Thanks. I will give them another opportunity. I listened to some Channel Classics issues in a Theta based multichannel system and it was far behind the best stereo I have listened to.
Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
Thanks. I will give them another opportunity. I listened to some Channel Classics issues in a Theta based multichannel system and it was far behind the best stereo I have listened to.
The complexity of setting up a good multichannel system is greater than that for a 2 channel system and that, coupled with the relative rarity of multichannel music (not HT) systems, means that the odds of hearing a good one are long.
Are you saying that as of now, you intend to ignore the conclusions because of my hypothetical numbers? Or are you saying that you've already been ignoring the conclusions in time past and will continue to do so now because of my hypothetical numbers?
Either way, I suggest looking beyond the hypothetical numbers and focus on the underlying point. Which is that far and away the most significant contributing factor that determines a playback system's level of musicality is the noise floor level which is determined by unaddressed or improperly addressed distortions.
Wouldn't it also make sense that if any part of the music embedded in the recording remaining inaudible below the raised noise floor would automatically imply that the parts that remain audible at the speaker output can only be a percentage of the original recording read by the source?
Regardless of how well or how poorly I laid it out, surely you wouldn't ignore that conclusion would you, Kal?
I had got the idea that a multichannel system would be much more predictable and simple to set than a stereo system. What separates a great multichannel music system from a great HT one?
But if your simplified 2-ch. systems fall far short of the mark due to its raised noise floor, why should anybody expect that you'd have greater success with a more complex system? Especially when obviously the noise floor problem has not been addressed much less acknowledged? Unless perhaps you're implying noise floors are somehow automatically reduced with the addition of each extra channel?
That "art" includes huge modification of sound prior to getting frozen in the recording media. That is why this is the art we need to worry about replicating, not what happened "live." Here is an example of track being recorded at Nashville's famous blackbird studio:
Look at Dawn Langstroth the signer in that made shift vocal booth. She is wearing headphones. What "live" sound is she hearing? Or the musicians? All that is happening here is gathering raw elements. Some elementary mixing is done to allow them to play the track but that is not at all what we are going to hear on the album. Tons more manipulations happen with the artist and label buyin before we get the real art. That art has the talent's blessing and they know full well, with full intentions, that it has nothing to do with the live sound. Indeed for a ton of music, the artist would commit suicide if the recordings of their voices and instruments were not "'sweetened."
We need to measure the album based on enjoyment scale not some made up notion about it approximating live music. Technically and logically nothing is being done in our systems to present a live experience.
Hey Amir,
That’s actually a pretty funny example. Could hardly have chosen a better one.
Yes, that’s Dawn recording at (what was) George Massenburg’s room. Studio C. The one with the bespoke 2D diffusor that is the largest prime number sequence ever realised in a real space which according to George has remarkable Schroeder curves.
Yes, she’s wearing headphones, along with all the other musicians, and George at the desk. Were she not, it’s likely she’d struggle to sing in pitch competing with a cellist, pianist, two guitarists, a bass player and drummer, and probably blow her voice out before the end of the take, given they’re all in the same room separated by gobos with the piano taped with packing blankets.
But it seems you and I have quite a different perspective on what’s happening in the video. You see “raw elements” being gathered, needing to be mixed and “manipulated…before we get the real art”.
I see the “real art" being done by the hands, feet and vocal chords of Dawn and the musicians.
George? He’s capturing it for prosperity’s sake, but neither he nor I would say he’s the artist making the art. True, he’s going to very selectively mic, compress, EQ, gobo, packing blanket and shove Dawn into a corner in order to capture it all digitally, but that’s because A) he’s tracking them all live in one take; B) because he likes to produce so that what he’s capturing while tracking is going to be more or less the final mix; and C) because music is what the artists are making and sound is the bit he’s responsible for.
Live music is happening in that video. Art is being made by everyone in that room in that particular moment in time and it won’t happen the same way again ever, even if they do another hundred takes. You can paint a painting once, but if you paint it again on another canvas, it’s a different painting. You can sing a song once, but you can’t re-sing it. You have to create another, new piece of art, risking that it might not be quite as “magic” as the previous one. Because it will, in a million subtle and distinctive ways inevitably be different from the last one. Music is a time-based art form, and sometimes the magic doesn’t come back on successive takes no matter how many you do, you just get blisters.
And in each of those moments, each musician is subtly altering the time, dynamics and pitch of each note they play, because that’s the burden of being imperfectly human. And what separates Dawn and all the musicians from George, is that George has no responsibility for the emotional creative content inherent in the process of making music. He can “enhance” whatever emotion is there through creative choice, for sure. But not amount of fettling, remixing, remastering or up sampling will “add” emotion if it’s not present before the mic capsule.
Art is emotion in practice. It’s a practice of expressing intention. The intention lies with the artist. The canvas, the tape, the analogue/digital file are the mediums, but the message is in the heart, mind and hands of the maker. Rothko at various stages wanted to “express complex thought”, have the “impact of the unequivocal”, “envelop” the viewer and “reveal truth”. He just used paint, canvas and some brushes. Beethoven wanted to “strike fire from the heart of man, and bring tears from the eyes of women”; Coltrane wanted to “point out the divine in a musical language that transcends words”; Penderecki wanted to “go straight to the heart and mind of the listener”; Johnny Cash “got a song (I’m) singing from (my) gut, (I) want that audience to feel it in their gut” - they just used time, pitch and amplitude.
All those things happen before the mic. The art, the music and it’s message are inextricably linked through intention and technique, and eventually turned into waveforms. Many, many things might happen to it after that. Technically and logically, we of course need a mechanism of mediation between the art form and its delivery to our nervous system. We call these records/tapes/digital files and a hi-fi system. (A painting needs no mediator, which is why the static art forms of painting and photography are not equivalent to recorded music replay).
But I’m not listening to the medium, I’m listening for the message, what the artist wanted to say to me, wanted to make me feel, whether it be fire from the heart, the presence of the divine or to free my mind so my ass will follow (thanks, George Clinton). It’s not that I can’t hear the effect(s) of the medium and mediator, it’s just that I’m primarily concerned with what’s happened before the mic (the “live” event), and my experience tells me (perhaps deludedly - it is possible) that measurements of individual components on test benches don’t come close to telling me much if anything about that. Like I’ve said before, though, thankfully my central nervous system has evolved to do that job just fine on its own.
—
P.S. If you ever get to produce an artist, especially a vocalist whose job it is to take a bunch of often banal poetry and elevate it into another art form, my recommendation would be to “sweeten” their voice however they want it to sound. Their vocal performance will depend on it, as will your ability to stay gainfully employed in the music industry.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I must admit that I follow your line of thinking and for my ears and my music your beliefs are akin to mine.I enjoy reading your posts.
Where did I say that was the "real art?" I said that the recording is the second instantiation of art. The first one, the live version, is inaccessible to us. You only got to see it in that Youtube video. The finished version at highest fidelity ironically lands far more removed from the original art than that Youtube video! So if your goal is to hear the original art, then you should listen to that Youtube version, not the final record.
So the point is not that the original art is unimportant. It certainly is not. It simply is the case that you cannot ever make a reference to reproduction in your system as being a version of a live event. That event was not presented to you in the recording to mimic. You were given an alternative version and all you can do is be faithful to that.
Oh, he is part of creating the art. There is a reason top recording engineers are in such high demand by artists. They are part and parcel of making great music, lest you tell me Keith Johnson won his Grammy for no reason:
It is and only exists in the Youtube video. Not the CD.
All true but not related to the argument I made which is the inaccessibility of original art to us as buyers. Clearly it is absurd to say there was no art until the recording was made, a point which I did not make.
Measurements actually tell us why it is impossible for us to even hear the art that was created in the studio, let alone upstream in the live session.
Genelec is a common brand of professional speaker used in pro world. Here is a sample measurement of it:
And here is a Wilson:
No way would these two loudspeakers produce the same anything. And we can use measurements to show that.
But you are right that measurements don't capture anything about the art. We measure the art with our brain.
I used to subscribe, for many years, to one of few Canadian audio magazines. ...Created by Andrew Marshall...AIG...Audio Ideas Guide.
In it, the Genelec speaker's measurements from above were the reference on how to read measurements. ...Professional monitors.
...Bryston amps were also emphasized for their reliability, warranty, and with provided measurements for each amp sold.
I don't think that today this has changed much. ...Measurements are still very important, even if they don't explain everything that our faulty old ears are listening to, to the way we hear the sounds reproduced from our less than perfect gear.
The artists (scientists) who designed loudspeakers and power amps...they certainly use measurements in their designs, crossovers, drivers, and all the parts inside a good power amp.
Audio reviewers sometimes stumble on an audio product that sounds real good to their ears, and afterwards when measured in the lab...they measure awful.
Or vice versa?
Measurements; are some of them more subjective than objective? ...Science is for sure about the knowledge of gathering all pertinent information...mathematical coordinates, chemical reactions, electronic part's values, ...even how we perceive sounds in different acoustical venues. ...The human hearing, the type of music that soothes the soul and the heartbeat. ...The Beatles? ...Bach? ...Beethoven? ...Mozart? ...Chopin?
In it, the Genelec speaker's measurements from above were the reference on how to read measurements. ...Professional monitors.
...Bryston amps were also emphasized for their reliability, warranty, and with provided measurements for each amp sold.
I don't think that today this has changed much. ...Measurements are still very important, even if they don't explain everything that our faulty old ears are listening to, to the way we hear the sounds reproduced from our less than perfect gear.
The artists (scientists) who designed loudspeakers and power amps...they certainly use measurements in their designs, crossovers, drivers, and all the parts inside a good power amp.
Audio reviewers sometimes stumble on an audio product that sounds real good to their ears, and afterwards when measured in the lab...they measure awful.
Or vice versa?
Measurements; are some of them more subjective than objective? ...Science is for sure about the knowledge of gathering all pertinent information...mathematical coordinates, chemical reactions, electronic part's values, ...even how we perceive sounds in different acoustical venues. ...The human hearing, the type of music that soothes the soul and the heartbeat. ...The Beatles? ...Bach? ...Beethoven? ...Mozart? ...Chopin?
That red word there. That part of your last few posts is why Kal is ignoring you. Sure, IF, the noise floor in two channel is an issue and having more noisy channels raises the noise more it would be a problem. Generally speaking, not sure how you went off the rails with this. Noise floors in many/most good systems and recordings isn't much of an issue these days. So going on all about this IF, which btw is not, does not seem very productive of much.
I think that applying numbers for the sake of argument is a bad practice: First because use of such numbers tends to cloak an argument in undeserved scienticity(!). Second because the conclusions drawn tend to be dependent on the values chosen.
Neither. I have been reading your posts as they come along.
Well argued but, imho, not proven.
Well, it is more difficult simply because of the increased number of variables consequent to the increased number of components. OTOH, it is not proportionally more difficult because those variables provide more tools. However, one cannot simply apply one's stereo experience directly to a MCH setup because the two demand a different interaction with the room. Stereo requires substantial support from room reflections to support the perception of space/ambiance. MCH requires, one might say demands, less room contribution as most of the necessary space/ambiance information along with their directional cues are provided by the source and system.
In theory, nothing. In practice, it is the choice between different compromises assuming that we do not have perfection. MCH music has an aesthetic shared with good stereo music which prioritizes tonal accuracy, clarity and neutral balance. HT should do the same but, often, there is a trade-off for extremely wide dynamic range, substantially extended bass range and power and dialog intelligibility (sometimes unnaturally in the context of the action).
That's funny. A home theater designer told me the exact opposite. He told me that improving the audio would make the whole experience much more immersive than improving the video quality.
You misunderstood me. I mentioned this as one possible example of many that could be used to set a standard. I was not suggesting that it was a good example, but rather as a possible example of what we could agree or not agree to use as a standard. This is one of many possibilities.
That is the truth. I upgraded my HT audio and was amazed at how much better the picture looked. It definitely was a WTF! moment. I use Avatar as my video reference.
The center channel should ideally same as L and R, instead of the those small centers that HT guys use. All 3 should be speakers that would stand their own in a 2-ch system. Also some HT guys keep their L and R too wide apart, in corners of the room, while for audio they do better closer together
Also there is not as much choice of processors. You have the low end ones like Denon etc - and then a sudden jump to Meridian, Datasat, Trinnov, and Illusonic, all which are at a similar price and seem to be evolving much more than 2-ch preamps
Source can be an oppo, that's fine.
Thing is, in an MCH system, the disadvantages that boxes have in a 2-ch system (like soundstage, details, etc) compared to a planar go away. Due to the nature of the set up, there is more soundstage, more details, and imaging is much better, because the speakers are actually there in the center rather trying to create an artificial image through speaker angling and positioning.
Because of the nature of the processor, crossover to 2 to 4 subs will produce more superior bass than most 2-channel systems - you will have to spend serious money to get that good bass out of 2 stereo speakers.
There are fewer room issues, if any, at all, while listening to the music.
In a good MCH system as opposed to a bad one, you will get 2-ch music with concert hall ambience rather than the flute whizzing from behind your left ear to your right like a batmobile.
What do you lose in a MCH system over a two CH system? If your favorite speaker is something like a horn, or an asymmetric planar, you will struggle to get them in a MCH set up at a reasonable cost. In which you will never enjoy the tonality as much of a MCH set up with boxes. But if people like boxes anyway for 2-ch, like Wilsons, B&W, etc, then for me MCH is a no-brainer because their current set up extends so easily into MCH.
All this applicable to classical only.
Last edited:
- Status
