"Pace, Rhythm, & Dynamics" [Revisited]

[徐中銳]

Some like rhythm to dominate, some prefer it to be in balance.

 

Colloms' essay has more than a Page (starting with this extract) on :

Amplifiers & dynamics

It's hard to extrapolate from mechanical and acoustic concepts, whose effects may be directly appreciated in physical terms expressed in the movement of sound-reproducing structures, to electronics. In an amplifier, the sound pressure is represented by its electrical voltage analog due to currents flowing in wires and electronic components. Yet there is now the beginnings of a dossier containing data on electronic parallels with the acoustic rhythm experience. There are related types of uncertainty or randomness in electrical behavior which can disturb the internal equilibrium of an electronic component. Such disturbances seem to relate well to subjective weaknesses in rhythm and dynamics.

 

One area increasingly familiar to amplifier designers is the effect of large transients on conventional amplifier power supplies. A fast crescendo momentarily drains the reservoir capacitors faster than they can be refilled by the charging diodes, causing the main voltage rails to sag. Heavy ground currents also flow, which may inject additional disturbances according to the specific circuit design. Output tubes may suffer partial saturation effects, a loss of space charge, or heating of the plate/anode structure. In a solid-state unit, MOSFET or bipolar junctions will heat up, the rise in temperature being correlated with the signal waveform. All of these effects result in altered operating characteristics. Now we have the recipe for a degree of chaos, the kind of rhythm-disturbing randomness...

Furthermore, recalling an Ishiwata interview :

Time-coded to start at 3m15s :

One of the strong points Marantz has always had—from low frequency to high frequency having almost the same 'speed' !

 

[Yes, even] the low-end amplifier or player, in Marantz' case we try to harmonise the speed...

 

Usually, what happens is, mid-to-high frequency become faster and they then can't follow the low frequency. If that happens, I'll bring [the mid-to-high frequencies] down... So that, in both timbre and time domain, you have this natural balance—in such a way that you can enjoy [all genres of] music in most of the conditions of different listening rooms... 'balance' [so that listeners] can still enjoy the music. That's the way Marantz do things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2QPePifDQI#t=3m15s

[semente]

As much as I may admire some engineers' work, I always take manufacturers' claims with a pinch of salt.

After all, hi-fi is a business like any other and in the end they all want to make money by selling as much as possible...

If you wish to view the audiophile business from an outsider's perspective you can have a look at the cosmetic's industry: you will find subjectiveness as well as scientific research, bold unsupported claims, mainstream and high-end products and quite a bit of blind brand following too.

 

Ric

[徐中銳]

As much as I may admire some engineers' work, I always take manufacturers' claims with a pinch of salt.

 

Firstly, Colloms too is an engineer :

Footnote 1: As well as being a Stereophile Contributing Editor and the primary component reviewer for the English magazine Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Martin Colloms is the author of one of the standard textbooks on loudspeaker design, High Performance Loudspeakers, the fourth edition of which appeared in 1991.

And in his current hificritic.com Profile :

The loudspeaker research I did at Monitor Audio also gave rise to my enduring 'High Performance Loudspeakers' first published in 1977 and still around in its most recent 6th edition.

Secondly, there are, of course, many ways people « take manufacturers' claims »

 

As to the question of what'd be serious testing, does one need to replicate entirely the « engineers' work[ing conditions] » such as their listening room and associated playback chain (which may, in cases, be all in-brand and include exclusive recordings) ?

 

Thirdly, myself, I've given no time towards studying « the cosmetic industry » nor will I likely...

 

Lastly, concerning « money » and « blind brand following » into Hi-Fi, Ishiwata reiterated :

What I always tell people is the following: whatever product you listen to, regardless of cost, if your emotion is moved by your favourite music when you put it on, then this product or system has a value to you. But if that does not happen—even if the product is very expensive—then it has no value to you.

[Boris75]

I don't want my music 'fired at me from of a cannon'

 

Even Tschaikovsky's 1812 Overture?

[徐中銳]

« You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave ! »

[video=youtube;z0QDf0xt-40]

[ACHiPo]

« You can check-out any time you like' date=' but you can never leave ! »

[/font']

Certainly gets my toe a tappin' :-)

[徐中銳]

Certainly gets my toe a tappin' :-)

 

I watch enough YouTube « live performances » to discern those which are exceptional, worthy of an effort in sharing. Her Channel currently has 114 uploads, most viewed is :

[video=youtube;NfOHjeI-Bns]

 

And I might as well link here, revive this Thread for new members...

[徐中銳]

A couple more for you to consider :

Elaine's overdubbing is superior to Luna's (?) :

[Allan F]

« You can check-out any time you like' date=' but you can never leave ! »

[/font']

Very impressive, but I'll still take the Don Felder / Joe Walsh version!

[徐中銳]

« In this video, Don Felder talks about, and demonstrates, licks from the famed Eagles song "Hotel California." » :

 

 

Busy, will write at better time

[徐中銳]

 

Proof of performance being more than sum-of-its-parts ?

[17629v2]

"I can't really explain what would cause an illusion of 'over speed' or 'timing dominance' but it does exist and probably not with just one brand's house style, probably another thing that's hard to measure and plot?"

 

It may be hard to measure, but its very easy to hear. As for what causes it, all I can say is that all of the components in the system contribute to it, or take away from it. I've spoken to Naim and they feel the preamp is the most important component related to prat. Personally, I feel there is no "most important" piece, and if you get 1 miss matched piece, it may not let other components fully reach their potential.

 

For the most part, I don't think its an allusion. How can it be? Anything that alters the way a system sounds has to be real. Here's a couple of examples of how prat can be effected. In the bass region, not having an amp that can properly control the lower frequencies, can give the qualities of poor timing. Putting a better amp the system, that can take command of the speaker's lows, is an improvement that is definitely real. Moving into the mids and highs, prat will be effected by how well the system reproduces the attack, resonance and decay of the instruments being played. Apparent speed is related to attack. Too much attack can sound artificial. That's why some gear can sound fatiguing. Too little attack can also sound artificial. Uninvolving, I guess, would be the best word to describe it. A good, live music example of attack is staccato. That's when the leading edge of a note is played with emphasis. The tempo doesn't actually change, but it appears to.

 

Another major contributor to prat is dynamic contrast. How well a system jumps from soft to loud notes and transients. Vinyl does this fairly easily, but digital, not so much. For example, my Arcam 33 CD player has a very smooth, polite sound, that lacks in dynamic contrast. My Wadia CD players do this very well, but cost a lot more.

 

[semente]

"I can't really explain what would cause an illusion of 'over speed' or 'timing dominance' but it does exist and probably not with just one brand's house style, probably another thing that's hard to measure and plot?"

 

It may be hard to measure, but its very easy to hear. As for what causes it, all I can say is that all of the components in the system contribute to it, or take away from it. I've spoken to Naim and they feel the preamp is the most important component related to prat. Personally, I feel there is no "most important" piece, and if you get 1 miss matched piece, it may not let other components fully reach their potential.

 

For the most part, I don't think its an allusion. How can it be? Anything that alters the way a system sounds has to be real. Here's a couple of examples of how prat can be effected. In the bass region, not having an amp that can properly control the lower frequencies, can give the qualities of poor timing. Putting a better amp the system, that can take command of the speaker's lows, is an improvement that is definitely real. Moving into the mids and highs, prat will be effected by how well the system reproduces the attack, resonance and decay of the instruments being played. Apparent speed is related to attack. Too much attack can sound artificial. That's why some gear can sound fatiguing. Too little attack can also sound artificial. Uninvolving, I guess, would be the best word to describe it. A good, live music example of attack is staccato. That's when the leading edge of a note is played with emphasis. The tempo doesn't actually change, but it appears to.

 

Another major contributor to prat is dynamic contrast. How well a system jumps from soft to loud notes and transients. Vinyl does this fairly easily, but digital, not so much. For example, my Arcam 33 CD player has a very smooth, polite sound, that lacks in dynamic contrast. My Wadia CD players do this very well, but cost a lot more.

 

 

My guess is that there are other factors affecting the subjective impression of "speed/timing" besides frequency response balance, transient response and noise floor like upper-mid and high frequency harmonic distortion correlated with the music signal such as what you get with vinyl or the breakup resonance produced by kevlar cones.

I have the impression that many people dislike the sound of large speakers because the presence of low frequencies affects the sound in a way which sounds slow, and some manufacturers of full range speakers have even gone as far as to allow for a relaxation of the response in that band of the spectrum. It's a gimmick, an effect, distortion...

 

PRAT is just a marketing slogan; what we are looking for is signal integrity or the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal... High-fidelity.

 

R

[17629v2]

My guess is that there are other factors affecting the subjective impression of "speed/timing" besides frequency response balance, transient response and noise floor like upper-mid and high frequency harmonic distortion correlated with the music signal such as what you get with vinyl or the breakup resonance produced by kevlar cones.

I have the impression that many people dislike the sound of large speakers because the presence of low frequencies affects the sound in a way which sounds slow, and some manufacturers of full range speakers have even gone as far as to allow for a relaxation of the response in that band of the spectrum. It's a gimmick, an effect, distortion...

 

PRAT is just a marketing slogan; what we are looking for is signal integrity or the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal... High-fidelity.

 

R

 

So why would a system that demonstrates good pacing and timing be less accurate and lower fidelity? Aside from that, your post is too general and can't be used for anything useful. Unless you can site a specific speaker and show me the exact flaws in it that contribute to a problem, I don't see how anyone could make use of your post. Its way too subjective. If a designer is using something that qualifies as a gimmick, OK. Point it out to me. How can we fix a problem if we don't isolate it? Also, every component contributes to "PRAT", not just speakers.

[semente]

So why would a system that demonstrates good pacing and timing be less accurate and lower fidelity? Aside from that, your post is too general and can't be used for anything useful. Unless you can site a specific speaker and show me the exact flaws in it that contribute to a problem, I don't see how anyone could make use of your post. Its way too subjective. If a designer is using something that qualifies as a gimmick, OK. Point it out to me. How can we fix a problem if we don't isolate it? Also, every component contributes to "PRAT", not just speakers.

 

Pace, rhythm and timing are qualities of music not systems.

If the recording quality is good, a reasonably transparent or accurate system will reproduce the signal equally well.

 

 

P.S.: how do you know if an equipment is accurate? You measure it.

[semente]

A ragged frequency response is often perceived as "exciting" and "dynamic".

But frequency response EQ'ing is responsible for several other subjective qualities (i.e.: a recessed presence zone moves the "soundstage" backwards, an exaggerated treble gives an impression of "crispness" and "detail").

Sound engineers know all about this: Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network

 

I'm sure many manufacturers use these "effects" to season the sound of their products, to achieve some sort of house sound.

 

Examples?

I see no technical reason that will justify the less than optimal measured performance of Wilson Audio and BnW speakers except intent.

An example from a BnW 803D review:

 

A loudspeaker’s overall sound is largely a function of its tonal balance -- a conclusion I came to a while back, after many years of reviewing speakers. Conducting in-room measurements has taught me much, but nothing set so solidly in stone as the fact that an accurate statement of a speaker’s frequency response (FR) will tell you quite a bit about how loudspeakers will sound when you’re seated in a chair planted in front of them. The 803 Diamond had a distinctive sonic character in my room that seems to me to be a deliberate effort by B&W to follow a house sound through an expertly tailored FR. Such a design choice -- a speaker’s voicing, if you like -- can be a matter of taste, and in this instance I liked the results, and imagine you will, too.

 

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176:bowers-a-wilkins-803-diamond-loudspeakers

[crenca]

A ragged frequency response is often perceived as "exciting" and "dynamic".

But frequency response EQ'ing is responsible for several other subjective qualities (i.e.: a recessed presence zone moves the "soundstage" backwards, an exaggerated treble gives an impression of "crispness" and "detail").

Sound engineers know all about this: Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network

 

I'm sure many manufacturers use these "effects" to season the sound of their products, to achieve some sort of house sound.

 

Examples?

I see no technical reason that will justify the less than optimal measured performance of Wilson Audio and BnW speakers except intent.

An example from a BnW 803D review:

 

A loudspeaker’s overall sound is largely a function of its tonal balance -- a conclusion I came to a while back, after many years of reviewing speakers. Conducting in-room measurements has taught me much, but nothing set so solidly in stone as the fact that an accurate statement of a speaker’s frequency response (FR) will tell you quite a bit about how loudspeakers will sound when you’re seated in a chair planted in front of them. The 803 Diamond had a distinctive sonic character in my room that seems to me to be a deliberate effort by B&W to follow a house sound through an expertly tailored FR. Such a design choice -- a speaker’s voicing, if you like -- can be a matter of taste, and in this instance I liked the results, and imagine you will, too.

 

SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com - SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com

 

 

I thought 17629v2 's point about "In the bass region, not having an amp that can properly control the lower frequencies, can give the qualities of poor timing. Putting a better amp the system, that can take command of the speaker's lows, is an improvement that is definitely real" made sense in a *perceived* difference in "PRAT" where an FR graph might be the same. Does a typical FR graph reveal the audible difference in damping factors between amps on the same speaker? While I am largely suspect of PRAT I do see 17629v2's points as valid in the sense that they are something that can be a small/subjective difference that might lead some to describe in terms of "PRAT" even though the terminology is wrong.

 

Also Semente, what is it Wilson is doing in as far as FR? I am aware of the B&W "house sound" I just have not heard enough Wilson to identify theirs...

[17629v2]

Pace, rhythm and timing are qualities of music not systems.

If the recording quality is good, a reasonably transparent or accurate system will reproduce the signal equally well.

 

 

P.S.: how do you know if an equipment is accurate? You measure it.

 

OK. How? Lets say I have you judge my system. What's the process?

[semente]

OK. How? Lets say I have you judge my system. What's the process?

I suppose I'd do what most would, listen to a few tracks that expose shortcomings in different aspects of the system's performance.

My personal experience with particular speakers or speaker brands as well as published measurements would also help to create a more accurate snapshot of the system's abilities.

 

R

[17629v2]

A ragged frequency response is often perceived as "exciting" and "dynamic".

But frequency response EQ'ing is responsible for several other subjective qualities (i.e.: a recessed presence zone moves the "soundstage" backwards, an exaggerated treble gives an impression of "crispness" and "detail").

Sound engineers know all about this: Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network

 

I'm sure many manufacturers use these "effects" to season the sound of their products, to achieve some sort of house sound.

 

Examples?

I see no technical reason that will justify the less than optimal measured performance of Wilson Audio and BnW speakers except intent.

An example from a BnW 803D review:

 

A loudspeaker’s overall sound is largely a function of its tonal balance -- a conclusion I came to a while back, after many years of reviewing speakers. Conducting in-room measurements has taught me much, but nothing set so solidly in stone as the fact that an accurate statement of a speaker’s frequency response (FR) will tell you quite a bit about how loudspeakers will sound when you’re seated in a chair planted in front of them. The 803 Diamond had a distinctive sonic character in my room that seems to me to be a deliberate effort by B&W to follow a house sound through an expertly tailored FR. Such a design choice -- a speaker’s voicing, if you like -- can be a matter of taste, and in this instance I liked the results, and imagine you will, too.

 

SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com - SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com

 

Something like this only holds true if every other component in the system, including the room, is dead neutral. In reality, that never happens. In the real world a system must be judged in its entirety. Some people, through system matching, will neutralize the less than optimal points of the B&W speakers in question, while others will take a different approach. As always, it comes down to the skill and personal taste of the person building the system.

[17629v2]

I suppose I'd do what most would, listen to a few tracks that expose shortcomings in different aspects of the system's performance.

My personal experience with particular speakers or speaker brands as well as published measurements would also help to create a more accurate snapshot of the system's abilities.

 

R

 

Assume I'm not most and give me a plan of action. I'm learning here.

[semente]

Something like this only holds true if every other component in the system, including the room, is dead neutral. In reality, that never happens. In the real world a system must be judged in its entirety. Some people, through system matching, will neutralize the less than optimal points of the B&W speakers in question, while others will take a different approach. As always, it comes down to the skill and personal taste of the person building the system.

 

The problem is that you can't really "neutralise" the kevlar resonance of the midrange cone unless you fiddle with the crossover.

 

I agree that the electronics also affect performance, though not as much as speakers or cartridges but I don't think it's possible to correct a certain shortcoming by "applying" the inverse; two wrongs don't make a right...

 

R

[semente]

Assume I'm not most and give me a plan of action. I'm learning here.

 

What else is there to say?

In my opinion, sound assessment should be performed with recordings of acoustic instruments preferably playing live in a natural acoustic environment, with an as diverse as possible menu of vocal, small group and orchestral music.

And I play recordings that I know will expose specific problems from "tonal balance" to "clarity" at low SPL, from distortion at high SPL to IMD, driver and cabinet induced distortion, electronic "grain" and "glare", etc.

 

R

[17629v2]

"P.S.: how do you know if an equipment is accurate? You measure it."

 

OK. How? Lets say I have you judge my system. What's the process?

 

"I suppose I'd do what most would, listen to a few tracks that expose shortcomings in different aspects of the system's performance.

My personal experience with particular speakers or speaker brands as well as published measurements would also help to create a more accurate snapshot of the system's abilities. "

 

Assume I'm not most and give me a plan of action. I'm learning here.

 

"What else is there to say?

In my opinion, sound assessment should be performed with recordings of acoustic instruments preferably playing live in a natural acoustic environment, with an as diverse as possible menu of vocal, small group and orchestral music.

And I play recordings that I know will expose specific problems from "tonal balance" to "clarity" at low SPL, from distortion at high SPL to IMD, driver and cabinet induced distortion, electronic "grain" and "glare", etc."

 

This is the perfect example of why I call the people who claim to be objective, super subjective. As always, you get directly to the point: "You measure it.". The only thing I can say to that, is you have an very strange way of measuring things.

 

 

Now for the other thread:

 

Something like this only holds true if every other component in the system, including the room, is dead neutral. In reality, that never happens. In the real world a system must be judged in its entirety. Some people, through system matching, will neutralize the less than optimal points of the B&W speakers in question, while others will take a different approach. As always, it comes down to the skill and personal taste of the person building the system.

 

"The problem is that you can't really "neutralise" the kevlar resonance of the midrange cone unless you fiddle with the crossover.

 

I agree that the electronics also affect performance, though not as much as speakers or cartridges but I don't think it's possible to correct a certain shortcoming by "applying" the inverse; two wrongs don't make a right... "

 

You may be correct on that if you were talking about some of the things we don't know how to measure. However, it you read your post, it was in reference to frequency response. You can alter frequency response easily through system matching and room tuning.

[semente]

I don't see any contradiction...

How do you know if an equipment is accurate? You measure it.

If you can't measure it you have to go for the next best thing which is listening, though this will no doubt reduce the effectiveness of the task (evaluating accuracy).

 

For evaluating performance I rely on a combination of listening assessment and of reading available measurements (I ignore reviews, as they tend to be overcome by taste and hardly ever mention shortcomings which renders them worthless).

I am not a "measurist"; in fact the only measurements I've ever made were those of the system response at the listening spot because I don't own any other measuring equipment.

And since I cannot measure, I listen.

But I try as best as I can to evaluate through listening from an "observationist" perspective; I don't go for what I like but instead try to determine how the system performs when compared to my references, both of live and of reproduced sound.

And I have no doubt that measuring equipment is far more accurate and effective than listening (at evaluating certain parameters), although I do concede that it may be possible that there are things that there may be qualities or effects for which no measurement has yet been invented and in such instance listening is an invaluable tool.

 

I'm not someone who would buy electronics on measurements alone, though I've tended to prefer equipment which measures better.

As for loudspeakers, their effect on the signal is quite significant and even the best ones are the result of a few compromises so I find their audition mandatory and some degree of subjectiveness is inevitable.

 

Finally, I don't agree that one can "can alter frequency response easily through system matching and room tuning" unless by tuning you mean EQ'ing.

 

R