Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

what do you mean by "center of gravity". How do you define that phrase?

Starting with the conventional definition of "center of gravity" relating to mass, think of "center of gravity" in terms of the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, would you then say that you prefer a presentation that emphasizes a particular range, that is the 100 to 1000 Hz range?

No; I prefer a presentation that maximizes my suspension of disbelief that I am listening to a live performance.

 

[PeterA]

Starting with the conventional definition of "center of gravity" relating to mass, think of "center of gravity" in terms of the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies.

So your FR graph should look like a bell curve with a peak at 550 hz? Your graph is a gradual downward slope from 40 to 8K

 

[Ron Resnick]

Your graph is a gradual downward slope from 40 to 8K

I don't think about trying to reconcile the objectively measured frequency response curve to subjectively maximizing my suspension of disbelief.

I used the objective frequency response curve only to better understand the two specific anomalies I explained previously.

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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.

Due to the intrinsic localization and envelopment limitations of stereo, sound engineers play with frequency spectrum to fool us - all the elements you are referring are part of the cake. I one saw Mark Levinson playing masterly his Audio Palette equalizer - he explained us what and how he was changing the soundstage, making a flat sounding recording sounding 3D. Unfortunately part of the treatment included playing the music loud - he liked it sonorous.

 

[tima]

I'm not using tonal balance in any novel way. I mean the same thing you mean when you write tonal balance.

Let's say in broad terms that tonal balance is the distribution of energy across the audible frequencies.

I agree.

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."

Starting with the conventional definition of "center of gravity" relating to mass, think of "center of gravity" in terms of the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies.

So, when you say "sonic center of gravity" you mean tonal balance.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, when you say "sonic center of gravity" you mean tonal balance.

Not exactly. "Sonic center of gravity" is a way to describe or to characterize a particular tonal balance.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Fabio Storelli, of Alma Music and Sound, very kindly drove up today to install the Innuos PULSEmini. Thank you, Fabio!

 

[microstrip]

Starting with the conventional definition of "center of gravity" relating to mass, think of "center of gravity" in terms of the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies.

IMO in fact it can be misleading. The concept of center of gravity is a point where we can suppose that the whole mass is existing in models for simplifying calculations. The idea of using the center of gravity is ignoring the shape of distributions, focusing in an unique point. The expression had some meaning in the particular context of a Karen Summer post, used outside the context can convey a wrong sense. As far as I remember she associated it with the idea of tonal density, not balance.

 

[tima]

Not exactly. "Sonic center of gravity" is a way to describe or to characterize a particular tonal balance.

How can we recognize it? What makes it particular?

 

[Ron Resnick]

How can we recognize it? What makes it particular?

One might recognize the sonic center of gravity of a system by evaluating the distribution of energy among the bass, the midrange and the treble.

Particular in the sense that different systems will have different sonic centers of gravity.

 

[PeterA]

As far as I remember she associated it with the idea of tonal density, not balance.

I think you are right Fransisco. Tonal density because of the distribution of musical instruments' fundamentals and harmonics. A "sonic center of gravity" implies to me an emphasis on a particular frequency range. I would not consider a system to sound natural or balanced if it emphasizes a particular range.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think 'center of balance' musically should vary with the recording. the system and source ought to be able to 'get' the recording right. certain sources do have their attributes too.

if every recording has a sameness of 'balance' that's not the music. it's a coloration.

 

[tima]

One might recognize the sonic center of gravity of a system by evaluating the distribution of energy among the bass, the midrange and the treble.

Particular in the sense that different systems will have different sonic centers of gravity.

Okay, no differentiaton from tonal balance. I'll take "sonic center of gravity" to be Ron's special words for a standard audio concept.

 

[tima]

i think 'center of balance' musically should vary with the recording. the system and source ought to be able to 'get' the recording right. certain sources do have their attributes too.

if every recording has a sameness of 'balance' that's not the music. it's a coloration.

Sure. What's in balance: the distribution of energy across the range of audible frequencies, tonal balance, a result of different factors for a given reproduction. External factors vary (performance interpretation, mastering) while stereo system factors are relatively fixed.

If every recording has a sameness of balance I thinked we'd say the system is homogenizing the sound -- applying a fixed coloration if you like.

In this discussion I don't think we achieved any particular insight. But it took a lot of pixels to get there.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A "sonic center of gravity" implies to me an emphasis on a particular frequency range.

Sonic center of gravity does not describe an emphasis on a particular frequency range. It describes a balance point, not an amplitude.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have tried to keep this audio system relatively simple – – three inputs, no power conditioners, no extension boxes, no grounding box cables, no interconnects with appendages -- and the wires are still a total rat's nest!

 

[PeterA]

Sonic center of gravity does not describe an emphasis on a particular frequency range. It describes a balance point, not an amplitude.

This is your term. You defined it as a frequency range between 100-1000Hz. If this is the “balance point” (range actually) then are you suggesting there is as much energy below 100 Hz as there is above 1000 Hz?

I appreciate you naming and describing your goal for your system.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is your term.

Yes; you have been asking me to explain my term, and I have been doing my best to do so.

You defined it as a frequency range between 100-1000Hz.

No; I don't believe I ever defined "sonic center of gravity" as "a frequency range between 100-1000Hz."

 

[Ron Resnick]

If this is the “balance point” (range actually) then are you suggesting there is as much energy below 100 Hz as there is above 1000 Hz?

I think we are understanding each other better now. Putting the suggested frequency range to one side, the concept of sonic center of gravity is that there is as much subjectively perceived energy below the center point as there is above the center point.