 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.127.44.247
In Reply to: RE: Musicallity posted by ahendler on August 17, 2014 at 13:57:53
A modest and smoothly declining total power frequency response from 1000 Hz up.http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/
That article doesn't have it but I thought I remember reading that J Gordon Holt asserted with some conviction that because of the way typical recordings are made a smoothly declining frequency response in the room is what actually sounds natural.
JGH: "The rest of the reason is that—regardless of the way measurements are made—loudspeakers persist in not sounding the way their measured response would indicate that they should. Even when heard from a close seat, live instruments never have as much HF energy—harmonics, attacks—as does a loudspeaker whose high end measures flat at the listeni~ng seat."
I've rarely heard a whole bunch of "air" in live classical acoustic performances, unless there's breathy flute player. (I always wondered if this perception was just a little bit of low-amplitude crossover distortion.) (Also violins seem to have more frequency 'up' (i.e. in the direction of where microphones are often hung) than at listening position, so recordings sound tipped up sometimes.)
My guess is that there is a psychological balance of proportion which ought to be be maintained. Think about it like styling automobiles. You could measure each front, middle and rear section and put together some rules, but that doesn't really work. There are balances of the whole which work well but mixing pieces from the 'best' of good solutions doesn't work.
There's also an adaptation in color vision. We adapt to various ambient lighting 'temperature color' (that a camera & film wouldn't and would need adjustment) quite automatically and perceive scenes as natural, but still other colored lighting could easily look unnatural.
So I hypothesize that humans can adapt to certain broad frequency responses but only some subset of those are perceived to be 'natural' and 'musical'.
BTW, re-reading some of JGH's old writings show how much more perceptive, serious, and less uh, marketing-oriented and cliched, audio writing was then. Or maybe it was just him.
Edits: 08/17/14 08/17/14 08/17/14Follow Ups:
A friend of mine designed many speakers over the years and often, but not all the time, would design them with a slight downward slope with increasing frequency. I believe it was because if the on axis response is flat the power response is bright because of the energy becoming more concentrated as the dispersion narrows. The slope compensates.
By the way the original Acoustic Research speakers were not flat at the center settings of the driver level controls. The drivers were flat but the center setting of the midrange was at a lower level than the woofer and the tweeter lower than the mid. In this case , though, it was to compensate for the high frequency noise on the recordings of the day. And it is part of the reason an AR speaker sounds so dull today at the mid 'flat' settings.
With the sound of music as our reference, the struggle with the sound of our system begins. Our primary goal is simple enough, all we really want is to hear something that sounds like music in our home. The recordings and systems that we rely on don't always make it easy for us to achieve that goal, however, so the struggle for reconciliation begins. Most of us realize that our system will never sound exactly like real music 100% of the time but we want our systems to "suspend disbelief" effectively enough - "effectively enough" referring to the compromises that we learn to accept when dealing with "The Art of Audio" as we know it (an art that reflects the phenomena of live sound while necessarily retaining it's own distinct personality to one degree or another).The goal is to listen, without distraction, to the remains of the music. The odd thing is, we must be distracted before we can get past distraction (!). More on that, later...
There is also the issue of integrity, or nobility (cough!). It must be admitted that not everyone struggles nobly. Our struggles are only as noble as our goals are. If we forget about or choose to ignore the primary reason for audio, we are *struggling against ourselves*. This is what Holt was hammering about, I think.
The degree to which we can relax before our systems is the gauge of it's "musicality". And, relaxation is related to distraction. If our system does not have the power to grab hold of us and make us listen to the recording by suspending doubt or disbelief to the degree necessary, it is neither accurate enough or musical enough - at least as far as the human perspective is concerned.
Not that we should be bothered to differentiate between "accurate" and "musical", but certain forces would persist in badgering us and/or trying to make an issue out of these things. It is all *one thing* (or should be), but unfortunately, we need these troublesome words in order to complete the aforementioned "struggle" in the midst of an audio forum.
Live music provides a distracting experience, directly. Good audio should provide the same sort of distracting experience, albeit indirectly. A musical system provides distraction, without being overly distracting.
Happy now, Gordon?
Edits: 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14
Gordon did not believe in musicality. His obsession throughout his life was to bring the sound of live music into the home as well as it was possible. Any other goal was anathema to him.
If he had known about my definition of musicality, I'm pretty sure that he would have believed in it. You are the one with the mental block, as far as I can tell.Holt believed in the "subjective evaluation" of audio gear, did he not? And, when I use the word "musical" that is exactly the type of thing that I'm referring to (I keep on explaining this, but you don't seem to hear). The *reason why* Holt believed in the "subjectively evaluation" of audio sound is because he knew that it was the only way to make sure that audio sounded like... (drum roll please!) "MUSIC".
"Music".., "Musical".., "Musicality"... "Musical Accuracy"... "Musical Fidelity", etc... Get it?
Maybe I'm unaware of what the word "musicality" was supposed to mean back when Holt was alive but I really don't care about that, partly because I have the feeling that it always was a fairly vague term. So now, this (the above) is what the word "musicality" means to ME. I am trying to make the term seem like less of a vague thing, the only requirement being that you read and try to understand what I'm saying.
Edits: 08/18/14
Gordon believed in reproducing the sound of live music as closely as possible. He judged things subjectively because the measurements of the day were insufficient not because he didn't believe in measuring
And he was quite precise in his description of sound. He hated what people thought was good sound as the years wore on. It's one of the reasons he wrote less and less. He thought it was a waste of time because very few understood what he was writing any more.
And I can say this with reasonable authority. I knew Gordon well from the early 70s. I stuffed envelopes, etc. for him. I helped him with recordings. I wrote for him while he was the editor of Stereophile. And we stayed in contact up until he died, a very sad day for me.
I don't think it was any mystical experience or philosophical hoo ha.
I bet he thought, as I do, it is an empirical physical and psychoacoustic effect which could be quantified.
A musician would call it natural tonality. Anything like musical would refer to the performers sensitivity in interpretation to the musical structure of the piece, nuanced performing technique, and appreciation of the genre and style. They could hear it in a wax cylinder from 1919.
Neither do I, actually...I never said (or thought) that the word "musical" or any of it's derivatives were the better types of words to use around here. To me it is almost like audio slang. A friendly neighborhood term. I think I know what some people are alluding to when they use it, so I try not to let my undies get in a wad whenever if I see it.
Yes, there might be better words to use. But to tell you the truth, sometimes I'm glad when I don't fully understand what others are trying to tell me!
BTW, your "guessing" is just that and nothing more. Holt seems to have left many of us in a state of wonder, so you are not alone.
Edits: 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14 08/18/14
...the sound of live music is what "musicality" is all about.
"Sounds like real music with no distracting colorations" is the definition of it.
I would argue it is an undefineable term. Everyone seems to use it differently. Perhaps a definition is a term a god friend of mine thought of decades ago - color me perfect.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
