Better than Live??

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Two things:

Realize that most every recording you buy today has been mixed on a pair of Yamaha NS-10s. These are cheap paper cone speakers of the quality that Lafayette used to sell up through the early 1970s, with the split in the middle because the cone manufacture was too cheap to use a pulp forming/deposition process and instead takes web paper and spins it into a cone and glues the overlapping edges together. Ugh.

Other thing: Loudness curves.. while they worked great with small speaker systems, I have found that with large speakers, the need for it is eliminated. Even at soft levels, there is a constant balance of bass to mid/treble. And the nice thing is, unlike the loudness compensation, as you crank up the volume, the bass doesn't go away.

 

[NorthStar]

I never use the Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume from my pre/pro; ever.

Good point too on the monitors used by some of them music recording engineers, and the reason why I referred to the audio gear and speakers they used for monitoring their recordings.
There is just no way that us, serious audiophiles, are going to use the exact same gear,
unless mastered on similar equipment used by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering, Portland, Maine.
...Recorded and mixed at Ocean Way Studios, ...for one example (there are others, of course).

 

[Groucho]

Other thing: Loudness curves.. while they worked great with small speaker systems, I have found that with large speakers, the need for it is eliminated. Even at soft levels, there is a constant balance of bass to mid/treble. And the nice thing is, unlike the loudness compensation, as you crank up the volume, the bass doesn't go away.

I have large speakers, but my impression is that the treble sounds disproportionately muted at low volumes, and they only really 'come alive' at higher volumes. I may do some experimenting with loudness curves.

 

[GaryProtein]

I have large speakers, but my impression is that the treble sounds disproportionately muted at low volumes, and they only really 'come alive' at higher volumes. I may do some experimenting with loudness curves.

A lot of that has to do with the frequency response of your EARS. Sensitivity if lower on the high and low ends than in the middle and not everybody's ear frequency response curve is the same.

 

[Groucho]

A lot of that has to do with the frequency response of your EARS. Sensitivity if lower on the high and low ends than in the middle and not everybody's ear frequency response curve is the same.

Indeed, but with the added dimension that our ears' sensitivity to different frequencies varies with volume. It's summarised (on average) by the Fletcher Munson curves which I mentioned yesterday.

As volume increases, our lack of sensitivity to bass and treble decreases. This means that if we listen to a straight recording of an event at a volume lower than the true live level we will perceive the bass and treble to be lacking, assuming that the recording and playback systems are EQ'd to flat. From the earlier discussion, it would appear that most people understandably listen to music at a lower level than live, so if our systems are rigorously EQ'd to flat (mine is), what we hear will be a little dull. Conversely, as someone mentioned earlier about listening to a cathedral organ recording at a level louder than live, you could end up with the bass and treble being overpowering.

We might be able to fix this with a 'loudness EQ curve' but in the absence of any information about the original recording's absolute amplitude, and with many recordings being somewhat compressed and/or probably EQ'd specifically for listening at quieter levels than live, setting it would always be a trial-and-error affair.

 

[GaryProtein]

Indeed, but with the added dimension that our ears' sensitivity to different frequencies varies with volume. It's summarised (on average) by the Fletcher Munson curves which I mentioned yesterday.

As volume increases, our lack of sensitivity to bass and treble decreases. . . . .

That is exactly what I am referring to.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Two things:

Realize that most every recording you buy today has been mixed on a pair of Yamaha NS-10s. These are cheap paper cone speakers of the quality that Lafayette used to sell up through the early 1970s, with the split in the middle because the cone manufacture was too cheap to use a pulp forming/deposition process and instead takes web paper and spins it into a cone and glues the overlapping edges together. Ugh.

Other thing: Loudness curves.. while they worked great with small speaker systems, I have found that with large speakers, the need for it is eliminated. Even at soft levels, there is a constant balance of bass to mid/treble. And the nice thing is, unlike the loudness compensation, as you crank up the volume, the bass doesn't go away.

I've been in more than a few recording studios, going back to the early 80s, and I've never seen anything mixed on a pair of NX-10s. I've often seen them used as a reference, but that's a very different thing, and a very different thing from what audiophiles think of as "reference" as well. In this case, they are a reference in the sense that they became ubiquitous (and even then often only as a reference) in the late 70s and pretty much everybody in the business knows what they sound like and after mixing on, typically, much better speakers, they'll give a listen to see what they've got on something not much better than the average home system.

It's been a long time since I've seen anybody mix on any passive speakers, much less NS-10s. A little history: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Although it depends on system and room, I have often read that sound engineers establish the optimum listening level of a recording playback during the mixing and mastering. And most of them are not aimed to be played at realistic levels, but at gratifying levels in typical domestic conditions - not in great audiophile rooms who love floor and wall shaking. Surely they know about the Fletcher Munson curves (and many other things). As a famous author said " That is where the professional recording industry steps in."

 

[Groucho]

Although it depends on system and room, I have often read that sound engineers establish the optimum listening level of a recording playback during the mixing and mastering. And most of them are not aimed to be played at realistic levels, but at gratifying levels in typical domestic conditions - not in great audiophile rooms who love floor and wall shaking. Surely they know about the Fletcher Munson curves (and many other things). As a famous author said " That is where the professional recording industry steps in."

I'm sure that's true. That is why I said:

...and with many recordings being somewhat compressed and/or probably EQ'd specifically for listening at quieter levels than live...

But 'audiophile recordings' are recorded 'flat'..?

It's interesting that people can hear night and day differences between cables but, if we think that the Fletcher Munson observation is real, apparently the very audible changes between listening at different volume levels are not worthy of a mention. For example, 're-calibration' of cables apparently involves "long term listening with the targeted source components...to refine and finally to verify network values." How many people, when sending their $45000-worth of wires away to be 're-calibrated' at the factory for a price of $5000 or whatever, check that the engineers are listening at the same levels that they are? Surely, if the engineers are listening at much higher volumes than the customer then the cables may come back sounding "dark" or "flat" or "unfocussed". Just a thought.

 

[LL21]

Indeed, but with the added dimension that our ears' sensitivity to different frequencies varies with volume. It's summarised (on average) by the Fletcher Munson curves which I mentioned yesterday.

As volume increases, our lack of sensitivity to bass and treble decreases. This means that if we listen to a straight recording of an event at a volume lower than the true live level we will perceive the bass and treble to be lacking, assuming that the recording and playback systems are EQ'd to flat. From the earlier discussion, it would appear that most people understandably listen to music at a lower level than live, so if our systems are rigorously EQ'd to flat (mine is), what we hear will be a little dull. Conversely, as someone mentioned earlier about listening to a cathedral organ recording at a level louder than live, you could end up with the bass and treble being overpowering.

We might be able to fix this with a 'loudness EQ curve' but in the absence of any information about the original recording's absolute amplitude, and with many recordings being somewhat compressed and/or probably EQ'd specifically for listening at quieter levels than live, setting it would always be a trial-and-error affair.

Interesting...two comments/questions:
1. Does the level range of say, 65db-90db avg (before peaks) have that much variance of the loudness sensitivity of which you speak in this Munson curve? Just wondering if the curve is more steep at certain extremes.
2. I have set my sub automatically...and then always adjusted by ear. And consistently found the bass "better" at around 3db+ higher than flat in my room. It makes kick drums have punch like I feel when live...but this kick is gone on many recordings when set at flat.

 

[microstrip]

(...) It's interesting that people can hear night and day differences between cables but, if we think that the Fletcher Munson observation is real, apparently the very audible changes between listening at different volume levels are not worthy of a mention. For example, 're-calibration' of cables apparently involves "long term listening with the targeted source components...to refine and finally to verify network values." How many people, when sending their $45000-worth of wires away to be 're-calibrated' at the factory for a price of $5000 or whatever, check that the engineers are listening at the same levels that they are? Surely, if the engineers are listening at much higher volumes than the customer then the cables may come back sounding "dark" or "flat" or "unfocussed". Just a thought.

My only comparative experience with cable recalibration was with the old Transparent Audio Reference XL (at that time their top cable) speaker cable. During some time I had both the SS and the tube version of the same type of cable in my system. When mismatched the difference was not in tonal balance of any thing that I could associate with Fletcher Munson effect, but with a noticeable loss of the dynamics (and microdynamics, I have to say). BTW, people should remember that the cut off frequency of the networks of these cables was around 200 kHz - Fletcher Munson would also say that you are not sensitive to these frequencies!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Although it depends on system and room, I have often read that sound engineers establish the optimum listening level of a recording playback during the mixing and mastering. And most of them are not aimed to be played at realistic levels, but at gratifying levels in typical domestic conditions - not in great audiophile rooms who love floor and wall shaking. Surely they know about the Fletcher Munson curves (and many other things). As a famous author said " That is where the professional recording industry steps in."

Interesting. How do they establish that optimum level?

Fletcher Munson would also say that you are not sensitive to these frequencies!

Fletcher, Munson and every audiologist on the planet.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

When mismatched the difference was not in tonal balance of any thing that I could associate with Fletcher Munson effect, but with a noticeable loss of the dynamics (and microdynamics, I have to say).

I'll take your word for it, but the Transparent Cable web site says this:

Transparent's networks are also designed to help the cable transfer mid and lower audio frequencies more efficiently. Cables without networks tend to become more capacitive at mid to low frequencies, thereby resisting these frequencies. Cables without networks at typical lengths found in audio systems can not physically possess an ideal amount of inductance to pass mid to low frequencies with the same efficiency as they pass high frequencies. Cables without networks pass harmonic information more efficiently than they do fundamental frequencies which affects our impression of the tonal balance of the system.

... which does sound like some sort of frequency-dependent EQ type of thing.

(I did a simple soundcard-based loopback test of a $2 cable the other day, and it was as flat as the flattest ruler you've ever seen, so I'm not quite sure what they're on about! But if it makes them happy... and I'm sure it does... very, very happy...)

 

[microstrip]

I'll take your word for it, but the Transparent Cable web site says this:



... which does sound like some sort of frequency-dependent EQ type of thing.

(I did a simple soundcard-based loopback test of a $2 cable the other day, and it was as flat as the flattest ruler you've ever seen, so I'm not quite sure what they're on about! But if it makes them happy... and I'm sure it does... very, very happy...)

Please note that I agree that Transparent Audio have a characteristic tonal quality - although their FR is really flat in the audio band!

My comments about similar tonal balance and different dynamics addressed only the recalibration of similar type of cable. And I am the last person in the world to pretend that I understand the why's of cable sound!

 

[opus111]

I'll take your word for it, but the Transparent Cable web site says this:

What they say doesn't make sense to me, so I'd guess that they don't understand why their networks are making a difference. Capacitance impedes (does not resist, that's for a resistor) but only when its series capacitance. Cables have shunt capacitance so while they look capacitive at LF that's not impeding the signal.

What I suspect is more likely is that their networks are modifying the common-mode properties of the cable, the way that CM noise is coupled into the DM signal. This fits with what you're saying micro - that the 'wrong' network affects the dynamics - that's the instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Quite a few Jazz recordings have the bass EQ'ed up the wazzoo, really over-the-top excessive. Perhaps that's got to do with the assumption that these recordings might be played at very low levels over dinner as background music. A 'warm' sound that's luxurient on mid-fi systems that middle class persons with a slight taste for audio might own. But reference or not, many of them sound as if they were mixed to sound 'good' on NS-10s.

Cables: why are there no double-blind A-B-X comparisons of cables and why are the purveyors of cable 'sound' so unwilling to participate in such studies? And what do the factories do with those cables that are sent in for 'recalibration'? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Groucho]

What they say doesn't make sense to me, so I'd guess that they don't understand why their networks are making a difference.

A very charitable view! I'm glad that cars are not designed in the same way, despite their similar price.

 

[microstrip]

A very charitable view! I'm glad that cars are not designed in the same way, despite their similar price.

Cars are not dependent on psychoacoustics to create an illusion of reality, so the price similitude is the only think you can compare.

We have a similar lack of in deep knowledge about the why's of expensive sources, electronics and speakers - can someone explain me how the Nelson Pass XLS or the Solution amplifiers sound looking just at the technical details? But people love to focus mainly on cables - just because they are the easier to attack using their marketing statements.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Cars are not dependent on psychoacoustics to create an illusion of reality, so the price similitude is the only think you can compare.

We have a similar lack of in deep knowledge about the why's of expensive sources, electronics and speakers - can someone explain me how the Nelson Pass XLS or the Solution amplifiers sound looking just at the technical details? But people love to focus mainly on cables - just because they are the easier to attack using their marketing statements.

That depends on the "technical details" in question. Given enough detail, plenty of people can explain how amplifiers sound the way they do, and given the same results, at the same level of detail on another amplifier, they could predict that it would sound the same. But I suspect that would do nothing to prevent many, in sighted listening sessions, from hearing them very differently.

Amplifiers are really no easier or harder to "attack" - if that's how you must characterize healthy skepticism - than cables. But cables, being so much simpler, should make it much easier to demonstrate, with data, the differences you hear so clearly. Haven't seen that data.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

That depends on the "technical details" in question. Given enough detail, plenty of people can explain how amplifiers sound the way they do, and given the same results, at the same level of detail on another amplifier, they could predict that it would sound the same. But I suspect that would do nothing to prevent many, in sighted listening sessions, from hearing them very differently.

Amplifiers are really no easier or harder to "attack" - if that's how you must characterize healthy skepticism - than cables. But cables, being so much simpler, should make it much easier to demonstrate, with data, the differences you hear so clearly. Haven't seen that data.

Tim

Tim,

Unhappily your comment about technicalities is as vague as usual. "Enough detail" ,"That depends", "Plenty" can but do not do, and as usual the final allusion to sighted sessions.

The idea that just because visually or physically it looks simple it should be much easier to demonstrate is IMHO wrong. Cables interact with amplifiers and speakers at a very a low electrical level. A cable does not have a sound - you have to master and understand the whole process to debate the reasons of cables sounding different.

I appreciate some healthy skepticism. But is the high-end field the people who really know some of the why's and details choose not to expose themselves in technical debates. Should we punish them, refusing to buy their products, depriving us of fantastic sound reproduction and of such an enjoyable hobby?