What Beethoven was thinking as he imagined a composition was wildly corrupted the moment he translated his thoughts to two dimensional music notations on paper. Perhaps we can get close with a living artist if he or she is directing the performance. Beyond that, there are just too many translations from conductors, musicians, recording and mixing engineers to ever get close to that original thought in the composer's head.
A thread to discuss things related to what and how we hear. System Building too!
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
What Beethoven was thinking as he imagined a composition was wildly corrupted the moment he translated his thoughts to two dimensional music notations on paper. Perhaps we can get close with a living artist if he or she is directing the performance. Beyond that, there are just too many translations from conductors, musicians, recording and mixing engineers to ever get close to that original thought in the composer's head.
Peter,
Excellent points. It seems we share the same views - we want our system to sound similar to some specific aspects of our life references, independently of their diversity.
I think that while wanting what the artist wanted sounds like a good thing, where we need to try and get to is to capture where the mixing and mastering engineers were going. yes; the artist had to approve, but with rare exception they did not do that part.
can our systems match the result envisioned by the guys who put together the recording? is it faithful to that?
would you want to 'EQ' a recording to match more closely the intentions of an artist? or simply want to recreate what the mastering engineer wanted?
what is truth in a piece of media?
Now you guys are talking about Auditory Scene Analysis & the fact that we all have built over time an internalised auditory model based on our experience of the auditory world. It's this internalised model(s) that we evaluate the realism of what we hear
Hi
I am amazed by some posts. There is IMPO quite a flight of fancy in many.
At the heart of the thing there area series of transformations:
THe sounds emanating from whatever happens. (Performance which BTW can be entirely artificial)
It is transformed in an electrical signal (Recording)
This signal is manipulated with an intent. It remains an electrical signal though. (Mastering)
There comes our system whose goal is to perform the inverse of the above ...
SHouldn't our system just be out of the way and reproduce this electrical signal as well as possible? Shouldn't this be the goal?
It is far from easy but it can be approached if we, the receiver, the audiophile do not try to impose to this signal too much or our wants and whims, too much of ourselves in it .. Else we may lose precious information embedded in this signal or at least transform it in a non-recognizable way. I believe that some systems do that (impose tyheir whims and wants ) and they aren't necessarily of the Bose Wave Radio variety. I would like to think that I can avoid to do that.
I am amazed by some posts. There is IMPO quite a flight of fancy in many.
At the heart of the thing there area series of transformations:
THe sounds emanating from whatever happens. (Performance which BTW can be entirely artificial)
It is transformed in an electrical signal (Recording)
This signal is manipulated with an intent. It remains an electrical signal though. (Mastering)
There comes our system whose goal is to perform the inverse of the above ...
SHouldn't our system just be out of the way and reproduce this electrical signal as well as possible? Shouldn't this be the goal?
It is far from easy but it can be approached if we, the receiver, the audiophile do not try to impose to this signal too much or our wants and whims, too much of ourselves in it .. Else we may lose precious information embedded in this signal or at least transform it in a non-recognizable way. I believe that some systems do that (impose tyheir whims and wants ) and they aren't necessarily of the Bose Wave Radio variety. I would like to think that I can avoid to do that.
This is not correct - it may be difficult to do, using conventional techniques for setting up systems, but is certainly achievable ...
How do we determine what the electrical signal that we are trying to reproduce actually is? How to we know that we have accomplished the goal of signal reproduction?
As far as assembling a system I'd start with the room and find speakers to match the room and your personal preferences. Speakers are the most compromised part of a system and the most personal. While it's true preference testing shows people generally prefer the same thing, and my own testing agrees with this, the details and comments people make about a system are VERY different and you probably have noticed this from going to shows where people have very different ideas about what they like often times. Despite this there is often some amount of consensus about what's best.
As far as recordings being very different this is true but one thing I've tried to get right with my speakers is the convincing reproduction of a concert that was recorded using a simple mic setup, like folks who record jam bands with 2 mics near the soundboard. This is interesting because some of these shows I've actually attended and when playing the concert for others often I can find a recording of a show they have actually attended. This is one of the few kinds of reproduction that can be directly compared to attending a concert. For fans of Grateful Dead, Phish, Widespread Panic, live Classical music of all types, etc.. this is one of the most important things and I'd agree. I want to sit back and have it sound like I'm at a concert. Not surprisingly, a speaker that can do this well can do lots of things well.
I obviously have a lot of ideas about what I consider important and much of it matches Harman's testing but not everything. For instance there is a lot of emphasis put on a speaker that has ruler-flat on-axis FR, but unless the speaker is put in a dedicated room this is pretty much useless as a typical living room is going to have a major effect on FR. OTOH, in a studio setting where you're actually making the music it's gotta be a top priority. One example is waveguides/horns... they will always cause some coloration because of energy storage, reflections, etc but you may decide these flaws are offset by their advantages, such as high sensitivity and dispersion pattern. Some people love single drivers with horrible flaws because the simplicity makes for a compelling experience for them. If you're listening for pleasure and not in a studio you may decide some of these kinds of tradeoffs are worthwhile, maybe a less flat high efficiency speaker and a SET amp will float your boat better than JBL M2s, which are a serious tool, but not something I'd choose personally.
As far as recordings being very different this is true but one thing I've tried to get right with my speakers is the convincing reproduction of a concert that was recorded using a simple mic setup, like folks who record jam bands with 2 mics near the soundboard. This is interesting because some of these shows I've actually attended and when playing the concert for others often I can find a recording of a show they have actually attended. This is one of the few kinds of reproduction that can be directly compared to attending a concert. For fans of Grateful Dead, Phish, Widespread Panic, live Classical music of all types, etc.. this is one of the most important things and I'd agree. I want to sit back and have it sound like I'm at a concert. Not surprisingly, a speaker that can do this well can do lots of things well.
I obviously have a lot of ideas about what I consider important and much of it matches Harman's testing but not everything. For instance there is a lot of emphasis put on a speaker that has ruler-flat on-axis FR, but unless the speaker is put in a dedicated room this is pretty much useless as a typical living room is going to have a major effect on FR. OTOH, in a studio setting where you're actually making the music it's gotta be a top priority. One example is waveguides/horns... they will always cause some coloration because of energy storage, reflections, etc but you may decide these flaws are offset by their advantages, such as high sensitivity and dispersion pattern. Some people love single drivers with horrible flaws because the simplicity makes for a compelling experience for them. If you're listening for pleasure and not in a studio you may decide some of these kinds of tradeoffs are worthwhile, maybe a less flat high efficiency speaker and a SET amp will float your boat better than JBL M2s, which are a serious tool, but not something I'd choose personally.
Exactly. A very effective method for knowing what's on the tape is by refining completely varying, in every aspect of their makeup, systems. Play the track on these widely divergent setups, and, hopefully, some very common 'themes' about the recording come through - probability says that all the characteristics that match between the playbacks are so because that "was on the master tape".
In my tweaking that's what I look for, a system steadily evolves to just sounding like the particular recording that's playing, a sense of what's on it from many, many hearings of that material - a true chameleon in behaviour is the goal, my approach.
Not 'perhaps'. You can listen to artists telling you their own impression today itself of the recording format and process. c.f. Fiona Joy and BlueCoastRecords with Cookie Marenco.
You seem to be focused on classical, I'm not.
Yeah, but what dispersion pattern should the speaker have? How about off-axis behavior, power response, etc?...
Truth is most of us don't know, which is ok, so you have to listen.
That's what I do wherever possible .....
As to hifi at the level we here enjoy it , things are mostly different , not "better"when changing gear
I too am not a huge classical listener..and in that case its really very difficult to pin down a definitive "this is what the source sounded like"
The interesting thing is that as a system approaches full competency, then such things as off-axis behaviour, etc, become irrelevant - reason being, is that the 'sound' always remains the same, subjectively, no matter where you are. And why this happens is that the quality is good enough for the mind to "fill the gaps", it automatically compensates for your location with respect to the sound sources; this is why live, acoustic sound comes across like it does, the ear/brain has no problems following the thread of the music making, it's just so easy to keep up with the flow of the sound. Which means, that the audio playback needs to be of sufficient standard to allow the ear/brain to do the same when listening to that.Yeah, but what dispersion pattern should the speaker have? How about off-axis behavior, power response, etc?...
Yeah, but what dispersion pattern should the speaker have? How about off-axis behavior, power response, etc?...
Truth is most of us don't know, which is ok, so you have to listen.
Based on this point , you make sure you editorialize as little as you can ... Do the least harm knowingly.
Sure, and it's up to you to make a selection based on what you value the most. There are pros and cons to every design, nothing is perfect...
I understand what you're saying but keep in mind most people here have very capable systems that achieve everything you're talking about...
Your comment seems to mean speaker don't matter so much but imo it's the most important part of the system and you can take the same electronics and get very different results depending on the speaker... dispersion patterns, etc do matter... a lot.
Well, if they achieve that then the off-axis behaviour should not be a problem. My experience is that the speaker behaviour is far less important to achieving high consistency in the perceived sound than is the quality of the electricals - that is, using the one speaker, with electronics in poor tune the sound imaging is poor, and fails badly when not in a good listening position; improving the chain prior to the speakers allows one to move everywhere in the listening space, without issues.
Different results with same electronics, and varying speakers, implies being able to perceive the speakers as the source of the sound too easily - it should be hard, to impossible to do this.
Yes, I was not precise : none of systems can reproduce fully the live concert.
For me live music and audio playback are two sides of the very same coin.
During the listening sessions we try to evaluate a new element in order to approach the sound at home to the model of the live music stored in our brain.
Sometimes we think that we are very close but a short live concert destroy easily this conviction
But this is nothing wrong as far as our system convey the same emotions like a live music does.
Our skill , experience , know how to achieve the synergy and ... money make the difference.
And we must be very careful when testing because the right decision requires time - this is why audiophiles talk about burning up period , fatigue of the long listening ,wow effect etc.
Our brain needs time and has to adapt during the learning process.
During the short test it is just unstable and uncertain.
Last edited:
This is why I say it's achievable - I can still distinctly remember, decades ago, going to a piano recital at the Sydney Opera House, after having reached a major milestone with my audio ... and thinking during the live performance, this is not good enough. As in, the impact or sense of vitality of that pianist who, yes, was a reasonable away from me, didn't tick the boxes as well as what I got at home.Sometimes we think that we are very close but a short live concert destroy easily this conviction
But this is nothing wrong as far as our system convey the same emotions like a live music does.
Our skill , experience , know how to achieve the synergy and ... money make the difference.
And we must be very careful when testing because the right decision requires time - this is why audiophiles talk about burning up period , fatigue of the long listening ,wow effect etc.
What is harder to get right is the overwhelming avalanche of intensity of sound in say, the climax of a symphony - this really tests the capabilities of a playback system, but I have certainly heard that done right, many times.
Frantz, could you explain why you find some posts amazing? I'm also curious about how you can verify that your system is getting out of the way when reproducing the signal. With inadequate measurement technics, how can one be certain? And how does one know exactly what the original encoding on the recording actually sounds like?
You have started an interesting thread.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
