The big sound
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
When we were running around setting up sound reinforcement stacks back in the 80s, our little outfit didn't have SPL meters much less RTAs so we had to do everything by ear. Since the system was actively crossed over, we did basic operational checks one set of amps and speakers at a time just to check for proper cabling. Bass first, mids next, highs last. Then bass plus mids and then bass/mids plus highs. Fine tuning of XO, slope and gain followed. This was where I learned by experience how instruments actually had a much wider frequency range outside of the center frequency. To put things in perspective I was in my teens. We noticed that we always felt bass was weak until we added the mid stacks. In hindsight, there's no surprise there since we know punch happens higher up for kick drums and even higher up with Toms and the upper scales of Electric Bass Lines. What stuck was what a huge difference adding the tweeters made even if bass, kicks and toms might have little or nothing past our chosen crossover frequency. Of course in those days one didn't really think about the "Whys" and just went about by cooperative feel (one guy at the control stack and another guy giving hand signals from different parts of the venue, really high tech! Hahahahaha!) since we were usually racing against the clock and had mere hours from ingress to show time and needed time to set up lighting as well.
Anyway, again in hindsight having the luxury of time to break these experiences down, it is my belief that like sight, our hearing is sensitive to contrast. Without contrast, sound is more likely to be filtered out. It's not that you can't hear it, it probably just seems unimportant. The kick becomes pronounced because you've got the snare whose rattling wires are covered by the tweeters and the rest mainly by the mids. I've come to believe it becomes pronounced because you expect the next kick because the snare heralds its arrival moments before. So mentally the perceived loudness of the kick is dependent on other factors than its own waveform. The same applies for any instrument providing or contributing to the downbeat. The more familiar the time signature, the more pronounced. Not only do I believe that we require contrast in frequency but we require contrast in intensity as well, which is why I mentioned downbeats.
Lest you guys think I am seriously wandering off topic, I think I should tie this up as best I can right now. Big Sound is in my basest definition, moving a lot of air or to be technical about it exciting air over a large coverage area. The term is usually associated with bass but we do know that both high and low frequencies carry ambient cues. HOWEVER, that's only the size of the actual or electronically constructed recording venue.
But how about the size of the instruments themselves? That could and is also associated with Big Sound. This scaling is heavily influenced in my belief by the contrasts mentioned. Why is it that two monitors each with 1" tweeters and 6.5" mid bass drivers with very similar sensitivity and frequency response differ so much in the size of both the stage and what's in it? Add to that the relative sizes of the instruments in it? Why do some line sources suffer from "big mouth syndrome" on closely mic'ed vocals? Why have we all heard full range speakers in the true sense of the word make neat little precise perfectly scaled dioramas out of what one might expect to be enveloping classical works making the presentation sound "small"? Why does one of the little monitors do big vocals and a lilliputian drum kit (this still sounds BIG) while with the same recording on a big system like Steve's X2s, Gary's Genesis 1s and Jim's VR-11s sound life sized?
I believe part of the answer, perhaps even a huge part of the answer, lies in propagation along with frequency extension when it comes to big image as opposed to big soundstage size and that propagation especially in the HFs also plays a huge part in the latter. Extension on the other hand affects relative scale.
Your thoughts?
Anyway, again in hindsight having the luxury of time to break these experiences down, it is my belief that like sight, our hearing is sensitive to contrast. Without contrast, sound is more likely to be filtered out. It's not that you can't hear it, it probably just seems unimportant. The kick becomes pronounced because you've got the snare whose rattling wires are covered by the tweeters and the rest mainly by the mids. I've come to believe it becomes pronounced because you expect the next kick because the snare heralds its arrival moments before. So mentally the perceived loudness of the kick is dependent on other factors than its own waveform. The same applies for any instrument providing or contributing to the downbeat. The more familiar the time signature, the more pronounced. Not only do I believe that we require contrast in frequency but we require contrast in intensity as well, which is why I mentioned downbeats.
Lest you guys think I am seriously wandering off topic, I think I should tie this up as best I can right now. Big Sound is in my basest definition, moving a lot of air or to be technical about it exciting air over a large coverage area. The term is usually associated with bass but we do know that both high and low frequencies carry ambient cues. HOWEVER, that's only the size of the actual or electronically constructed recording venue.
But how about the size of the instruments themselves? That could and is also associated with Big Sound. This scaling is heavily influenced in my belief by the contrasts mentioned. Why is it that two monitors each with 1" tweeters and 6.5" mid bass drivers with very similar sensitivity and frequency response differ so much in the size of both the stage and what's in it? Add to that the relative sizes of the instruments in it? Why do some line sources suffer from "big mouth syndrome" on closely mic'ed vocals? Why have we all heard full range speakers in the true sense of the word make neat little precise perfectly scaled dioramas out of what one might expect to be enveloping classical works making the presentation sound "small"? Why does one of the little monitors do big vocals and a lilliputian drum kit (this still sounds BIG) while with the same recording on a big system like Steve's X2s, Gary's Genesis 1s and Jim's VR-11s sound life sized?
I believe part of the answer, perhaps even a huge part of the answer, lies in propagation along with frequency extension when it comes to big image as opposed to big soundstage size and that propagation especially in the HFs also plays a huge part in the latter. Extension on the other hand affects relative scale.
Your thoughts?
Last edited:
Myles,
A good friend of mine always refers to the "fall of the note" as the most important. And yes, as you say, unless there is silence between the notes you do not hear it.
This feeling is particularly important in chamber music. The Shostakovitch Piano Trio is an excellent test for this aspect of music reproduction. Ligeti Musica Ricercata also sounds much more dramatic in a system with this "silence" capability.
My vinyl rig is very modest and I've been fortunate to hear some GREAT ones...thank you Mike and Albert, among others
I've decided to cast my sonic fate with 2-track, analog, reel-to-reel, 15/30 ips, 1/4" and 1/2".
mep, I haven't relinquished my dream to record, as above, local talent and student recitals!
Technically, there is no such thing as '2-phase' power. Residential power in the US is Single Phase with a split in the 240vac feed, yielding two 120vac branches. Sometimes this is called 'split phase'. 3-phase has the advantage of charging the capacitors 3X as often, so the rectifiers collectively recharge the capacitors 300 times/second on 50Hz European power (Netherlands). Also, 3-phase power is available in residential areas in the Netherlands and is quite common.
One of the problems I am having with 'big sound' is structural damage to the house. Most frequently, having to deal with sucked in ceiling panels, parts of the ceiling falling during loud playback, dust precipitation, broken fluorescent light tubes, etc. I'm constantly rebuilding my ceiling after a Thursday night playback (while my ears continue to ring loudly). There has got to be an alternative to Armstrong grid ceilings!
Even purely technically I'm right. If two sound sources have zero distortion, both linear and non-linear, at the point where you are standing, then they must sound identical. If they sound different, therefore, they have different distortion. It may in the drivers themselves, or the impedances they present to the amps cause the latter to distort differently. It's all still distortion ...
Frank
This is the Big Sound thread Frank. Your example is off tangent to the original post in my opinion because we're talking about differences between different pairs of channels and not 2 channels within the same set.
If you think otherwise, please explain why you think symmetry in distortion or even in your hypothetical case of symmetry as a result of zero distortion in both channels, can account for the size of the summing area whether it be in physical or psychoacoustic terms for the examples I laid out.
If you think otherwise, please explain why you think symmetry in distortion or even in your hypothetical case of symmetry as a result of zero distortion in both channels, can account for the size of the summing area whether it be in physical or psychoacoustic terms for the examples I laid out.
I'm not sure about this. I've been thinking about it and listening to larger systems in larger rooms, and I suspect that "big sound," or the illusion of it, has much to do with the room. So "big sound" here...
...has a completely different set or requirements from big sound here...
...where a pair of 6" monitors and a sub can sound absolutely huge. Most of you guys are between the two extremes. If you scale your system properly to your room, you will move the air that needs to be moved, pressurize the space that needs to be pressurized and create the illusion that needs to be created. I don't think it necessarily gets better because you super-size it, unless what you're going for is larger than life.
Tim
...has a completely different set or requirements from big sound here...
...where a pair of 6" monitors and a sub can sound absolutely huge. Most of you guys are between the two extremes. If you scale your system properly to your room, you will move the air that needs to be moved, pressurize the space that needs to be pressurized and create the illusion that needs to be created. I don't think it necessarily gets better because you super-size it, unless what you're going for is larger than life.
Tim
There's a difference between an Elephant and Godzilla Mark.
Jack,
That is so funny.
I was just going to say something about the amount of bass and volume that Mark was using but, that is a great analogy.Rich
Frank,
I think a lot of the differences that we are hearing has to do with speaker design and not necessarily distortion.
Tim,
Acoustics of the room and Acoustic room treatments will definitely have an affect on what we are hearing. I know that my relatively small 19' 4" W X 14' 7" D X 9' H room could have a big sound with my big horn speakers. But, when I installed the Acoustic Room Treatments the sound got much better, bigger, deeper, etc. The icing on the cake came with the diffusion that really increased the affect of space.
Rich
I think a lot of the differences that we are hearing has to do with speaker design and not necessarily distortion.
Tim,
Acoustics of the room and Acoustic room treatments will definitely have an affect on what we are hearing. I know that my relatively small 19' 4" W X 14' 7" D X 9' H room could have a big sound with my big horn speakers. But, when I installed the Acoustic Room Treatments the sound got much better, bigger, deeper, etc. The icing on the cake came with the diffusion that really increased the affect of space.
Rich
I'm not sure about this. I've been thinking about it and listening to larger systems in larger rooms, and I suspect that "big sound," or the illusion of it, has much to do with the room. So "big sound" here...
...has a completely different set or requirements from big sound here...
...where a pair of 6" monitors and a sub can sound absolutely huge. Most of you guys are between the two extremes. If you scale your system properly to your room, you will move the air that needs to be moved, pressurize the space that needs to be pressurized and create the illusion that needs to be created. I don't think it necessarily gets better because you super-size it, unless what you're going for is larger than life.
Tim
Interestingly enough, though, the "line source" approximation of the Wall of Sound also works well in a home, although it turns out to be very difficult to implement well.
The Beveridge speakers, within their volume and bass limitations, have still produced the best illusion of 3D sound reproduction from 2 speakers, a la "invisible sound" mentioned in another thread.
Similar threads
