Live vs. Reproduced?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Thanks, Tim.
Frank, as I mentioned earlier, if the tweeter is 1/4 wavelength at the crossover frequency away from the midrange, what you described is absolutely correct if your ear is also less than 1/4 wavelength away from the midrange and tweeter. I'll give it the benefit of doubt, and increase that to 3/4 wavelength at crossover frequency.......
Frank, remember I am talking about a system's ability to EXACTLY reproduce a 'live' instrument or a 'live' orchestra. So much so that when a listener hears said system, there is no perceivable difference between the two events and the 'live' event has been reproduced in all its facets. ( which is and always has been the 'holy grail' of all a'philes).
In other words, the system can completely fool even the best trained ear on the planet into believing that they are in the presence of the real instrument/event.
So, your above statement tells me that you are confusing an illusion of a Marshall stack's sound on your system with the true sound of a Marshall stack
...the real instrument if it was actually in your room would be analogous to you having a small somewhat fuzzy photo of said instrument in your hand ( the sound of your system) and then standing next to the real thing(the sound of a 'live' Marshall stack in your room) and looking at the difference!
Last edited:
Hello Frank
Well the problem with that analogy is the differences in the acoustic space. It wouldn't matter if you had the exact same Marshal stack being fed by the same signal. You are never going to replicate the acoustic space as it will change in every venue the stack gets played in including your own livingroom.
One of my set-up's uses JBL Pro drivers. I have E-145's for bass a 10" 2123 midrange and a 2435 Be compression driver used in the Vertec systems in an active set-up. I can easilly get real close SPL wise but I can never get that large venue reverb fullness. It sounds like you are right on top of them in a small space, which you are, not out in the audience in a large hall.
Rob
Hi Guys
To get very far looking in this direction, it is critical to break the event into several completely separate stages. The most important thing to understand is that the creation of (in the studio) the image and it’s reproduction in the home are where the largest problems are.
Start by thinking only one channel, one speaker, one microphone because what we buy as “recordings” are very largely works of musical and studio art which ideally simulates a believable sound field, based on systems which tend to have more or less generic limitations.
I will say something in all seriousness, with a computer and a measurement microphone, one can record with a noise level and frequency response that was unavailable to all but the top tape machines, back when many of the classic recordings were made. One can get an inexpensive USB interface like an M-audio fast track pro and a have very good audio interface that records and plays at 24/96 and has two nice mic pre-amps.
When you record one channel with a point source (measurement) microphone one can record events you were present at right in your living room. While not “thrilling” musically, these can be “hair raising” because you were there. Because you use a measurement microphone, you have a flat, omni directional capture of sound pressure.
A
S you will see, it really begins to fall apart when you go to two channels because we don’t hear like microphones and I believe our current assumption about what goes on is flawed. Fwiw, a while back I posted some links to recordings made with a different (my) view of how it should be done. These were the “front view” of a system which captures 360 degrees.
Anyway, I would encourage anyone interested in “making it sound real” to consider an inexpensive usb interface and one (or two) medium price measurement microphones or even one cheap one and start making recordings of things you heard and are familiar with (partly why I recorded the things I did in those links).
Best,
Tom Danley
To get very far looking in this direction, it is critical to break the event into several completely separate stages. The most important thing to understand is that the creation of (in the studio) the image and it’s reproduction in the home are where the largest problems are.
Start by thinking only one channel, one speaker, one microphone because what we buy as “recordings” are very largely works of musical and studio art which ideally simulates a believable sound field, based on systems which tend to have more or less generic limitations.
I will say something in all seriousness, with a computer and a measurement microphone, one can record with a noise level and frequency response that was unavailable to all but the top tape machines, back when many of the classic recordings were made. One can get an inexpensive USB interface like an M-audio fast track pro and a have very good audio interface that records and plays at 24/96 and has two nice mic pre-amps.
When you record one channel with a point source (measurement) microphone one can record events you were present at right in your living room. While not “thrilling” musically, these can be “hair raising” because you were there. Because you use a measurement microphone, you have a flat, omni directional capture of sound pressure.
A
S you will see, it really begins to fall apart when you go to two channels because we don’t hear like microphones and I believe our current assumption about what goes on is flawed. Fwiw, a while back I posted some links to recordings made with a different (my) view of how it should be done. These were the “front view” of a system which captures 360 degrees.
Anyway, I would encourage anyone interested in “making it sound real” to consider an inexpensive usb interface and one (or two) medium price measurement microphones or even one cheap one and start making recordings of things you heard and are familiar with (partly why I recorded the things I did in those links).
Best,
Tom Danley
I'm pleased that I managed to get a pretty good score on estimating your system's capability
A test recording? When the system is humming it will work for any recording, but an easy, obvious starter would be a nicely played violin solo, one that has good, sweet tone. You should be able to go up the tweeter as stated and not lose any of that tone: if it starts to become harsh and edgy the closer you get to the tweeter then the invisibility thing won't work, there's still too much distortion in the system. If you don't lose the tone on that recording try a more "difficult" violin recording, and so on ...
As regards ear damage, as you say, low distortion minimises problems. For me, I start to get ringing in the ear which is the body's way of telling you to back off, which I immediately do. You only have to do the test momentarily, a few seconds will give an answer either way.
Frank
Dear fas42: I was decided not to try your test because does not help to explain " how can we mimic at home a music live event ? " ( the thread main subject where all persons but you agree we can't mimic at home. ) but last night I was testing a new MM/MI cartridge model ( Astatic MF-100. ) and through the set-up proccess I use a 33 rpm mix LP Disco music ( non audiophile recording with normal equalization on this kind of music from the 80's. ), Laura Branigan: Self Control ( Atlantic label. ).
This recording is a hard/severe test for any home audio system and only system with low distortions can handle at high SPL. Well things are that when I was listening I remember you and with out " think on risks.. " I stand up and put ( very briefly ) my right ear almost touching the speaker tweeter and yes I had not the feeling I was hearing the tweeter: almost disappear.
Of course I knew I was hearing ( after the test ) because the " ringing/noise " that left in my right ear.
Now, what this means?, I don't know. What this prove?, I don't know. Help for any conclusion?, I don't know. Can damage the ear?, certainly yes ( I don't do it again, really dangerous. One time is enough. Today when I think on what I experienced I think I really was " crazy " last night. ).
What I certainly know is that does not help to mimic a music live event in a home audio system through LP recording/CD, period.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Okay, let's do some maths! A Marshall box uses drivers of around 98-100dB sensitive, but they generally have poor power handling, it's all about efficiency. So they're wired up, say, 4 in a box so they can take the punch of 60 or 100 watts of tube power. This all translates, being generous, to being able to deliver 120dB peak at 1 metre. Step back to 2 metres away from the real Marshall, down to 112dB, step again to 4 metres away, down to 106dB; goodness, still sounds like a Marshall to me! But, hey, that's what I said my pitiful little Philips can do as a peak level. So there is no theoretical reason why my setup at 1 metre away from a speaker can't sound like a Marshall that's 4 metres away, even on 11!!Frank, remember I am talking about a system's ability to EXACTLY reproduce a 'live' instrument or a 'live' orchestra. So much so that when a listener hears said system, there is no perceivable difference between the two events and the 'live' event has been reproduced in all its facets. ( which is and always has been the 'holy grail' of all a'philes).
In other words, the system can completely fool even the best trained ear on the planet into believing that they are in the presence of the real instrument/event.
So, your above statement tells me that you are confusing an illusion of a Marshall stack's sound on your system with the true sound of a Marshall stack
Remember, guitar amps have really, really crummy drivers, it's all about using the construction of the unit as tone controls. I think my HT has a much better chance of sounding like the Marshall, than the Marshall has of sounding like the HT. Gee, what a thought, guitar amp as high end reproduction unit. Hmmmmm .....
Frank
Wrong headspace ...
Ya gotta watch some sports TV .... (TV, TV -- what's that ...)
Frank
I'm really talking about the bite and the grunt of the guitar amp. One of them in your lounge has plenty of that "palpability" that everyone loves, that's what I want to get happening!
Frank
Gary, I agree entirely that the physics make sense, the trouble is that one's ears are not that sensible!
You guys keep forgetting that I didn't decide one day, gee, it would be good to have invisible speakers, so I'll go away and meditate awhiles in a dark corner, and convince my beady little brain that it can't hear the tweeter. Like something else that people mention every now and again, it happened! I was tweaking away, getting better and better sound until one day I thought, wow, this is something special, and moving around the gear as one tends to do now and again
, I thought, bloody hell, I can't hear the tweeter working!! That's the long and the short of it ...Frank
I am not quite sure whether the tweeter disappeared or not for you, but unfortunately you picked about as bad an initial test as possible; I did suggest using solo vioin. The Branigan WILL work if everything is right, but that is a far step ...
There are at least 3 people that have made this happen: me, Vince, Roger; Robert at times, Jack at odd moments. In fact, I am sure most audio people have had it happen momentarily but then it went away, so they just ignored it, put it in the "I am not quite sure what that was about, but, gee, it was good!" basket ...
Frank
well, someones' gotta say it, may as well be me
Frank, you're being foolish.
Firstly Mr Aim For No Distortion, have you got those graphs and figures for your little three inch drivers frequency response yet?
No? Ok, got it. You'd rather just tell us how your three inch drivers recreate the stack of marshals eh?
Now, your 'proofs' using varying distances. Gee, in winter, it gets cold out here at bathurst and being in a big old house don't help matters much.
But the quotes and costs to heat the place!! NOW, thanks to you, I can see all I need to keep warm is a few matches. See, the way you have so eloquently explained things I figure that if I would be nice and warm five metres from the blazing wood fire (do the maths yeah, use the inverse square law) then if I stay 1 mm from the match...it IS after all a temperature over a thousand degrees at the head is it not??....then that will equate to being in front of the fire but five metres away.
Now, using your examples of the marshal stack (WHY is anyone even trying to talk to frank? What are the forum rules about trolls??) are you claiming you can deliver clean undistorted 106 db peaks at your LP at all frequencies using your piddly three inch drivers and piddly sub that comes with it?
Ok, sweep please. No more bullshit, show us your in room response from the LP.
And whilst we are at it, why do you continue to be intellectually dishonest even when it comes to your own silly proofs?? On the one hand you do not take the raw clean continuous output of the marshal stack, you count backwards sufficiently till you reach the peak output (you think, bet my bottom dollar you have never taken measurements of your drivers and know zero about them) of your three inch drivers, and STOP there.
Why do you not then work out the output of your three inch full rangers at the lp? Why stop when it reaches your maximum? After all, the diminishing output with distance works equally well with your three inch drivers (I keep emphasising that, this IS the crux of the matter) as it does for the marshall stack?
What figures are you using to work out the db change at varying distances?? For a point source, line source, an array? I imagine they would be different, I'll let the true knowledgeable answer that (it ain't me, and it certainly ain't you frank). You start with 120 at one metre, give us 112 at two and 106 at four. sounds fishy to me.
At least a troll (I would assume) has an idea that he is just laying on crap, just does it for fun. Frank however has no idea how he is coming across.
Dunno who to pity more.
Frank, you're being foolish.
Firstly Mr Aim For No Distortion, have you got those graphs and figures for your little three inch drivers frequency response yet?
No? Ok, got it. You'd rather just tell us how your three inch drivers recreate the stack of marshals eh?
Now, your 'proofs' using varying distances. Gee, in winter, it gets cold out here at bathurst and being in a big old house don't help matters much.
But the quotes and costs to heat the place!! NOW, thanks to you, I can see all I need to keep warm is a few matches. See, the way you have so eloquently explained things I figure that if I would be nice and warm five metres from the blazing wood fire (do the maths yeah, use the inverse square law) then if I stay 1 mm from the match...it IS after all a temperature over a thousand degrees at the head is it not??....then that will equate to being in front of the fire but five metres away.
Now, using your examples of the marshal stack (WHY is anyone even trying to talk to frank? What are the forum rules about trolls??) are you claiming you can deliver clean undistorted 106 db peaks at your LP at all frequencies using your piddly three inch drivers and piddly sub that comes with it?
Ok, sweep please. No more bullshit, show us your in room response from the LP.
And whilst we are at it, why do you continue to be intellectually dishonest even when it comes to your own silly proofs?? On the one hand you do not take the raw clean continuous output of the marshal stack, you count backwards sufficiently till you reach the peak output (you think, bet my bottom dollar you have never taken measurements of your drivers and know zero about them) of your three inch drivers, and STOP there.
Why do you not then work out the output of your three inch full rangers at the lp? Why stop when it reaches your maximum? After all, the diminishing output with distance works equally well with your three inch drivers (I keep emphasising that, this IS the crux of the matter) as it does for the marshall stack?
What figures are you using to work out the db change at varying distances?? For a point source, line source, an array? I imagine they would be different, I'll let the true knowledgeable answer that (it ain't me, and it certainly ain't you frank). You start with 120 at one metre, give us 112 at two and 106 at four. sounds fishy to me.
At least a troll (I would assume) has an idea that he is just laying on crap, just does it for fun. Frank however has no idea how he is coming across.
Dunno who to pity more.
Last edited:
Guys, let's go easy on Frank.
After all, he is one of us a'philes..
Only difference is that he is probably the first of us to ever reach the 'holy grail'!
Anyhow, if he believes this, which he certainly seems to, then perhaps we shouldn't try
and burst his bubble
Since in his eyes we are all skeptics...( cannot imagine why he thinks that),
I for one have come to the conclusion that perhaps we should just label Frank and his system as an anomaly and leave it at that.
OTOH, the unsettling point to me is that he is seemingly beginning to get other believers in his ideas and thoughts...hmm
After all, he is one of us a'philes..
Only difference is that he is probably the first of us to ever reach the 'holy grail'!
Anyhow, if he believes this, which he certainly seems to, then perhaps we shouldn't try
and burst his bubble
Since in his eyes we are all skeptics...( cannot imagine why he thinks that
),I for one have come to the conclusion that perhaps we should just label Frank and his system as an anomaly and leave it at that.
OTOH, the unsettling point to me is that he is seemingly beginning to get other believers in his ideas and thoughts...hmm
Last edited:
Dear fas42: Yes, disappear. I write almost because left the noise in my ear.
+++++ " you picked about as bad an initial test as possible; I did suggest using solo vioin. The Branigan WILL work if everything is right, but that is a far step ... " +++++
I think I don't explain to good: I decided not to do your test and suddenly ( a non-sense impulse. ) I did it with what I 'm hearing in that " impulse " moment. Violin or not you posted that if " works " it works with any recording.
Enough, I don't want to follow talking about. I did it and that's all. End of the history.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.
Hi
I do think terryj has spoken for many if not all of us .. methinks We were simply too polite to say it as it is/was ...
Thank you terryjYou've got one point against me, should have been 114 at 2, 108 at 4. Of course only half-wits like me believe that sound intensity drops off 6db for every doubling of distance, the morons who write textbooks on sound behaviour are nowhere as knowledgeable as all you fine gentlemen ...
To answer a couple of further points. There is obviously a very short term memory problem around here: I mentioned many times that FR is not key to the problem. Jumping up and down hysterically and pounding your fist on the table is not going to change the need to understand that I am not fussed about FR, in the same way that users with headphones with dramatically different FR's are not fussed, Tim!!!
Yep, but at 1 metre, sometimes it is actually worth reading what I said, just like a huge number of loudspeaker manufacturers who quote sensitivity and power handling figures. Any half decent system off the shelf anywhere should be able to do that, the anchor around their necks is crap electronics driving them.
From your point of view it is obviously impossible for 3" speakers to replicate a Marshall even if you drop the volume so that it is equivalent to having the guitar amp 20 miles away. Something piddling obviously can't touch a hairy chested monster, it just ain't got the balls. Sorry, I must have missed reading the tattoo on the side of the Marshall that said that ...
Frank
Dead right, DaveyF -- be afraid ... be very afraid. The contagion is spreading, like an insidious cancer, it might seep into all corners and contaminate innocent young audio virgins, who may end with the ludicrous idea that that you can enjoy playback sounding as good as the real thing. A very dangerous, destructive malaise ...I for one have come to the conclusion that perhaps we should just label Frank and his system as an anomaly and leave it at that.
OTOH, the unsettling point to me is that he is seemingly beginning to get other believers in his ideas and thoughts...hmm
Best to stamp it out, destroy it now, with wave after wave of ferocious attacks, before it goes too far, causes too many problems, creates too many uncertainties ...
Frank
Last edited:
Similar threads
