Blue or red pill?

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Loudness that we perceive also dependent on the reverberation level.  In a proper setup with system possible of concert level of over 100dB peaks, you need more than 80W.  I think at the  peak of crescendo I used to clip the 500W amplifier.  With another 10 amplifiers for ambient, I believe I need another 500W.  That only at the peaks.  

 

60W per channel, on average sensitivity speakers is enough to get things like piano in the room, at "full frenzy" playing levels, done well - turns out the biggest problem is having enough gain on tap in the chain, to make sure older recordings mastered at low levels can be replayed at realistic volumes.

 

Modern, compressed pop recordings are 'diabolically' loud with only so much power - need to be turned down a lot, otherwise one's ears start ringing ...

[STC]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

How would that require more power than anechoic conditions?

 

In that case, your peaks are far above 100 dB. It's simple maths. Even allowing for typical speaker impedance variation with frequency, you wouldn't need more than double the nominal power.

 

In concert hall, a listener often hear a higher level of loudness than the actual sound level of the source.  This is a fact.  Too sleepy to retrieve the citations. 

 

My highest recorded peak was 106dB.  The power calculation only will be correct if the speakers impedance is flat across the frequency and used with steady test. tones. In music, the diaphragm must move suddenly and often against the initial inertia that requires additional power to produce the loudness level.  In my case, my impedance is said to drop below 1 ohm and I think the lowest point is 0.2 ohm(sic). So that means to really perform at true concert level you need an amplifier that is capable of feeding the right power under those condition I mentioned here. 

 

 

[STC]

56 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

60W per channel, on average sensitivity speakers is enough to get things like piano in the room, at "full frenzy" playing levels, done well - turns out the biggest problem is having enough gain on tap in the chain, to make sure older recordings mastered at low levels can be replayed at realistic volumes.

 

Modern, compressed pop recordings are 'diabolically' loud with only so much power - need to be turned down a lot, otherwise one's ears start ringing ...

 

While understand you because I spent a good part of my life perfecting stereo, you have not a slightest idea what I am talking about.  I am taking about  loudness level that is arbitrary and subject to the genre which is separately reproduce according  psychoacoustics  and actual concert loudness level or at least closer to that. 

[mansr]

39 minutes ago, STC said:

In my case, my impedance is said to drop below 1 ohm and I think the lowest point is 0.2 ohm(sic).

What speakers would that be? Seems rather extreme.

[STC]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

What speakers would that be? Seems rather extreme.

 

Listed in my system profile. Even the easy driving Harbeth showed it needed 700W per channel with  music at loud level ( Not test tones). Alan Shaw was shocked to witness that who probably thought his 6 ohm nominal speakers will never reach that stage ever. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Microphones do "capture the sheer acoustic energy and presence of a live performance" - and the answer is not "special spells and incantations" - the 'magic' is being able, firstly, to know when a system is audibly below par; and, secondly, have a set of methods and procedures to follow to hopefully circumvent the issues.

 

 

Do tell! And what microphones do this?  Because I've never seen/heard a pair in more than 30 years of recording, and that includes Neumann U87, AKG414, Sony C37P and C-500, Telefunken ELA-M-270, etc. Not only that but I've never known another recording engineer who has ever found these "magic microphones" of yours either, and I've known a lot of those.

And you're saying that this "set of methods and procedures" makes your system sound so much better than anybody else's system that it transcends the shortcomings of both recordings and other audiophiles' less than Olympian systems? Sounds like spells and incantations to me.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, STC said:

 

While understand you because I spent a good part of my life perfecting stereo, you have not a slightest idea what I am talking about.  I am taking about  loudness level that is arbitrary and subject to the genre which is separately reproduce according  psychoacoustics  and actual concert loudness level or at least closer to that. 

 

Not quite sure what you're saying here - there are known levels of peak loudness experienced by members in an audience of a concert performance, say - and for other situations. A system to be fully capable should be able to generate those SPLs in the room - and 120dB as an absolute peak would be way good enough. Something like 110dB is probably more what I would be happy with, in everyday circumstances.

 

Playing the 'wrong' material at higher levels is deafening - not interested in this, at all.

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Do tell! And what microphones do this?  Because I've never seen/heard a pair in more than 30 years of recording, and that includes Neumann U87, AKG414, Sony C37P and C-500, Telefunken ELA-M-270, etc. Not only that but I've never known another recording engineer who has ever found these "magic microphones" of yours either, and I've known a lot of those.

And you're saying that this "set of methods and procedures" makes your system sound so much better than anybody else's system that it transcends the shortcomings of both recordings and other audiophiles' less than Olympian systems? Sounds like spells and incantations to me.

 

You still haven't answered why you think these microphones have a problem - how have you assessed them to be deficient? By listening to a set of monitors, a playback system?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

An orchestral performance can reach 100 dB or so

 

Mansr, I've measured 112dB at the crescendo of Resphigi's "The Pines of Rome" myself, just in front of the stage apron, behind the conductor using a digital sound pressure meter. 100 dB might be some kind of average , but it sure isn't the peak. But that's not exactly what I was saying. A symphony orchestra in, say, Boston Symphony Hall, or SF's Davies Symphony Hall, or Chicago's Symphony Hall can fill that entire hall with sound and it is loud. Now, take your domestic speakers and your amplifier(s) to one of those halls and place the speakers on the stage  and try to fill that auditorium with your domestic hi-fi gear to the same level as a symphony orchestra. There is no way that your system can do that or even provide SR for an average rock group in a relatively small venue. That's what I meant when I asked the rhetorical question about whether one would even want the sheer volume of a symphony orchestra in their living room. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not quite sure what you're saying here - there are known levels of peak loudness experienced by members in an audience of a concert performance, say - and for other situations. A system to be fully capable should be able to generate those SPLs in the room - and 120dB as an absolute peak would be way good enough. Something like 110dB is probably more what I would be happy with, in everyday circumstances.

 

Playing the 'wrong' material at higher levels is deafening - not interested in this, at all.

 

As I say, in concert halls, the actual loudness at listeners position is higher than the actual spl of the instrument itself. That loudness is not coming from the direct sound. That also a reason why when someone speaks on stage without a microphone in a concert hall it is still loud and clear even if you sit relatively far away. Either you know this as fact or you don’t. Without you understanding this principle it is hard to explain about actual loudspeakers loudness and actual loudness level at listeners position in concert hall. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

There is no way that your system can do that or even provide SR for an average rock group in a relatively small venue. That's what I meant when I asked the rhetorical question about whether one would even want the sheer volume of a symphony orchestra in their living room. 

 

It can be done. You have not seen people doing it. Maybe not at 130dB peak, although it can be done provided I have the right speakers, amplifiers and space. In normal rock concert producing 130db is a norm.  

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, STC said:

You cannot hear live like playback without  getting the second part of the equation which is the room reverberation correct. Room RT is a separate element that cannot be recorded in full and must be reproduced separately.  An organ will sound better in church where the RT exceeds way above 2 seconds than in most concert hall.  A quartet or studio recordings will sound better in a small concert hall than a big one unless they could bring down the ceiling to compensate the the direct sound level on a big concert room. 

You know, I don't disagree and in a perfect world, it would be nice to have that kind of immersive experience, I guess, but you know, I've done it. I've worked my way through the "quadraphonic" era, I've had Dolby surround, DTS, 5.1, and 7.1. as well as SACD (I have a multichannel Sony SCD-XA777ES), yet I was never satisfied with any of it. I now find that I can't really work up any interest at all for the reverb game. It's just not part of my listening agenda. I'm strictly a two-channel enthusiast these days. 

[STC]

Just now, gmgraves said:

You know, I don't disagree and in a perfect world, it would be nice to have that kind of immersive experience, I guess, but you know, I've done it. I've worked my way through the "quadraphonic" era, I'v had Dolby surround, DTS, 5.1, and 7.1. as well as as SACD (I have a multichannel Sony SCD-XA777ES), yet I was never satisfied with any of it. I now find that I can't really work up any interest at all in the reverb game. It's just not part of my listening agenda. I'm strictly a two-channel enthusiast these days. 

 

I would be surprised if you say those method gave you a realistic immersive experience. It can’t be done with what you described but it is generally much better than stereo provided you have the correct material and correct setup. Seeing the number confusion about stereo recordings, loudness level, lack of proper listening room, unachievable correct RT, I would be surprised to see a proper 5.1 setup.   

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It can be done. You have not seen people doing it. Maybe not at 130dB peak, although it can be done provided I have the right speakers, amplifiers and space. In normal rock concert producing 130db is a norm.  

I KNOW THAT! I'm not talking about Sound Reinforcement equipment, I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about home Hi-fi equipment (that's what the word "domestic" means in this context). I swear some you guys are so contentious that you'll argue about anything. I honestly believe that I could say that the suns comes every day and get an argument from somebody here!

 

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Mansr, I've measured 112dB at the crescendo of Resphigi's "The Pines of Rome" myself, just in front of the stage apron, behind the conductor using a digital sound pressure meter. 100 dB might be some kind of average , but it sure isn't the peak. But that's not exactly what I was saying. A symphony orchestra in, say, Boston Symphony Hall, or SF's Davies Symphony Hall, or Chicago's Symphony Hall can fill that entire hall with sound and it is loud. Now, take your domestic speakers and your amplifier(s) to one of those halls and place the speakers on the stage  and try to fill that auditorium with your domestic hi-fi gear to the same level as a symphony orchestra. There is no way that your system can do that or even provide SR for an average rock group in a relatively small venue. That's what I meant when I asked the rhetorical question about whether one would even want the sheer volume of a symphony orchestra in their living room. 

Your typical listening space is much smaller than a concert hall, so it takes much less power to achieve the same loudness. If I raise the volume control on my system to anywhere near maximum, it gets painfully loud.

[STC]

13 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I KNOW THAT! I'm not talking about Sound Reinforcement equipment, I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about home Hi-fi equipment (that's what the word "domestic" means in this context). I swear some you guys are so contentious that you'll argue about anything. I honestly believe that I could say that the suns comes every day and get an argument from somebody here!

 

 

What’s wrong with that! Who imposed this rule that you must be limited with two speakers only?

 

“In many situations, a sound reinforcement system is also used to enhance or alter the sound of the sources on the stage, typically by using electronic effects, such as reverb, as opposed to simply amplifying the sources unaltered.”

 

My meaning is referring to the above and you are still stuck with sound reinforcement means just to increase loudness level.  

 

And while you always insisted the superior recording using this  method is the purist approach of stereo recordings but when necessary you have no qualm of adding extra speakers to get the perfection. So why not with playback too?

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

I would be surprised if you say those method gave you a realistic immersive experience. It can’t be done with what you described but it is generally much better than stereo provided you have the correct material and correct setup. Seeing the number confusion about stereo recordings, loudness level, lack of proper listening room, unachievable correct RT, I would be surprised to see a proper 5.1 setup.   

I was never satisfied with any of them. That's why I gave up. But I suppose that you and only you do have the correct setup, right?

The best setup I ever had was a pair of Phillips components that I reviewed about 20 years ago. The main box was a A/V control unit. It had inputs for a number of video sources (alas only Composite video and so-called "S" inputs where Chroma and Luminosity signals were separated). It had a set of reverb parameters programmed into it, and it labeled them: Concert Hall, Stadium, Cathedral, etc. and it let you play with various parameters. The second chassis had five channels of 125 Watts RMS amplification. I wished I could have kept it just for the ambience generation! One particularly memorable night was around Christmas. The TV was showing the Kings College Choir from England in stereo and I decided to route the TV sound through the ambience unit and I set it on the "Cathedral" setting. It was glorious! Yeah, it was fake but it sounded better than any other surround sound I've ever heard before or since.    

[gmgraves]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

Your typical listening space is much smaller than a concert hall, so it takes much less power to achieve the same loudness. If I raise the volume control on my system to anywhere near maximum, it gets painfully loud.

That's obvious. Again, It's not what I was talking about.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I was never satisfied with any of them. That's why I gave up. But I suppose that you and only you do have the correct setup, right?

 

Yes, among others and open to those genuinely interested. I have an institute as a reference which also opened to the public. Please also see my edited earlier post. 

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

What’s wrong with that! Who imposed this rule that you must be limited with two speakers only?

 

How many home Hi-Fi systems do you know that have multiple speakers in their listening room as in a typical sound reinforcement system? Most people have a pair (with maybe some smaller speakers for surround, but I don't know of many of those people. Most people who have surround have for it movies, not music).

 

Tune down the pedanticisim  about 3dB and you'll be fine

[STC]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

How many home Hi-Fi systems do you know that have multiple speakers in their listening room as in a typical sound reinforcement system? Most people have a pair (with maybe some smaller speakers for surround, but I don't know of many of those people. Most people who have surround have for it movies, not music).

 

Tune down the pedanticisim  about 3dB and you'll be fine

 There are also not many with dedicated room so I should not have that also right?. Grow up and get out more to explore non audiophiles setups too. Btw, what I am doing is maybe new to audiophiles but it is pretty common in  pro audio. Now, I know why they ROTFL about audiophiles and their system. 

 

You have  not answered why that’s  okay for you to depart from your ideal stereo recordings when it was deemed necessary but objectionable even to someone’s idea that it’s also okay to have additional speakers for reverbs. One rule for you and another rule for others or is because your experience taught you the limits of stereo recordings and it’s acciracy?

 

Youu have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not recording in all stereo and changed according to the venue and size of the ensemble but when it comes to playback insisting that your plast failure should be the benchmark of good SQ. 

[gmgraves]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You still haven't answered why you think these microphones have a problem - how have you assessed them to be deficient? By listening to a set of monitors, a playback system?

Yes, they are deficient - all of them. Every mike sounds different. That means that at the very least, most of them are wrong and in reality, they all are! If they were all correct and perfect, they'd all sound the same. They sound different for pretty much the same reason that speakers and phonograph cartridges all sound different: They are not perfect transducers - none of them are! It's not possible to make a perfect transducer - the laws of physics see to that. 

Perhaps you don't know this but the reason why most recording studios have lots of different brands and models and vintages of microphones around is simply because they all sound different. You'll hear an engineer say, "I'm going to put the U87 on the vocalist because it makes her voice sound less chesty." or "I'm going to use the Schoeps on the piano, because it's a good mike for bringing out the character of the Steinway." In other words, they take advantage of the different characteristics of the different microphones. If all microphones were perfect, and thus sounded the same, they could use the same mikes on everything. 

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

You have  not answered why that’s  okay for you to depart from your ideal stereo recordings when it was deemed necessary but objectionable even to someone’s idea that it’s also okay to have additional speakers for reverbs. One rule for you and another rule for others or is because your experience taught you the limits of stereo recordings and it’s acciracy?

It's OK because I know what I'm doing and I know how to use my equipment and procedures to best advantage. This comes from experience. Location recording is very different from studio-bound recording because every musical group is different, every location is different and not always ideal. The studio recording engineer deals with the same space every session. I don't have that "luxury". One must be flexible and one cannot be too strict with rules of thumb. Often one has to improvise, and knowing when and how to improvise to get the best recording is where the knowledge and experience come in.  Also, where do you get the idea that I object to someone having additional speakers for reverb? I don't care what people do in their own listening room. Why should I? Have a thousand speakers if you (or anybody else) wants, or, just one. It makes no difference to me. 

 

15 minutes ago, STC said:

Youu have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not recording in all stereo and changed according to the venue and size of the ensemble but when it comes to playback insisting that your plast failure should be the benchmark of good SQ. 

 

Is English not your native language? Perhaps I should cut you some slack in that case, because I've rarely seen people with whom I correspond get facts so twisted up as you seem to do. 

I have never said that I don't record in all stereo because I do. Always. I also can't parse, at all, your last statement? What playback failure are you talking about? What benchmark for good SQ? 

 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

19 minutes ago, STC said:

You have  not answered why that’s  okay for you to depart from your ideal stereo recordings when it was deemed necessary but objectionable even to someone’s idea that it’s also okay to have additional speakers for reverbs. One rule for you and another rule for others or is because your experience taught you the limits of stereo recordings and it’s acciracy?

 

Read more  

It's OK because I know what I'm doing and I know how to use my equipment and procedures to best advantage. This comes from experience. Location recording is very different from studio-bound recording because every musical group is different,

 

 

The way you are saying that ONLY YOU are capable of mastering something and the rest are just incapable of perfecting or proving otherwise. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

As I say, in concert halls, the actual loudness at listeners position is higher than the actual spl of the instrument itself. That loudness is not coming from the direct sound. That also a reason why when someone speaks on stage without a microphone in a concert hall it is still loud and clear even if you sit relatively far away. Either you know this as fact or you don’t. Without you understanding this principle it is hard to explain about actual loudspeakers loudness and actual loudness level at listeners position in concert hall. 

 

Well, there's a  difference between subjective 'loudness', and what a sound meter registers - as regards the latter there is a body of research as to what the levels are that players in the orchestra will hear - in the order of 120 -130dB at peak intensities, depending upon precisely what is being played, and the position of the player. Enough to cause concern for their welfare - but I have not seen anything like those numbers for a position in the audience seats; I recall 110dB being mentioned as the peak level in the front seats, at one point.

 

Subjectively, how "loud" something is varies enormously - this is mentioned regularly in audio forums; and I'm certainly aware how much it alters depending upon the quality level of the playback. I normally use the term "intensity" to express the sensation of the sound being like a physical force, impacting upon the body - you could call it, volume with clarity.