I haven't looked at the FR graphs, but I will say that subjectively when Ron dialed up the bass by 1dB on one track while I was there, bass became too bloated. It could have been the track itself. I wasn't there to assess the technicals of the system. I was there to listen to music. When Ron asked for critiques, I had to change gears. And so, one of the things you can't measure is the bass quality. You probably get a very poor sense of it in videos as well. Ron's system's bass quality is very high. It is textured and colorful, and it can be delicate and nuanced or hard hitting and slammy. Really very delightful and natural sounding.
I haven't looked at the FR graphs, but I will say that subjectively when Ron dialed up the bass by 1dB on one track while I was there, bass became too bloated. It could have been the track itself. I wasn't there to assess the technicals of the system. I was there to listen to music. When Ron asked for critiques, I had to change gears. And so, one of the things you can't measure is the bass quality. You probably get a very poor sense of it in videos as well. Ron's system's bass quality is very high. It is textured and colorful, and it can be delicate and nuanced or hard hitting and slammy. Really very delightful and natural sounding.
This is incorrect in my particular use case, because I hear subjectively clear cause-and-effect with the absorption panels (usually based on the relative tinkley-ness and brightness of piano on several recordings) and AVAAs, and this clear cause-and-effect is verified by the objective measurements.
I don't think I ever used word "tone." I wrote in terms of "tonal balance." I think "tone" -- as in the tone of the cello on Musica Nuda's "Eleanor Rigby" -- is different than "tonal balance."
My other questions are about what a center of gravity of 100-1K Hz might look like on these charts of yours. I can not answer what looks best, but I am curious to know what you think a chart with such a center of gravity would look like? . .
You have described this as a goal in your system, and you are making the effort of taking measurements and posting them, so I am really curious about your answer to this question.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how, or if, my sonic center of gravity concept would manifest on a frequency response chart. I think it may be one of these purely subjective perception things which will not appear on a frequency response chart as a rising plateau from 100Hz to 1,000Hz.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how, or if, my sonic center of gravity concept would manifest on a frequency response chart. I think it may be one of these purely subjective perception things which will not appear on a frequency response chart as a rising plateau from 100Hz to 1,000Hz.
Well, that is too bad. I do not understand what you mean by center of gravity and I was hoping that some kind of graphic representation would shed some light on the mystery.
I don't think I ever used word "tone." I wrote in terms of "tonal balance." I think "tone" -- as in the tone of the cello on Musica Nuda's "Eleanor Rigby" -- is different than "tonal balance."
OK, let’s focus on resolution then. Do you think your videos represent the resolution you hear at the frequencies extremes when listening to your system?
I don't think I ever used word "tone." I wrote in terms of "tonal balance." I think "tone" -- as in the tone of the cello on Musica Nuda's "Eleanor Rigby" -- is different than "tonal balance."
Ok, I agree with this. I like tools to know where I need to go. Like JR analyzing a cartridge to understand whats going on and where to start. Then ear to tweek it into place.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how, or if, my sonic center of gravity concept would manifest on a frequency response chart. I think it may be one of these purely subjective perception things which will not appear on a frequency response chart as a rising plateau from 100Hz to 1,000Hz.
to know this you would need to take measurements of a few systems where the centre of gravity is to your taste and a few where it isn’t. And then check if there is a pattern in the measurements correlating to your taste
Let's say in broad terms that tonal balance is the distribution of energy across the audible frequencies. And then there is the tonal balance that we hear. If you disagree, please say your concept or definition.
Do you believe tonal balance is strictly a stereo system function and/or is limited to what a particular system delivers?
Or do you believe the tonal balance you hear is (or can be) a product of the what the recording/production engineer applies in mastering? Or, what a conductor might choose to emphasize or de-emphasize in his interpretation as he shapes the sound of the work?
If each factor can play a role in tonal balance how do we know when what we hear is correct or right? Or is it simply user preference?
I suspect there is a range within which tonal balance can be right or correct and outside that range not right or incorrect.
Let's say in broad terms that tonal balance is the distribution of energy across the audible frequencies. And then there is the tonal balance that we hear. If you disagree, please say your concept or definition.
Do you believe tonal balance is strictly a stereo system function and/or is limited to what a particular system delivers?
Or do you believe the tonal balance you hear is (or can be) a product of the what the recording/production engineer applies in mastering? Or, what a conductor might choose to emphasize or de-emphasize in his interpretation as he shapes the sound of the work?
If each factor can play a role in tonal balance how do we know when what we hear is correct or right? Or is it simply user preference?
I suspect there is a range within which tonal balance can be right or correct and outside that range not right or incorrect.
Meaning that if you develop a composite sense of the tonal balance of a particular recording by hearing it on many different systems, then you can use that tonal balance on that recording as a reference to evaluate a new system? I agree.
But this is still a relativistic analysis -- meaning you still don't know the tonal balance of the original performance as would have been heard by your ears, and were heard by the microphones (which mics then applied their own frequency response).
Meaning that if you develop a composite sense of the tonal balance of a particular recording by hearing it on many different systems, then you can use that tonal balance on that recording as a reference to evaluate a new system? I agree.
But this is still a relativistic analysis -- meaning you still don't know the tonal balance of the original performance as would have been heard by your ears, and were heard by the microphones (which mics then applied their own frequency response).
that’s silly. that is what you leave to the recording engineer. If the balance sounds bad on every system it is badly recorded. Because real cannot be bad.
I never get these you were not there at the venue for the original performance argument.
Let's say in broad terms that tonal balance is the distribution of energy across the audible frequencies. And then there is the tonal balance that we hear.
This seems correct to me: "tonal balance refers to the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies; the balance among bass, midrange, and treble."
Or do you believe the tonal balance you hear is (or can be) a product of the what the recording/production engineer applies in mastering? Or, what a conductor might choose to emphasize or de-emphasize in his interpretation as he shapes the sound of the work?
The tonal balance reaching our ears from our loudspeakers is a function of these elements as well.
I think the tonal balance reaching our ears from our loudspeakers is a function of what the conductor chooses to emphasize or de-emphasize in his interpretation; the frequency output of the instruments; the acoustics of the hall, the frequency response of the microphones; the frequency response of the recording head on the recording tape machine; the frequency response of the playback head on the tape machine playing the tape to cut the lacquer; the EQ applied; etc.; etc.
This seems correct to me: "tonal balance refers to the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies; the balance among bass, midrange, and treble."
Ron, would you then say that you prefer a presentation that emphasizes a particular range, that is the 100 to 1000 Hz range? If not, what do you mean by "center of gravity". How do you define that phrase?
