Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[microstrip]

I have actually done what you are suggesting here Ron and I will share my thoughts on the matter. I recorded my ex-playing 24 Paganini Caprices on a Stradivarius in my listening room and she was standing centered directly between my two speakers (Acoustat 1+1 at that time). I had a single mono condenser microphone positioned at the listening position at the height where my ears would be located. The microphone preamp was fed directly into a mid 1970s TEAC R2R analog tape recorder. The acoustic power of that single instrument was sufficient that it was difficult to capture the full dynamic range without overloading the tape. I had to deal with noise at the soft end and saturation at the high end. I managed but just.

Now to the sound. The recording is extremely present and alive, as one might expect from zero processing and using pretty good recording equipment. The acoustic is quite dry when played back though and you hear that it is a largely untreated, concrete block walled room. When played back in that same room, it is double trouble and it sounds too dry as you are getting a double helping of the same room acoustic. In other rooms, it can be amazing or too agressive. One thing is for sure though, it sounds more "live" than most other violin recordings I have.

I made a number of other recordings, some in stereo and some in mono at different venues but they were usually on DAT made with a portable Casio recorder. They were good but that big TEAC made for much better recordings overall. I still have the master tape but not the TEAC anymore...I burned a cd of the recording though for portability.

The realism of the recording is limited to some degree by the acoustic of the original event superimposed on a new acoustical space...that can matter only a little or a lot depending on the new acoustic space. My recording has a very strong acoustic space in the recording itself and it is heard no matter what room you play it back in.

When DAT recorders arrived to the market, many audiophiles who could not resist to the new gadget them to live performances and recorded them, finding that they were much more "realistic" than any audiophile recording. As they took them to our distributor listening rooms, I had to witness to the people lauding these miserable "realistic" recordings, that I found at best mediocre sounding. Fortunately, the enthusiasm ceased very fast and these amateur Jazz at the Pawnshop copiers are now just using their mobile phones to record their grandchildren.

You refer you were a mono microphone, I assume that you are referring to a mono recording. I must say that I do not understand what you are proving with this very particular and limited example.

 

[morricab]

When DAT recorders arrived to the market, many audiophiles who could not resist to the new gadget them to live performances and recorded them, finding that they were much more "realistic" than any audiophile recording. As they took them to our distributor listening rooms, I had to witness to the people lauding these miserable "realistic" recordings, that I found at best mediocre sounding. Fortunately, the enthusiasm ceased very fast and these amateur Jazz at the Pawnshop copiers are now just using their mobile phones to record their grandchildren.

You refer you were a mono microphone, I assume that you are referring to a mono recording. I must say that I do not understand what you are proving with this very particular and limited example.

I meant that it was a single microphone, so the recording was done in mono where I split the signal and fed both channels of the tape with the same signal. I am not trying to "prove" anything with my example other than to say that my "limited" example does sound pretty lifelike in a lot of ways. I did a lot of recording and made others that sounded perhaps more polished but they often lost something visceral. I am not advoacting that this is a way to get 1) but it could be if the recording is done well.

 

[microstrip]

Very true. It is an especially challenging exercise in my non dedicated, size limited living room. I am making efforts to lesson the effect of my room's acoustic on the sound I get at home, but there are limits to what can be done. This gets to the question of "is the performer in your room playing for you" or "are you transported to the original site of the performance". I prefer the latter, but it is a real challenge to achieve.

I have to say that I envy the reviewers (or David Wilson, BTW ) when they refer that they clearly identify the venue of the performance by its acoustics in the recording. In my experience what I note most of the time is that some recordings have distinct acoustic spaces from others - the acoustic space changes to a different one. But no way I can pretend that I feel am transported to the original site of the performance, even if I have been there - I am pleased enough to be in a place different from my listening room, more consentaneous with the type of music being performed.

 

[microstrip]

I meant that it was a single microphone, so the recording was done in mono where I split the signal and fed both channels of the tape with the same signal. I am not trying to "prove" anything with my example other than to say that my "limited" example does sound pretty lifelike in a lot of ways. I did a lot of recording and made others that sounded perhaps more polished but they often lost something visceral. I am not advoacting that this is a way to get 1) but it could be if the recording is done well.

Thanks - I asked for the clarification because I have found monophonic recording supporters in the net claiming that mono sounds more lifelike and visceral than stereo. They can have a point - the stereo system as we use now - two separate sources of sound - is not natural at all.

 

[RogerD]

How does this relate to the thread?

Please tell us to which audiophile objective you subscribe?

What is your musical preference?

Ron,

RBFC mentioned recordings. My objective is both 1 and 2 as if I separate the audio signal from noise or distortion through the playback chain,I would be able to achieve 1 @ a level that is limited by the recording process,but the maximum that anybody can expect. Objective 2 would be met as I'm hearing as the recording engineer intended and what the master tape contains. If the audio signal is delivered unadulterated my listening bias or preference is only a very small percentage,and the room colorations are for the most part overridden by the faithful playback. The Ellington recording on some tracks gives a very good accounting of what my objective is.

Also if my objective(signal purity) is met any improvement in room acoustics will only increase attaining my goal ,objectives. YMMV

The objectives as stated are ass backwards....the ability of the playback system to deliver a unadulterated signal in a well designed system with the goals of achieving a faithful reproduction of the recording will yield 1 with limitations,2 by design or 3 by preference or lack of signal purity. Experience,experimentation and knowledge are essential to the goal.

 

[DaveC]

That research is confirmed by many, many other researchers. Indeed Harman's research only confirms that position. See my article on perceptual effects of room reflections to see how/why this is true both objectively in the way our hearing system works and research by others. I can fill this thread with more references than you can count on value of first side reflections.

Also this research goes back to NRC, way before Harman and studies were done using ordinary listeners so there is no bias for anyone at Harman there.

Personally I don't like rooms that do as you say as the sound then comes out of the point source of the speaker, focusing attention on them rather than a nice soundstage. When was the last time you heard a live band have its sound come out of two points left and right? Side reflections stretch those sources which sharply lessens this effect.

That said, there is a small percentage of population that can hear these reflections (usually recording engineers) by training and for *work* they like to have them masked. Ironically when going home to listen to music, many like the effect. You may be falling in this population but you are definitely not the majority.

Amir, we've debated this and I've experimented enough with it I'm not likely to change my mind... if you're ever in the Denver area you're welcome to stop by so I can demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about. Let's just say it doesn't have any of these issues you mentioned... in fact, the soundstage actually expands and the sound becomes less tied to the speakers. Basically, almost exactly the opposite of what you're thinking actually happens in real life.

 

[RogerD]

Amir, we've debated this and I've experimented enough with it I'm not likely to change my mind... if you're ever in the Denver area you're welcome to stop by so I can demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about. Let's just say it doesn't have any of these issues you mentioned... in fact, the soundstage actually expands and the sound becomes less tied to the speakers. Basically, almost exactly the opposite of what you're thinking actually happens in real life.

+10

 

[amirm]

I listened to this tonight....pretty incredible. Listen to the baritone sax,literally fills the room and the growl is really impressive,Harry Carney was a great one. I wish my room was bigger yet as the power of Ellington's band on some cuts is jaw dropping. The brass just soars.

View attachment 30668

I can't find it on Tidal so I queued up a compressed Youtube example:

It sounds excellent through my cheap blogging headphones with all the characteristics you mention as far as the sax and such. Will play later on the main system but for now, as I mentioned, we all share the same compass of what sounds good and that comes down to the recording far more times than anything else.

You and I don't share the same metric of objective in Ron's OP yet we both agree on fidelity level this track brings. So what does that say about the metrics and what we say our goals are? They words must be wrong, no?

 

[amirm]

Amir, we've debated this and I've experimented enough with it I'm not likely to change my mind...

You don't need to change your mind because I explained how you may be different from others. My point of objection was the remark you made about Harman making up stuff because they like certain sounds. As I mentioned there is a ton of research that points to the same observations including controlled experiments where side reflections are turned on and off. Unless you have done such exact tests, what you think applies to people at large, simply doesn't.

 

[DaveC]

You don't need to change your mind because I explained how you may be different from others. My point of objection was the remark you made about Harman making up stuff because they like certain sounds. As I mentioned there is a ton of research that points to the same observations including controlled experiments where side reflections are turned on and off. Unless you have done such exact tests, what you think applies to people at large, simply doesn't.

I don't think they made things up, but I do think their experiment was fatally flawed as the system likely didn't have the capability of reproducing fine detail in the first place, and it's this information I am trying to preserve. Without this information I could see people preferring 1st reflections as the recording isn't providing it's own spatial cues. Second, acclimation of listeners was never mentioned or accounted for. It's pretty obvious people prefer what they've become accustomed to, hence the cliche about the enthusiast who prefers his own $2500 system to any of the cost-no-object systems they heard at XXX. It's ridiculous, but it's their stated preference. And it doesn't apply to anyone but themselves, as nobody else in the entire world is likely to prefer their crappy system to today's SOTA.

IMO the ideal speaker is a point source with controlled directivity, the Danley Synergy Horn might be the closest approximation of this ideal (my speaker covers from 400-15,000 Hz with a single horn)... If you read reviews you'll notice people's comments about the soundstaging/imaging abilities of the Synergy are the best the person has ever experienced, magical, etc... lots of superlatives... and the descriptions are almost exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. I've had about 40+ people over to listen to my speakers and this is the ONE thing they all agree on and the largest factor as far as why they ALL prefer my speaker to my conventional reference speaker.

As I said before in this thread immersion is really what people prefer, and the one thing all listeners seem to agree on. Your understanding of the subject and other biases will never allow you to experience this for several reasons... Your ideas on room acoustics and speaker dispersion will not allow it. Your ideas about the importance of cables and tweaks will not allow it. For example most copper IC cables (there are some high end exceptions) will smooth out most if not all of the fine detail that leads to immersiveness. Likely, your choice of electronics will also not allow it.

What you posted before about hearing a distinct left and right w/o 1st reflections just proves the point, if that's what you really believe you're hopelessly ignorant and confused on what high end stereo is capable of. And I'm not just theorizing, I have an actual system that does all of what I claim, it sounds the exact opposite of what you imagine. So, your imagination and flawed thinking vs my real life ability to demonstrate exactly what I claim? Lets just say your arguments aren't convincing at all.

 

[RogerD]

I can't find it on Tidal so I queued up a compressed Youtube example:

It sounds excellent through my cheap blogging headphones with all the characteristics you mention as far as the sax and such. Will play later on the main system but for now, as I mentioned, we all share the same compass of what sounds good and that comes down to the recording far more times than anything else.

You and I don't share the same metric of objective in Ron's OP yet we both agree on fidelity level this track brings. So what does that say about the metrics and what we say our goals are? They words must be wrong, no?

I think we stay with excepted knowns of audio engineering. Coupled with experience,knowledge,experimentation,and science. It tends to be very complicated,or perceived that way. 50 years ago I heard immersive, clear,dynamic sound reproduction. As I stated...the words are not wrong...just the cart before the horse.

 

[amirm]

I think we stay with excepted knowns of audio engineering. Coupled with experience,knowledge,experimentation,and science. It tends to be very complicated,or perceived that way. 50 years ago I heard immersive, clear,dynamic sound reproduction. As I stated...the words are not wrong...just the cart before the horse.

The words are wrong if the two of equally grade a piece of music irrespective of the equipment used or who we are. The music determined something high fidelity. The justification that one's recollection of live music got them there is simply wrong. I am confident if I were there hearing this presentation live, there would not at all been all of those hard panned left and right. It would have been a far more diffused soundstage. Hard panned left and right in stereo was "the thing" in that era so that is what we have. In no way does our appreciation of this piece of music has anything to do with what we say our reference is.

 

[amirm]

Let me add these wiser words than anything I could say:

"Knowing that the playback devices are different from those used in the creative process, we cannot
be certain what is responsible for what is heard; if we hear something we don’t
like, is it because it is in the program itself? Is it something in the playback
system that has been revealed by the program? Or is it an unfortunate destructive
interaction that is unique to these two factors and may not happen in other
circumstances? In normal listening situations, we cannot know and are therefore
left in a position of forming opinions on the basis of whether we like the
combination of content (tune, musicianship, etc.) and the sound (timbre, directional
and spatial impressions, etc.) and whether it moves us emotionally (how
it “feels”).

The origin of emotion in a listener is the art itself—the music or movie—and
not the audio hardware. It is inconceivable that a consumer could feel an emotional
attachment to a midrange loudspeaker driver, yet without good ones, listening
experiences will be diminished. Since the true nature of the original
sound cannot be known to listeners, one cannot say “it sounds as it should.”
But listeners routinely volunteer opinions on scales that are variations of
like-dislike, which frequently have a component of emotion."

 

[RogerD]

The words are wrong if the two of equally grade a piece of music irrespective of the equipment used or who we are. The music determined something high fidelity. The justification that one's recollection of live music got them there is simply wrong. I am confident if I were there hearing this presentation live, there would not at all been all of those hard panned left and right. It would have been a far more diffused soundstage. Hard panned left and right in stereo was "the thing" in that era so that is what we have. In no way does our appreciation of this piece of music has anything to do with what we say our reference is.

With this Ellington piece there is very little hard panned left and right,it is closer to a unified soundfield. In fact the illusion created is 3 dimensional with the ability to go out to a infinite space. When a system is designed well it has the ability to trick the mind,of course I use a enhanced psycho acoustic circuit,so my observations might not be relevant to most. But if you were to walk towards the psycho speakers they only become distinct from about a foot away from their location. From the plain of the main L&R speaker they are completely homogenized.
This is a audio signal that has been separated from noise. Can it be improved? Yes possibly...but I will only know that through further experimentation....By the way I use a $59 Sony transport I purchased on liquidation from circuit city. I continue to believe that most high end gear can produce this level of illusion. Whether the listener accepts this premise is another story.

 

[cjfrbw]

"It is inconceivable that a consumer could feel an emotional
attachment to a midrange loudspeaker driver"

Heh, Heh, Oh Yeah? Audio fetishism knows no boundaries.

 

[andromedaaudio]

yes i think it can i ve spend **** loads of money on midrange drivers , neodymium magnets , ceramics whatever , this is the best plus its cheap

http://www.sbacoustics.com/index.php/products/midwoofers/nrx/6-sb17nrxc35-4/

 

[Ron Resnick]

IMHO this test is a poor assessment of a system to meet objective 1 - the objective of sound reproduction is not just reproducing musicians in the acoustics of your listening room, but also replicating the acoustics of another very different listening space your room.

Objections can be advanced against any proposal. One has to start somewhere, lest one drown in a sea of nihilism. I think I proposed a rational place to start.

 

[microstrip]

Objections can be advanced against any proposal. One has to start somewhere, lest one drown in a sea of nihilism. I think I proposed a rational place to start.

Surely, it is why I referred to the definition of sound reproduction, that involves subjective perception and enjoyment.

Retrospectively, the main question are that points 1), 2) and 3) were presented as alternatives and IMHO they are not. And I think most people who love 2) do not like that it must be taken almost as a statistical and static dogma.

Unfortunately people have shown little interest is what I consider mandatory - 2) knowing and stating your musical preference. Sometimes I have asked what recordings were used in particular evaluations and the demand was ignored.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Kedar wrote on another thread:

". . . I will end up with SET+horns, or restored Apogees with class A SS. . . ."

Kedar, among the three stated objectives, to which objective do most closely (I understand not completely) subscribe?

How does your love of classical music guide, inform or affect your equipment preferences stated above?

 

[bonzo75]

Kedar wrote on another thread:

". . . I will end up with SET+horns, or restored Apogees with class A SS. . . ."

Kedar, among the three stated objectives, to which objective do you most closely (I understand not completely) subscribe?

How does your love of classical music guide, inform or affect your equipment preferences stated above?

Well demos were classical, but both can do rock and electronic considerably well. I did play some rock on both.

I like to think my regular concert benchmarks (important to note not reset by a flawed domestic system), have contributed in finding something that helps me suspend disbelief by thinking this is closest to classical. Same explanation goes for analog, i started liking analog after I sold off my speakers, because the more concerts I went to, the more real analog sounded compared to the digital I was hearing at auditions, and realism was not being reset with what I have at home.

As for Apogees vs horns, a bit of choice will be real estate and money considerations. And I have no delusions of grandeur about building one like Mike, so that's out.