a much more profound way than we might expect. Mixing and mastering engineers will continue to modify the assumptions they are making about playback conditions and I can’t help but think that monitors that provide Constant Directivity might have a leg up in this regard.
1) What is the recurring monetary cost to the record companies to provide the original (not-yet-mastered) stereo down-mix tracks to the music download services? (answer: approximately zero)
2) What is the rationale in providing a "one size fits all" product instead of tracks tailored for purpose? (answer: "because we've always done it that way, and I don't really care about those other consumer segments that are dissatisfied with our 'take it or leave it' approach".)
3) How many varieties of Coca Cola are there generally available? (answer: a lot more than one.)
Chris
2) What is the rationale in providing a "one size fits all" product instead of tracks tailored for purpose? (answer: "because we've always done it that way, and I don't really care about those other consumer segments that are dissatisfied with our 'take it or leave it' approach".)
3) How many varieties of Coca Cola are there generally available? (answer: a lot more than one.)
Chris
Last edited:
I see your point Chris, and agree wholeheartedly.
I was trying to explain to my significant other what is so interesting and also so confounding about this hobby. I found myself referring to pre-recorded music as being like a two-channel frozen dinner that the end-user preheated before consuming. Most of us would much rather consume food made to order.
Don’t know if there was ever a push for this (and home theater has already done some of this) but it seems like the processing technology has been in place to optimize playback for a given room in order to more closely approach a predetermined target room response via calibration. Things like the desired playback level (determined in the studio), mixing & mastering information should just be metadata for the processor. More controversially, it should also be override-able.
I was trying to explain to my significant other what is so interesting and also so confounding about this hobby. I found myself referring to pre-recorded music as being like a two-channel frozen dinner that the end-user preheated before consuming. Most of us would much rather consume food made to order.
Don’t know if there was ever a push for this (and home theater has already done some of this) but it seems like the processing technology has been in place to optimize playback for a given room in order to more closely approach a predetermined target room response via calibration. Things like the desired playback level (determined in the studio), mixing & mastering information should just be metadata for the processor. More controversially, it should also be override-able.
To boldly go...
...beyond pre-mixed-down stereo/multi-channel ("object oriented" reproduction):
veraxtechnologies.com
Why the recording industry will undoubtedly fall all over themselves to embrace that/cough up the related unprocessed source material... any day now!
Granted potentially more elaborate than is necessarily practical, but nonetheless perhaps a new generation of music lovers/recording artists - still relatively free from antiquated preconceptions/political entanglements - could be educated/inspired towards in turn generating the prerequisite market demand for something more streamlined along these lines to become the (or at least "a" sufficiently critical-mass-magnitude) content standard?
...beyond pre-mixed-down stereo/multi-channel ("object oriented" reproduction):
veraxtechnologies.com
Why the recording industry will undoubtedly fall all over themselves to embrace that/cough up the related unprocessed source material... any day now!
Granted potentially more elaborate than is necessarily practical, but nonetheless perhaps a new generation of music lovers/recording artists - still relatively free from antiquated preconceptions/political entanglements - could be educated/inspired towards in turn generating the prerequisite market demand for something more streamlined along these lines to become the (or at least "a" sufficiently critical-mass-magnitude) content standard?
yep
treating the early reflections point is to me such a dramatic effect, it blew my mind
id go as far as to say that my system was not high end as long as i didnt treat my room thoroughly.
Here is the link to the article and binaural recordings. I think one can clearly hear the difference between two speakers that are eq'd the same, but with much different directivity indexes:
KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings - Reviews - Audiophile Style
Happy New Year!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The part that I can't figure out is that the M2 appears to have a lower directivity index than the Revel Salon. At 2khz, the M2 (second picture) has a DI of 7 while the Salon has a DI of 12. Of course, I may be missing something, the Revel graph doesn't list a scale, the M2 does.
From : Speaker Shootout - two of the most accurate and well reviewed speakers ever made - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
EDIT : I just realized the lower bound of the graph is -5, not zero. So this means the DI of the JBL M2 and the Revel Salon are darn-near-identical, at seven.
Dare I say it, this sure seems to lend credence to Earl's argument, that higher order modes are the problem. Here we have two speakers with frequency response that's very very close, DI that's nearly identical, yet people subjectively prefer the Revel.
For comparison's sake, here's a few different waveguides. The Yamahas are up in my den and I find that they sound *very* much like a dome tweeter, if you closed your eyes you wouldn't know any different.
Revel Salon waveguide
JBL PT waveguide vs Yamaha waveguide
Yamaha waveguide
https://imgur.com/BbLHpyR.jpg[img]
[IMG]https://imgur.com/2foLhH7.jpg
JBL Image Control Waveguide
Last edited: