|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.166.146.22
In Reply to: RE: yes we have no boxes posted by Tre' on January 10, 2015 at 20:03:18
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.
Follow Ups:
"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.
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: