|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.39.24
In Reply to: RE: home grown PHT posted by unclestu on January 09, 2015 at 23:38:50
"You can transform energy, however. Any attempt to kill all resonance is doomed not only to failure,but simply changes the energy into a sometimes unknown form.."
Damping turns unwanted resonance into heat. I would not call "heat" an unknown.
"I prefer to transform the resonance into a more musically consonant one."
Heat is not sound therefore is neither consonant or dissonant. Turning unwanted resonance (that is unwanted because it is adding or subtracting from the input signal) into silent heat brings the sound that we do hear closer to the input signal, closer to neutral.
What you suggest would not be sonically neutral. You may like the sound but so what?
Placing a acoustic guitar between your speakers so it can sit there and sympathetically resonate will add audible sound to what reaches your ears.
Sound that was never in the original input signal. Sound that is now being created by what's coming out of your speakers but was never part of the original input signal. It's just a rattle, like a rattling window. It may be a rattle that you like but who cares?
We have different goals. You want to create something that sounds good to you and I want to reproduce the input signal without adding or subtracting anything.
If the input signal is good, then it will sound good to me. If the input signal is bad then it will sound bad to me.
I want to hear the band and you want a Happy, Happy Sound Machine.
Enjoy.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
was never part of the original sound.
it's a new sound based on the memory of the old sound.
a recording is a memory.
a memory can only resemble the past.
it is never THE past.
A good recording is a very accurate storage of the electrical signal that was generated by the microphone in the presents of the original sonic event.Unless I was the engineer I have no control of how accurate that signal, WRT the original sonic event, is. I can only attempt to accurately reproduce the recording.
It seems you and Stu have given up trying to reach that goal. Instead, it seems that both of you are purposely moving away from that in an attempt to find something that makes you happy.
Fair enough but don't discount those of us who do try to accurately reproduce the recording and thus, if the recording is accurate to the original sonic event, accurately reproduce the original sonic event.
Both ventures are worthwhile. One is a hobby called Hi-Fi (to reach the goal one needs a accurate recording to start with and then an accurate playback system, neither of which are attainable and that's what makes it fun, keeps it interesting) and the other is a hobby I call Happy, Happy Sound Machines (that goal is not defined and therefore one can claim that the goal is reached even when the output sounds nothing like the original or the recording).
Of course, if the goal is Hi-Fi, one needs to know what the original instruments sound like in real life or there's no way to know when one's getting close or is far away. But that's not important if the goal is to create a Happy, Happy Sound Machine.
Have fun.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 01/10/15 01/10/15
You are making a statement unsupported by your hearing my system or by actually trying certain experiments I have conducted. In that sense your conclusions are utterly foolhardy, and incorrect.
I have invested in some microphones and actually made some recordings of our local youth symphony. Invite the entire audio club I was in to witness the performance and then made a comparison of the real event to the recorded event. Not just my ears but those of a dozen others.
You know what, the members were pleasantly shocked at how good my playback was in comparison to the live event. Having played in a wind ensemble for over a dozen years, I believe I do know how certain instruments sound. I can hear nuances that you probably wouldn't even be aware of.
That being said, for you, or for me, for that matter, to criticize another's system without hearing would be sheer stupidity, IMHO. When I hear deeper into the recording: ambience clues, instrumental harmonics and such, I do believe I am on the right track.
In fact, when manufacturers and designers who have listened to my system make comments, they are invariably shocked at how good and accurate everything sounds. Of course, my goal in setting up a system was to utilize known recordings in specific halls and using specific techniques and checking to see if I could replicate that particular unique sound, Belafonte at Carnegie Hall should not sound like like the Met, for example. Neutrality is my goal: insights into the microphone techniques become apparent: you hear what the artist or producer want you to.
But then again I don't believe you set up your system in that manner either.
It sounds like you are saying that an acoustic guitar sitting between your speakers, sympathetically resonating, adds something that the speakers were lacking and the end result is more accurate?
OK
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Yep, but the most important thing is that is this a simple preordained conclusion on your part or have you actually tried it?
After I discovered this, I noticed people like Shun Mook would place a violin in between their speakers at CES demos. When queried, they admitted to this phenomenon.
Seems to me instead of bantering theory and suppositions, a simple experiment would suffice.
Just my opinion of course, and you are most welcome to believe what you will.
"Yep, but the most important thing is that is this a simple preordained conclusion on your part or have you actually tried it?"Yes, I have tried it. Anything between my speakers causes early reflections and early reflections are not a good thing.
The fact that a acoustic guitar would not only reflect sound but resonate as well just makes it a worse idea.
I'm putting my guitar back in it's case and back in the other room now.
I don't like the boxy, hooty sound coming from it.
The drivers in my speakers are damped. When the music stops, they stop.
My acoustic guitar is not damped. When the music, that causes my guitar of resonate and make sound, stops it keeps going for a while. Why would I want that?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 01/10/15
In my room placing my ear up to the mandolin reveals no real audio output. It is wooden body model, though. Is yours plastic.
A simple tap test of even student models don't really produce a " boxy" sound at least IMHE.When playing music from the system there is NO real audio outpuoutput from the instrument.
Curious..
Edits: 01/10/15
no boxy sound here either. not sure what I am getting. but i remove it, replace, remove, replace .... and there is something 'more' with it in place. There is no sound from the guitar but when I grip the neck there is definitely vibration. the guitar is resonating. that resonance is contributing something but I can't define it clearly.it seems a little more of what already is there. nothing 'new' added.
richer in transients, maybe.[speakers setup for nearfield listening since now cramped after adding the one mono box to the right. using all old wood end tables for rack stands.]
Edits: 01/10/15
Mike VansEvers and I worked hard on his concept of tonewoods. Mike actually developed a series of wooden blocks to place under and above components to fine tune your system, basically 1 inch square and of various lengths they had remarkable properties when carefully placed,
The problem was placement and they required tremendous amount of experimentation in terms of placement and kind of wood used.
Over time it dawned on me that the most suitable woods had already been well known. One deeded to only look at acoustical instrument makers and see what materials they were utilizing (try the Taylor guitar website for an interesting overview, although I do not agree with all their conclusions).
I came to the conclusion that spruce was the most suitable overall wood. Used for violin and guitar tops, it also is the heart of the soundboard of a piano and I know of no other acoustical instrument with a wider range of frequency response.
That being said, implementation is different from simply placing a piece as a footer. Just look at the top of a guitar or the soundboard of the piano. Th spruce planking is supported at the edges and the strings are pressed in the middle , sort of cantilevered. THat is the optimal application for spruce.
How good is it? In my system it replaced a Black Diamond Shelf on BD cones, and with Still points on top between the shelf and component chassis. Not ony was performance bettered but a hell of a lot cheaper.
Of course YMMV
Did you read what you wrote before posting.Yes, no, yes, no. Make up your mind.
If you can feel that the guitar is vibrating then it's making sound.
"that resonance is contributing something"
You're right, it's contributing sound!
"There is no sound from the guitar"
With your system playing at your normal listening level try putting your ear very close to the body of the guitar. You will hear sound.
Back to what you said about there being no sound coming from the guitar, "that resonance is contributing something", if there's no sound from the guitar how is it contributing anything?
"it seems a little more of what already is there. nothing 'new' added."
A little more of what's already there IS something new!
This is like a Laurel and Hardy skit!!!!
You guys are funny.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 01/10/15
i removed it and replaced to keep testing and finally left it in place.
what is your problem? this ain't no science class. i ain't gotta write no paper.
we are fooling around with our stereos ...
you gotta get out more.
"we are fooling around with our stereos"
Yes, you got that right!
Have fun.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
i gotta ask, what makes you so bitter over these trivial things?
i don't know how people take this stuff so serious and get insulted and defensive. some guys like to turn a pleasant pastime into a juvenile pissing match.
of which I am probably now guilty of. so I give up.
I'm not bitter but I do take audio and science seriously.
When I see science being "trashed" I do what I can to correct what needs to be corrected.
In other words, I don't like snake oil. There's way too much of it when it comes to audio. It gives the whole hobby a bad name.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
i'm not selling anything.
are simple honest attempts at tweaking to be censured under some kind of audio Patriot act? LOL. what a fking joke.
No, the fking joke is thinking that added resonance will make the sound more accurate.
It's not about censoring anything.
When you were in school and your math teacher graded your homework and marked some of you answers "wrong", was he censoring you?
Of course not.
You and Stu can listen to anything you want but when you start making ridiculous claims that go beyond simple preferences, like "placing a acoustic instrument between the speakers doesn't add sound but makes the sound more accurate" someone is going to "grade your homework".
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Here in the Tweakers' Asylum, we do not require "proof" of any particular tweak or suggestion about a tweak, nor do we demand strict and rigid proofs of any explanations offered, as most all regular readers know that these are merely opinions.
There will be no grading, no demands for proof, and no "saving others from themselves", as quite enough of that is attempted on other audio chat boards.
Do not continue to take this approach here, or you will be banned in short order.
Moderator,
Jon Risch
Jon Risch
"Here in the Tweakers' Asylum, we do not require "proof" of any particular tweak or suggestion about a tweak, nor do we demand strict and rigid proofs of any explanations offered, as most all regular readers know that these are merely opinions."
I did not know that.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
don't you have mixers and Eq in your studio? Theoretically you should never use them as you are altering the signal from the the microphones. Using a guitar is no worse than their presence in a studio.
What the instrument does is to subtly alter the tonality and the balance.Guitars being very midrangy add a midrange presence, by slightly increasing the volume in that area. In increasing the volume even by a small amount (say 1/2 dB), more detail, previously hidden in the mix,becomes more obvious.
I find the interesting thing about this is that the guitar does not electronically alter the sound. There are no phase shifts, etc., just a fullness and a slight lushness, if you can call it that, which is more consonant with what I hear in real life.
Again you are welcome to disagree,
Edits: 01/11/15
I see a clear delineation line between the source (in our case the record or CD) and the playback of that source.
You say, "Guitars being very midrangy add a midrange presence, by slightly increasing the volume in that area. In increasing the volume even by a small amount (say 1/2 dB), more detail, previously hidden in the mix,becomes more obvious."
I say, I want to hear the mix that the band, the engineer and producer wanted us to hear.
You may like the overall sound better with the added midrange but technically speaking it's less "correct", therefore technically worse, not better.
If you want a different mix the proper way is to get your hands on the multitrack tape/file and remix it to your heart's content.
"don't you have mixers and Eq in your studio? Theoretically you should never use them as you are altering the signal from the the microphones."
Engineers use EQ for all kinds of reasons, IMO the best engineers use EQ, when necessary, to try to bring the sound back towards the actual sound of the instrument.
Great mics (as good as they are) are not perfect in all respects and in every setting.
Stu, it's clear that you and I have very different goals and that's fine.
But please don't state you opinions as anything other than your opinions.
If you make a technical claim be prepared to back it up with something technical, not just opinions.
Thanks.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
amount of subjectivity in your statements.
Do you use a scope to compare pre and post EQ? Wouldn't the direct mike feed be the most accurate and everything else subjective and depending on the taste of the producer nad artist and engineer?
If that is the case ( and indeed the recording techs I have met and done work for all agree)that it is very subjective. Is a piano recorded more accurately when the mikes are hung in the soundboard?In real life, you listen to a piano at least ten feet away, you know...
What would the difference be between the engineers taste and my taste. Personally, the engineer is not listening to my system and my tastes my differs substantially from his. It's like foods, maybe I prefer mine a bit spicier than his.
To say that the only way to listen is per the producers wanted is, well, hubris. I know of some recording engineers who mix to make their stuff sound good on a boom bx, because that is the marker they are aiming for. Do I want a boom box mix in my listening room: not really.
Still I believe my system is probably better balanced than yours. I collect many recordings, and particularly those with known microphones and placement techniques. I set up my system so that such patterns are rather obvious. When different microphone techniques can be readily heard I believe I have achieved a sense of neutrality.
I can hear the multi mike set up of RCA's as compared to the three earliest minimally miked ones. I can hear the three mike set of Mercury recordings. I can hear the Decca tree. Going to other recordings I can hear the single stereo mike set up of Kavi Alexander in his AQ recordings which incidentally have excellent photos of the actual recording sessions.
You have criticized me but without hearing my system and simply assume that you are correct and I am wrong. I find that interesting and indicative of more than a hint of hubris.
YMMV obviously
The problem is that none of us really know what is on a recording. When I produced a recording in the studio it was always a result of my subjective feelings of what things should sound like. Then my master went to be mastered either for vinyl or cds. The sound was never the same as my master. So what is the true accurate sound. The live sound in the studio? The sound in the control room? The sound in the mastering suite? Since we really don't know the answer to these questions I put together my system to produce that subjective sound I have always carried in my head. Is my system colored. Probably. But when I play back music I recorded I feel I am back in my control room. I do have a beautiful classical guitar with a spruce top that I willace in my listening room and see if anything changes
Alan
AHendler,Have focused daily and almost exclusively for one thousand days on successfully reaching the sound of live music. What do I mean by the latter? It is the sound of the recording that remains after all the distortion and corruption, recognizable to the brain and ear, have been eliminated. Listening becomes a completely stress-free experience and there is literally no limit to the hours of music that can pour through the ears and brain. Typically I listen for 10 hours daily.
From zero-noon the volume nob requires turning to less than a 12.30pm-1pm setting, the bass is deep/ solid without a sub-woofer and the treble/ mid-range notes stand forward and separate dynamically and engagingly out of silent darkness across a wide sound-stage. Close the eyes and it sounds exactly like a live performance, not just to me but to other audiophiles.
Compared to most members, my system is simple, inexpensive and relatively unimpressive on paper. And I write because the 2k+ hours of testing with the recent successful conclusion convinces me that Tre' is, in fact, correct. Those who tune indulge a preference or compensate for previous equipment choices but the accessed underlying recording is the accessed underlying recording that itself never changes. The degree to which a user may successfully access that recording without distortion and/ or corruption in reproduction will hopefully, of course, improve over time.
The secret to reaching 'live music' is a relentless focus on the 'EMI ICEBERG' whose thick distortion curtains hide below much conscious awareness. De-magnetized brass for ferrous screws in speakers , plastic substitutes for all brass and stainless steel screws in amplifiers and components except DVD/TV are requirements. Component vibration, shared component corruption/ ground, etc.etc. always get the attention so they are not hiding live music from audiophiles like EMI. Hopefully this renewed emphasis will benefit someone's ears and brain somewhere...
DG
Edits: 01/11/15
Since you have tried and incorporated many tweaks I have mentioned, have any added distortion? I believe all tweaks I have recommended reveal more information previously buried by other factors, many of which have been either ignored or perhaps not considered to be a factor.
UncleStu,To quote the immortal Harold Ickes, Jr, "I do not recall" any of your excellent tweaks creating distortion:-) They work well in my experience and often introduce areas for further testing for which I shall always be in your debt.
In my opinion the most pernicious sources of system sound degradation are those like magnetic distortion in speakers/ amplifiers hidden from conscious awareness and lack of circularity of unbevelled CDs masking the byproduct/s of lesser sources of distortion/ corruption. EMI is the hedgehog-worst because few can be bothered with such a fiddly, time-consuming job that it's put off until never...
DG
Edits: 01/12/15
"Do I want a boom box mix in my listening room: not really."
Neither do I and that's why I don't play those type recordings.
So am I to understand that the tweaks you do on your system will make a boom box mix sound good while at the same time preserve a good mix?
How does that work?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
putting unsaid words in the mouths of others.
Too bad.... It precludes any really meaningful discussion.
I did not put words in your mouth.
I asked you a question. "...am I to understand ..."
Please stop accusing me of things I didn't do.
What did you mean when YOU said "I know of some recording engineers who mix to make their stuff sound good on a boom bx, because that is the marker they are aiming for. Do I want a boom box mix in my listening room: not really."
I was asking IF you meant that your system "corrects" for a boom box mix.
If that's not what you meant all you have to do is say so.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
You say that you don't listen to music mixed to sound good on boom boxes. Almost most pop recordings for the last 50 years have ultimately been played back on small cheap speakers in the studio so we would know that the music would sound good on boom boxes, car radios, walkmans,televisions and MP3 players. By the way we used 3" auratone speakers in our studio. We should be greatful that some of these recordings sound great on our systems.
Alan
Not all studio monitors were terrible, for instance.
BBC used several licensed variants of the Rogers LS 3/5, which has become sought after by some aficionados. I don't know about other radio studios/stations. It appears many wear headphones. That is all I will risk saying in this discussion.
Steve
I think ahendler meant "in addition to".
It's true, in my experience, that in addition to a great monitor system an engineer will "check" the sound in a car or on a boom box for compatibility. I know I always do. You have to make sure the mix "travels".
In the earlier posts I thought we were talking about mixes that were mixed specifically to sound good on a boom box. I know some hip hop and rap music is mixed that way. [In the old days, a lot of times, there were two mixes for each release, a normal mix for the album and a "radio" mix to be played on the radio.]
Those were the mixes that I was referring to when I said that I did not normally listen to that type of mix.
These are just my opinions.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
you are off the mark.
i never made any claims except what i directly heard at the time of testing. you failed reading comprehension.btw, and for the record, i am not looking for accurate.
i am looking for enjoyment.
Edits: 01/11/15
Sorry for lumping you and Stu together. I shouldn't have done that.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
i have followed his suggestions with productive positive results.
he is not just words words words.
i only post based on my personal experience, but then as I have said many times, I'm an old man.
i was merely sharing my experience at start of this thread.
which you attempted to discount as posts went by.
have you tried any of this which was suggested instead of just mouthing off negatively about it?
"have you tried any of this which was suggested .."
Of course I have. I've built 3 professional recording studios. Room acoustics is not a guessing game, it's a science. Same goes for resonance control.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I am an amateur in the highest sense of the word.
In the spirit of collegiality I give up any argument.
I do this stuff not to fight about it but to share my experience, learn more tricks, and for the shear joy of the game.
Theory, math, interest me little.
Practical results are all I am about.
The HOW, not the WHY. Although musing on the matter can get poetically entertaining, the truth of the matter always seems allusive.
The moderators feel that allowing this thread to continue, even though it may hold useful information, will wind up creating more trouble than it solves, and thereby detract from the purpose of this forum.This is not the appropriate venue for discussion of this matter, and we ask that those with an interest in the subject, take it elsewhere (e.g. private e-mail).
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: