Being aware of misbehaviour of the playback chain

[fas42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning ... ??

[Ralf11]

19 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You could try LISTENING to real trumpets. live!

 

too painful

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, yours. With your mid-fi components and your boom-box speakers!

 

I agree! With your setup, there is definitely lots of room for improvement!

 

Most of the time I don't worry about peak loudness levels achievable. What I'm after is getting the realism factor happening - because that is immensely satisfying in itself. And the equipment will have natural limits, set by the design - it's much too hard to push beyond that envelope; if higher SPLs are needed alter the  components used.

 

That said, a competent 60W amplifier driving average sensitivity speakers will give as big a sound as one could wish for.

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yeah, This EE just loves listening to oscillators! Bring on the positive feedback! SQUEAL!

 

I doubt if it will help. I'm convinced that microphones' diaphragms need to have orders of magnitude less mass. 

 

 That is part of what I was trying to convey for the HF mics.

 You didn't quite get what I was referring to with the positive feedback.

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes we can, at least I can Can't account for others.

How? What you hear is influenced by both microphones and speakers. There is no way to tell which has contributed what part of the total distortion.

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

How? What you hear is influenced by both microphones and speakers. There is no way to tell which has contributed what part of the total distortion.

 

Try listening with high quality headphones too ?

[Blackmorec]

You guys have obviously never listened to a pair of Avangarde Trios hooked up to some capable electronics.  What makes them stand out markedly from the crowd is the realistic way they do brass....very different from any other loudspeaker I’ve ever heard in that regard...lifelike would be the exact adjective I would use.

 

Huge efficiency.....spherical horn loading of small (very light diaphragm) but very powerful (attached to large coil/magnet assembly) drivers, playing into an acoustic impedance. At the important frequencies their wave form is spherical (like any brass horn). The overwhelming characteristic of the Trios is their dynamic speed and ability to reach lifelike SPLs with very little movement of their driver diaphragms. Listening to Trios, you would very quickly conclude that microphones can indeed  produce realistic brass instrument sound and that its the transducers used to monitor that sound that are limited. 

[mansr]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

Try listening with high quality headphones too ?

Headphones are a type of speaker.

[semente]

9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

too painful

 

A friend of mine decided to learn the bagpipes at one time. I asked him to show off his skills but soon regreted it; the damn thing was just too loud for his small living room...

[semente]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Headphones are a type of speaker.

 

A speaker of the whisperer kind.

[Allan F]

7 hours ago, semente said:

 

A friend of mine decided to learn the bagpipes at one time. I asked him to show off his skills but soon regretted it; the damn thing was just too loud for his small living room...

 

As played by too many pipers, bagpipes are too loud if you can hear them at all.

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, mansr said:

How? What you hear is influenced by both microphones and speakers. There is no way to tell which has contributed what part of the total distortion.

EXPERIENCE!

[fas42]

Yes, experience is everything ... it tells one what the end result is, but it won't inform as to what precisely is the "chain of events" that leads to the end product - this is where science, and troubleshooting skills step in.

 

It should be clear that the reproduction side is the problem area - enough people can put their hands up, and say that something like playback of brass is perfectly achievable, given sufficient competence of the system; the universe doesn't work in different ways to suit different people, if something happens just once, no matter how unlikely, then it can happen a million times ...

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

You guys have obviously never listened to a pair of Avangarde Trios hooked up to some capable electronics.  What makes them stand out markedly from the crowd is the realistic way they do brass....very different from any other loudspeaker I’ve ever heard in that regard...lifelike would be the exact adjective I would use.

I've heard Avantgarde Trios with good quality electronics and while you are right they do portray some of the quality of brass instruments that seem missing in other speakers (in fact the Stax SR7 powered by the SRD-7 energizer/amplifier directly from the microphone preamp and my big capsule CK-40 stereo condenser mike about 6 ft from the mouth of  a well played trumpet) They still don't sound like real brass in the room with you. 

17 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

Huge efficiency.....spherical horn loading of small (very light diaphragm) but very powerful (attached to large coil/magnet assembly) drivers, playing into an acoustic impedance. At the important frequencies their wave form is spherical (like any brass horn). The overwhelming characteristic of the Trios is their dynamic speed and ability to reach lifelike SPLs with very little movement of their driver diaphragms. Listening to Trios, you would very quickly conclude that microphones can indeed  produce realistic brass instrument sound and that its the transducers used to monitor that sound that are limited. 

As I said, they are among the most lifelike on brass I've heard, but I find that the Trios don't sound that good across the board. Strings sounded strident to my ears and piano lacked sparkle but still sounded "sandy" and somewhat peaky. Of course it's been probably 10 years since I heard the TrIos, and they've probably been modified a lot since then. I'd like to hear them again. They were still, the least colored horns I've heard. 

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

As I said, they are among the most lifelike on brass I've heard, but I find that the Trios don't sound that good across the board. Strings sounded strident to my ears and piano lacked sparkle but still sounded "sandy" and somewhat peaky. Of course it's been probably 10 years since I heard the TrIos, and they've probably been modified a lot since then. I'd like to hear them again. They were still, the least colored horns I've heard. 

 

These are system issues. Audiophiles have a very hard time comprehending that as the system improves in its ability to reproduce completely realistic sound, that one has to be fussier and fussier about every last detail - that is, it gets harder and harder, the closer you are to the goal ; the process precisely mirrors how it works in the software world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule .

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, experience is everything ... it tells one what the end result is, but it won't inform as to what precisely is the "chain of events" that leads to the end product - this is where science, and troubleshooting skills step in.

That's where knowledge steps in, you mean. 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It should be clear that the reproduction side is the problem area - enough people can put their hands up, and say that something like playback of brass is perfectly achievable, given sufficient competence of the system; the universe doesn't work in different ways to suit different people, if something happens just once, no matter how unlikely, then it can happen a million times ...

It isn't clear, because I know better and every brass instrument player knows better as well. I have recorded brass scores of times using all different brands and types of microphones. I have listened to playback on many different speaker systems over the years, and every microphone and every playback system renders brass in the same flawed way. Nice, exciting even, but never yet REAL. If it is the playback system (and this is how I know it isn't), then all playback systems sound alike, and of course, that thought is pure nonsense! No, the standard recording mikes used in the industry just can't resolve that final soupçon of realism that is, apparently, most apparent when trying to capture brass (I want to interject that I'm not talking about saxophones here. They might be made of brass, but the method of playing them puts them firmly in the woodwinds category). I'm not saying that there is no method in existence that can render brass realistically, but if there is, I've never either heard it or run across it in my pursuit of the Holy Grail of making realistic recordings. 

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

These are system issues. Audiophiles have a very hard time comprehending that as the system improves in its ability to reproduce completely realistic sound, that one has to be fussier and fussier about every last detail - that is, it gets harder and harder, the closer you are to the goal ; the process precisely mirrors how it works in the software world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule .

I think I can save you some time, Frank. Take that above paragraph, and save it to your clipboard, and every time somebody posts, you can just counter-post by pasting that same paragraph. I'm thinking about doing a similar thing myself. You keep posting that everything is a system problem and that all recordings are perfect facsimiles of the original performance, and I keep countering that this assertion is balderdash! 

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That's where knowledge steps in, you mean. 

 

Not necessarily. One issue which may need to be dealt with is static behaviour of materials, and how the electrical noise from that causes interference effects enough to degrade, audibly. I know how to use workarounds, but I don't have a firm understanding of the "chain" that causes the problem.

 

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

It isn't clear, because I know better and every brass instrument player knows better as well. I have recorded brass scores of times using all different brands and types of microphones. I have listened to playback on many different speaker systems over the years, and every microphone and every playback system renders brass in the same flawed way. Nice, exciting even, but never yet REAL. If it is the playback system (and this is how I know it isn't), then all playback systems sound alike, and of course, that thought is pure nonsense! No, the standard recording mikes used in the industry just can't resolve that final soupçon of realism that is, apparently, most apparent when trying to capture brass (I want to interject that I'm not talking about saxophones here. They might be made of brass, but the method of playing them puts them firmly in the woodwinds category). I'm not saying that there is no method in existence that can render brass realistically, but if there is, I've never either heard it or run across it in my pursuit of the Holy Grail of making realistic recordings. 

 

You're after the intensity of the attack being right - the "shock value" of the note, and that's a function of the electronics being in good order. As I improve a system, that "shock value" element keeps getting better - until it matches the real thing ... it's an iterative process ...

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I think I can save you some time, Frank. Take that above paragraph, and save it to your clipboard, and every time somebody posts, you can just counter-post by pasting that same paragraph. I'm thinking about doing a similar thing myself. You keep posting that everything is a system problem and that all recordings are perfect facsimiles of the original performance, and I keep countering that this assertion is balderdash! 

 

Yes, system problems are at the core; all recordings are not perfect facsimiles - but they do convey the "liveness" of what happened in front of the microphones, etc, if the playback rig is up to it ... it's only balderdash from your viewpoint because you haven't come across a system that works well enough, up to now.

 

My suspicion is that I could take one of those Status Quo tracks I mention - and play it on your rig - and it would sound rather awful ... you would say, See, I told you that sort of music was rubbish!! - and I would think, Oh dear - there's a bit of work to be done here ...

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not necessarily. One issue which may need to be dealt with is static behaviour of materials, and how the electrical noise from that causes interference effects enough to degrade, audibly. I know how to use workarounds, but I don't have a firm understanding of the "chain" that causes the problem.

 

 

You're after the intensity of the attack being right - the "shock value" of the note, and that's a function of the electronics being in good order. As I improve a system, that "shock value" element keeps getting better - until it matches the real thing ... it's an iterative process ...

 Sigh! I'll say it one more time: Your playback setup, no matter how good, cannot reproduce what is not there on the recording! You can not take a 1914 recording of Caruso (to give an admittedly extreme example) and play it through your remarkable stereo system and have it come out sounding like a new recording by Jonas Kaufman! You are so full of crap, Frank, that your eyes are brown. Either that, or you are deluded and bound for the funny farm. I don't know which one.

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, system problems are at the core; all recordings are not perfect facsimiles - but they do convey the "liveness" of what happened in front of the microphones, etc, if the playback rig is up to it ... it's only balderdash from your viewpoint because you haven't come across a system that works well enough, up to now.

My system works more than well enough for me. It makes my recordings sound very close to what the original musicians sounded like when I was capturing the performance. I think I'm getting everything that is on my recordings, and if I'm getting everything that's on my own recordings, I'm certainly getting everything that is on most all commercial recordings because I believe mine are better!

Quote

 

My suspicion is that I could take one of those Status Quo tracks I mention - and play it on your rig - and it would sound rather awful ... you would say, See, I told you that sort of music was rubbish!! - and I would think, Oh dear - there's a bit of work to be done here ...

Whatever you say. Funny you seem to be the only person in the world who has accomplished this miracle, certainly you are the only one on CA who has done it, and with junk equipment too! Remarkable!

[fas42]

That's OK ... ( end of round bell goes, Ding!! ... very realistically, mind you ...)

[fas42]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

My system works more than well enough. 

Whatever you say. Funny you seem to be the only person in the world who has accomplished this miracle, certainly you are the only one on CA who has done it, and with junk equipment too!

 

No, others have done it, and understand the process, in their own way ... I first got there with "good" gear, as I posted some days ago - which made it "easier" to do it ... I then evolved to "lesser" items, as a way of finding out what the limits were.