 
|
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 |
24.149.197.165
In Reply to: I got to be "fortunate" or my ears are all rusted. posted by cheap-Jack on August 29, 2006 at 08:26:42:
"The last thing I want to do is to add any distortion generators like tone controls let alone frequency equalizers in my audio chain. It only block up the see-through transparency of my soundstage which is my first sonic priority."Funny, the recording engineer didn't have those concerns when he sat in front of 128 different tone controls on his mixing console tweaking them like mad to get the sound he wanted when he made your recordings.
"I tested the acoustics of my basement audio den with a realtime acoutical frequency analyzer with the pick-up microphone of the analyser placed on my head at my 'sweet spot'. Thank the Almighty, I could not see any questionable peaks & dips across the 20Hz to 20KHz spectrum display."
There is only one possible explanation for that, you equipment is broken. ALL sound systems have peaks and dips in the passband. I think it was Bassnut Rich Greene who said bass response usually varies over a range of 40 db, a factor of 10,000 to one. And then there are room resonances...ten million of them in the average room in the audio passband. You might consider having your equipment repaired...or learning how to use it.
"Of coure, I am pretty forgiving & I don't think my rusted ears can detect some plus/minus decimal dB accuracy"
You're no John Atkinson. He can detect +/- 0.1 db and demands perfection from his recordings. It wouldn't surprise me if he could hear up to 400,000,000 as well. At least in his dreams...as superbatman.
Follow Ups:
So......the recording engineer didn't have those concerns when he sat in front of 128 different tone controls on his mixing console tweaking them like mad to get the sound he wanted when he made your recordings.
Besides the obvious facts that not all recording labels use copious amounts of EQ (or at all) or that there are cumulative losses with any kind of signal post processing, why if the engineer had already "tweaked them like mad to get the sound he wanted", do you feel the need to change them? Perhaps you need to join Knob Twiddlers Anonymous.
rw
Different engineers use different speakers to monitor their final product. Their results differ for that alone if no other reason. Recording engineers use different miking techniques and different mikes. I've got two recordings from Green Hill Records, "Dixieland Jazz" and Dixieland Hymns." Same musicians, same recording studio, consecutive catalog numbers, same equipment, but different engineers and different seating arrangements. They sound radically different especially in their level of bass. And then there are the engineer's personal preferences. There are plenty of reasons why different recordings have different equalizations. Billy Taylor's Steinway can be made to sound a lot like mine...with a cut in the extreme bass and a moderate boost in the upper midrange and treble. Just a few db but it makes a lot of difference. Some of Marian McPartland's recordings need a similar tweak. George Shearing's don't. Many older recordings need a treble boost like the ones made by the Mormon Tabernacle choir. Their newer digital recordings don't. London FFRR vinyls need a treble boost. Columbia and some DG vinyls need a treble cut. You want accuracy, you have to be ready, willing, and able to adapt the sound system to the particular recording and you have to know what the instruments are supposed to sound like. That's life. Anyone who thinks all recordings are all made the same way and all you have to do is turn it on is fooling themselves but that's their problem, not mine. BTW, that's the reaon for the Citation 11 preamp. That is the purpose of its five band graphic equalizer, to compensate for different recordings. The other equalizer is adjusted to make the "average" recoring sound flat through the system when the Citation is flat. What is an average recording? Glad you asked. I use DG cds, mostly Herbert VK and the VPO or BPO. That seems to me to be right in the center of most recordings.
Different engineers use different speakers to monitor their final product. Their results differ for that alone if no other reason.I see. So they don't equalize their own speakers for flat response. Interesting.
Same musicians, same recording studio, consecutive catalog numbers, same equipment, but different engineers and different seating arrangements. They sound radically different especially in their level of bass.
Ok. So you are compensating for inept engineers who don't know what neutral bass sounds like. Especially since they don't EQ their own playback systems.
Maybe we need to take those toys out of their hands so there is less damage to correct! ;)
rw
"I see. So they don't equalize their own speakers for flat response."Some do, some don't. Mostly it's the audiophile types who don't. In the old days, everyone did. But that didn't make them sound exactly the same. If some companies had similarities, it was in part do to widespread use of the same speaker models for monitors. A7s in the 50s and 60s, B&W 801s in the 80s.
"Ok. So you are compensating for inept engineers who don't know what neutral bass sounds like."
I didn't say that. The issues are extremely complex. There is no one easy explanation as to why different recordings have different tonal balances. On some recordings, even different insturments are equalized grossly differently. There is no satisfactory fix for that problem short of going back to the master tape. You are satisfied to live with these variations from one recording to another without even trying to correct for them or pretend that they don't exist. Fine, that's your choice but it's not good enough for me.
Mostly it's the audiophile types who don't.You're so predictable!
You are satisfied to live with these variations from one recording to another without even trying to correct for them...
Indeed. I don't share your FR fetish.
rw
"Indeed. I don't share your FR fetish."Clearly you don't. But then having just heard millions of dollars of junk audio equipment a few months ago where the second and third octaves were almost always so weak that recordings of a Steinway grand piano sounded more like a toy piano just so these systems can give the illusion of clarity to tyros is not acceptable to me. That is NOT what high fidelity is about. Or at least not what it is supposed to be about. I recommend that you listen to real music for a change and you will get to understand just how awfully inadequate most audio reproducing systems are even when cost is no object...especially when cost is no object. And it will also become obvious to you that if you want to hear recordings of musical instruments that actually sound something like musical instruments, you have to at the very least compensate for the differences in the way the recordings are made. But if you don't, just get by on what you've been doing, it seems to make you happy enough, you're in the same boat with many other audiophiles who don't know or care to find out anything about live music either.
...where the second and third octaves were almost always so weak that recordings of a Steinway grand piano sounded more like a toy piano ... is not acceptable to me. That is NOT what high fidelity is about.First of all, audio shows are really not good places to audition gear. It's like going to a car show. You can look and touch but not really experience. They serve to narrow down the auditioning process in your home later. The environments are rarely if ever designed for good acoustics. Further, there are compromises made to accommodate either displaying other gear or more folks in the room. The speaker is not given its "choice" in the matter. All you can expect to glean is an idea of a system's potential.
This past Sunday, I spent about four hours optimizing the position of my (picky to place ) bipolars in their new room. I began with the golden triangle method and experiemented from there. The initial position resulted in a 16 db variation in one of those octaves. It sounded heavy. After twenty two trials of moving speakers, moving listening couch, bass traps, and bass contour control (yes, there is a "three band EQ" built into the transformers), I found the smoothest overall result. This was verified by using an RS SPL meter and a test CD with ten test frequencies ranging from 25-200 hz. While the room does exhibit an inherent peak at 40 hz, I was able to get no more than a 3 db variance from 60 hz to 200 hz. 4 db to 50 hz.
"I recommend that you listen to real music for a change and you will get to understand just how awfully inadequate most audio reproducing systems are even when cost is no object...especially when cost is no object." (damned HTML tag problem!)
So how many years have you been a child molester? I do listen to live music almost every day (wife's baby grand) and like you, use classical music as the reference point. The very best systems I've heard (certainly NOT limited to mine) do convey many aspects of the live experience, especially when that is an intimate venue.rw
"First of all, audio shows are really not good places to audition gear."Then why do the exhibitors bother to go at all if not to show off what their products can do? The room was no good. We didn't have enough time to set it up properly. We had a problem with the equipment and we couldn't make repairs out in the field. That was just a prototype, the production units are much better. You never hear them tell you, this is how it works and this is what you will get. Well surprise, it was the same problem (among many) from the $10,000 Martin Logan Summits at Harvey Radio which Costco is selling for $7500 connected to a monster Krell amplifier, an outrageously priced McIntosh preamp and McIntosh cd player. That pile of junk probably retailed for well north of $25,000. No upper bass or lower midrange. Cellos sounded like the musicians were half dead. Oh, it was the amp and preamp which were no good that time. How about those crapply little VS VR1s with an $1800 matching VS subwoofer I recently heard at someone's house which had the same problem? Was it the Chinese made Dynaco Stereo 70 clone from "Tubetech" with the upper midrange/lower treble peak or the Italian made digital solid state amp he swapped it out with which was the real problem? Or was it the setup? Funny, before the demo, the guy took a tape measure out to be absolutely certain the speakers were exactly 44" from the wall behind it, not 43 1/2" or 44 1/2". Maybe he just got that wrong too. When is it that it doesn't sound right because the equipment just plain stinks? I know, when it's mine. T.S. E-Stat, I've got real musical instruments in the same room as my equipment to compare with...and it can sound pretty damned close when the FR is carefully tweaked...sometimes.
Then why do the exhibitors bother to go at all if not to show off what their products can do?The same reason why automobile manufacturers exhibit at numerous venues every year.
Manufacturers don't honestly think that a cramped untreated hotel room can do really good components justice. I would agree that many dealers don't necessarily set up the components in the best way either.
No upper bass or lower midrange. Cellos sounded like the musicians were half dead... with the upper midrange/lower treble peak.
These are largely placement or compatibility issues. You work with what you have in those environments.
...and it can sound pretty damned close when the FR is carefully tweaked...sometimes.
From a FR perspective only, I have no doubt. As for hearing the full decay of the pedal sustain or the harmonically rich "growl" of the strings, better exists. It's all about priorities.
rw
"It's all about priorities."Yes, hearing recordings of musical instruments which actually sound like musical instruments is my top priority. What's yours?
Each of us has their own priority list as to which one of those is most important.Having lived with your electronics (or very close cousins) before, I can tell you that I get greater separation, finer detail and inner resolution than do you. Period. Maybe that is simply a more clearly defined string squeak or articulating a vocalist's intonations better. On the other hand, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you've tweaked the FR curve more to your liking. Is one better or two better? There is no one answer.
I recall your saying that you didn't like your speakers for the first couple of years you owned them. Only after adding the "spectral reflection compensation" (aka bolted on three additional tweeters) did you like them. And then only after yet another two years of tweaking them and your EQs. No one is saying that the very best gear is any less forgiving in the setup.
rw
Even you in your own limited way understand that the two way and three way box speaker doesn't work. You wouldn't have gone out and bought $35,000 worth of room screens and moved them around inch by inch if you didn't. You THINK you know why they sound better than box speakers. But you are wrong. The harmonic distortion of box speakers over most of their range in no more audible than your room dividers. The real difference comes from the way they radiate sound into space. There is no comparison with a box speaker especially at high frequencies where it counts most. That's the problem spectral reflection compensation is intended to solve and it solves it more effectively than a large bipolar radiator. As for flat frequency reponse from one end of the recording/playback chain to the other, you equipment is no flatter than most other people's if for no other reason than the fact that there are such radical differences in the recordings themselves. What's the good of a sound system where you can pinpoint every instrument blindfolded to a tenth of a degree if none of them sound anything like actual musical instruments?
Thanks.The real difference comes from the way they radiate sound into space.
And their absolute top to bottom coherency which is key to fooling my senses of the live event. You don't hear The Bass, The Midrange, and The Treble.
What's the good of a sound system where you can pinpoint every instrument blindfolded to a tenth of a degree if none of them sound anything like actual musical instruments?
I agree entirely. I've heard Double Advents sound more balanced and natural that a couple of higher priced spread box speakers. That allegation does not apply, however, to the Sound Labs.
rw
Most speakers radiatate ALL of their high frequency energy directly at the listener. The higher the freqeuncy the worse it gets. Want proof? Just look at a Madisound catalogue. They have performance curves for many dozens of tweeters from many many manufacturers. And they all have the same fatal flaw, they all have incresingly narrow dispersion as frequency gets higher. By the time you reach 15 khz, most are down 7 to 12 db just 30 degrees off axis. Small wonder when reproducing full range sound such as from a cd player they are shrill. The best dispersion of any tweeter I saw was the AR 3/4" dome. It was only down 5db 60 degrees off axis. Why? for at least 2 reasons. First it was only 3/4" not one inch or an inch and a quarter, smaller being better at dispersion. Second, it did not have the semi horn loading all other manufacturer's dome tweeters have. Look at any of them carefully and you will see a small groove between the dome and the frame. This improves efficiency but reduces dispersion. Still this was not good enough even for AR. The LST which was cloned by Cello had 4 such tweeters aimed in 3 directions. In fact AR built that speaker for Cello for a while. Too bad they didn't incorporate this idea in AR9. Your speakers radiate 50% of their sound including high frequency sound away from you. That is much much better. But it's not nearly good enough. My speakers radiate well over 90% of their high frequency energy away from me just the way most real musical instruments do. That is why even when they reproduce music containing a great deal of high frequency energy, they are never shrill like conventional box speakers are. That energy arrives from many different dirctions. There are other advantages too. More tweeters means little or no tendency to dynamic compression due to voice coil heating. And full extension of the treble allows the bass to be fully extended as well if the speaker is cabable of it without sounding bottom heavy. As for imaging...well you know from your own experience that radiating high frequency energy over a wider angle doesn't degrade it, in fact it improves it making the stereo image audible even when you are not between the speakers. $35,000 is a lot of money for loudspeakers. Maybe it's the best you can do...if you have to buy someone elses answer to a problem.
The LST which was cloned by Cello had 4 such tweeters aimed in 3 directions. In fact AR built that speaker for Cello for a while. Too bad they didn't incorporate this idea in AR9.I remember the LST. Hearing them for the first time was quite a letdown after the gushing review by Hirsch. Even the dealer called them a "toad". While they may have radiated peachy keen, they were dull and bland. That and the 10" woofer variation didn't last long.
Your speakers radiate 50% of their sound including high frequency sound away from you.
More than that. Unlike flat paneled flavors, the U-1s radiate uniformly across a 90 degree arc. First reflection point damping is critical!
My speakers radiate well over 90% of their high frequency energy away from me just the way most real musical instruments do.
Yes and no. If you choose a distant listening perspective where the indirect sound dominates the field, then yes. That is certainly not the case when one is much closer. Like listening to my wife play the piano in the living room. Like the last time I heard the Carmina Burana where I was in Row C. I assure you the first violins were up close and personal. Or to a lesser degree in Row G where Harry Pearson likes. As opposed to another mentor, Dr. Cooledge (a 30 year baritone in the ASO Chorus and former TAS reviewer) who has always bought season tickets in the Loge. There is no one answer.
More tweeters means little or no tendency to dynamic compression due to voice coil heating.
Agreed. The most impressive HF reproduction I've heard was from the ribbon array in HP's Nola Reference system. With an incredibly pure front end and seemingly unlimited quantities of power (a pair of VTL Wotans delivering 1200 watts triode), there was simultaneously a sense of delicacy, power and utter ease. The sound field was enormous. (I'd like to hear those amps driving my stats). There is nothing like that completely unstrained sense of "authority" like one experiences live.
$35,000 is a lot of money for loudspeakers.
I bought mine used for about two thirds of that. They did, however, have new cores (panels), and completely upgraded electronics shipped directly from the factory. The frames were slightly scratched though. A little touch up paint did the trick. :)
rw
"Yes and no. If you choose a distant listening perspective where the indirect sound dominates the field, then yes"You misunderstood what I said. I said "radiated" into space, not the percentage of reflected sound reaching your ears. Most of the sound from a musical instrument whether low or high frequencies is not radiated directly at you. How much of the indirect radiation reaches you and at what frequencies depends on besides the spatial radiating characteristics of the source, the acoustics of the room, the location and orientation of the source, and your realtive location to the source. In an anechoic chamber a live source and a speaker with flat on axis response like AR3a will sound identical. In a real room they won't be even close because of the differences in sound radiating indirectly and reaching you as reflections. And this can be much, even most of the sound. The musical instrument radiates most all all of its sound uniformly as a function of frequency in whatever directions it radiates. That is if it radiates 50% of its middle frequencies at the back wall, it will radiate about 50% of its high frequencies at the back wall too. This is becasue it comes from the same vibrating source like a vibrating string and the box. But a speaker can be nearly omnidirectional at middle and low frequencies and highly directional at high frequencies. This is why they sound so shrill and different. The sound energy as a function of direction and time from each note reaching your ears is entirely different. My experience is that short of correcting this problem, there is no way to make the speaker sound like the instrument.
BTW, insofar as direct versus reflected sound you hear reaching you at a live concert, according to Dr. Bose's measurements at Boston Symphony Hall, the sound is 11% direct and 89% reflected when you get to 19 feet from the performing stage and his curves show that as you go further back in the audience, the percentage of reflected to direct sound gets even greater. Why this justified a speaker which radiated 89% of its sound indirectly is unclear....in fact it is entirely irrelavent.
You misunderstood what I said. I said "radiated" into space, not the percentage of reflected sound reaching your ears. Most of the sound from a musical instrument whether low or high frequencies is not radiated directly at you.Agreed.
But a speaker can be nearly omnidirectional at middle and low frequencies and highly directional at high frequencies. This is why they sound so shrill and different.
Perhaps that's why I favor full range designs where the radiation is uniform, regardless of frequency.
Why this justified a speaker which radiated 89% of its sound indirectly is unclear....in fact it is entirely irrelavent.
True. All rooms contribute indirect sound without employing that gross solution. 901s can be fun at times though, if not accurate. Carefully controlling the backwave of bipolars so they do not confuse the image is critical.
Nice jousting with you today, sir. Now, I've got to figger out why the stupid HT system is humming.
rw
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
