|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.148.228.66
In Reply to: Re: Why Doesn't It Sound Live? posted by mauimusicman on March 21, 2007 at 15:40:52:
Maui:I know we've banged heads [or closer to the truth you were just repeatedly "headbutted" by me... :o)]
But I could not agree more with this last post of yours.
The late great Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg said it best when he stated that most of the "damage" done to music happens right at the microphone membrane - and gets worse from there.
Your last statement: "Look for systems that maintain the original waveform if you want to get close to the original performance."
This makes good sense - AND it's measurable. It's just interesting that so few actually worry about the ACTUAL waveform coming out of their speakers, and instead use more subjective analysis like describing things like "tonal balance" and "detail" and "accuracy".
Flat frequency response (which IS flat amplitude AND phase response) and optimal step response is the way to go IMO.
Follow Ups:
I'm writing this on my calendar :-)
Problem is: The room significantly alters and distorts the speaker's waveform, time coherent or not, heard at the listening position.
Yabbut the damage the room does can either be mitigated with room treatments, changing room dimensions and even geometry, or simply moving speakers to minimize early reflections and "pick and choose" which bass modes to excite. You can even take a sample of the rooms transfer function (impulse response at the listening position) and "reverse process" this impulse (this is the basic concept of digital room correction) and cancel out the reverberations and reflections that the room imparts.But once the live sound is altered by mic membrane, mic placement, mics picking up extraneous sound, not even mentioning the effects of mixing, processing, and compression... that's it. The damage is done. Once something "other than live" is impressed on that disc (vinyl OR plastic) that's where the quest for live sound ends imo, not begins.
Not all recordings are bad, a select few may even be good. The point is that to speak only of a systems ability to reproduce (or recreate) live music and disregard the recording process is a little backwards in my mind. I believe more of the "live sound" information is lost or compromised before we even get it home.
And that's what I thought the crux of Maui's post was, and if it was, we are in agreement. He did mention speaker crossover phase issues.
You are correct though. Listening rooms have varying levels of reverberation and ALL room have bass modes.
I think there are different opinions of where to invest ones time, money and even worry. Audiophiles always say "Well, we worry about and optimize what we can..."
This philosophy sometimes makes NO sense at ALL. Say a student misses all but the last week of a semester. He may only have had exposure to 10 percent of the material. Does it make sense to invest the MOST time trying to ensure I get the MAXIMUM possible score (10/10 percent) at the expense of other exams and marks? NO way! It's better for him to get ZERO out of ten (default) and take the course again next year when you get a shot at ALL of the material. 10/100 is no worse than 0/100. This is my thinking with poor recordings. Play them on an I-Pod. Forget the optimization. It's simply not warranted. In fact, poor recordings can sound WORSE on revealing systems instead of better, especially (IMO) with excessive compression and excessively high recording levels, so prominent in "pop" music and other genres.
Room is a factor yes, but it's one we can affect.
First, I agree, the quest for "live sound" or even "good sound" begins at the recording. Unfortunately nearly all acoustic recordings (classical, jazz, etc) are done with many microphones, multi-tracks, signal processors, etc. Having done some of my own live recordings, it's quite startling their difference in clarity and "you are there" compared to commercial recordings. Something is definitely lost is the commerical recording's process.As for room acoustics, geometry and treatment can cure some problems, but nearly every speaker suffers from floor reflections, for example, and no one I know is placing 4-6" thick foam or other acoustical material on their floors between themselves and the speakers to suppress it.
In my experience, the best way to reduce room standing wave sound coloration is to tackle the problem directly by using speaker configurations, like dipole woofers, which naturally excite them less. I'm not a fan of digital room correction.
There are speakers which, by design, excite standing wave room modes and wall/floor/ceiling reflections less, and some people will like and prefer their sound. However some other people will not like their sound for a variety of reasons. The conclusion is: Everyone has their own preferences and because of this, there is no definitive solution for everyone.
Speakers designed to excite the room less (standing waves, reflections) tend to be directional and to some sound "dead". Quite the opposite of "live sound" from room reflections and reverberation. Which is right? To answer, one first must ask "what's the goal"?
I took some McBride $29 "Princess 8's" and put them in a Dipole config. I used DRC to EQ them and crossed them over at around 250Hz with a pair of 12.5" Focal woofer cabinets.Now, they sounded amazing for a $20 fullrange speaker, but lifting up the high-end with EQ didn't do them justice. (I should have just let them roll off naturally - they don't have any serious breakup modes - and add a tweeter.)
In any case, it was my first experiment with "open backed" speakers, and I must say, the image they threw was quite different than my various box speakers.
I could see myself being an Orion owner one day...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: