Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Editorial: What's Wrong With You?


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

In the same area as the earlier Tchaikovsky clip - plenty going right, but the edginess is far too intrusive, there is a "cutting" quality to the SQ ... a good round of solid tweaking is needed, to eliminate that quality from the playback.

 

This one contains noise contamination on the recording (vinyl) itself.

You know the tune Frank; noise in, noise ... or you cut the music from its main essence. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

I want them speakers, that system setup, that matching synergy, that magik musik trick.

Can I? 🤹‍♂️

 

Is it available from a music server, a CD player, a turntable, a tape machine deck, a computer? 

 

From a sorted system ... ^_^.

 

As an example of what I aim for, here is the original recording, per the source,

 

 

Some time ago, I had a first go at recording what the Sharp boombox speakers were putting out, on my partially sorted NAD rig - single, cheap USB mic about a metre away - from my YouTube channel,

 

 

Note that the volume of my copy is down compared to the original, since I didn't want any clipping happening - but I reckon it's a half decent facsimile, considering the cost of the speakers and that the system was nowhere near fully tweaked.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

This one contains noise contamination on the recording (vinyl) itself.

You know the tune Frank; noise in, noise ... or you cut the music from its main essence. 

 

Nope, the "noise contamination" is from the playback chain - I've been here so many times, and one can always "denoise" what you hear - at times it's staggering how impressively "miserable" recordings can come across; eg., needle drops from ancient shellac emerge doing high kicks - "rescuing" unlikely recordings is part of the fun ...

Link to comment
8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Just go back to having a real musician playing an instrument in that room which keeps exciting those room nodes; a note is played throughout a piece which is bang on a "problem frequency". Do you cringe every time he comes to that note - or does your hearing gracefully compensate for the 'irregularity'? Personally, I just hear the music being made by that live person, not a constant series of irky resonances.

In my experience musicians, while first entering a room, will test the acoustic response, and try to adapt to it.

I've heard a soprano hitting a particular frequency that really gained waaaay too much energy in small church. During the performance that never happened. She adapted to it.

I'm sure you've also noted that a lot of bands mention their sound-guy. There is a reason they bring him along.

My music collection is not as adaptive as a musician or a soundguy, so I myself had to take care it. Luckily DSPs these days are very capable, and I have to admit I had a soundguy doing it for me.

 

As for cringing; if you have a track where there are 2 bass notes 'bung and bunng', close together, but everytime you play it, it sounds like 'bung BUNNNGGG bung BUNNNNGGG', yeah, I cringe. There are obviously other less intrusive  nodes in my room that are just part of the scenery, but this particular one, really was annoying.

 

If you are happy with your room and what goes on in your head, that is obviously fine with me, and likewise you shouldn't question my room and what goes on in my head. I don't know if you read it, but there is this nice editorial at the beginning of this thread.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Nope, the "noise contamination" is from the playback chain - I've been here so many times, and one can always "denoise" what you hear - at times it's staggering how impressively "miserable" recordings can come across; eg., needle drops from ancient shellac emerge doing high kicks - "rescuing" unlikely recordings is part of the fun ...

 

Okay - you caught my interest. Damaged record from 1954. Ultrasonic cleaning, followed by vacuum cleaning, followed by a treatment with a roller buddy. Lots. Of. Noise Contamination, groove damage, and of course thousands or 10’s of thousands of clicks and pops. 

 

How to optimize a system to get to get rid of that? Me? I clobber it with iZotrope RX7. WD40 did not work. :)

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Nope, the "noise contamination" is from the playback chain - I've been here so many times, and one can always "denoise" what you hear - at times it's staggering how impressively "miserable" recordings can come across; eg., needle drops from ancient shellac emerge doing high kicks - "rescuing" unlikely recordings is part of the fun ...

 

Here's what the owner had to say about that one (post #140 from the previous page):

 

"Here is a mono Kogan album, Russian label, come in two vinyls one on Brahms and the other on Lalo. I like Kondrashin for conductor. Imo, it is a good buy. Live recording in 1959 gives special feeling. I have quite a few albums from this Russian Melodiya. Many of them are quite good. This particular album has more surface noise than audiophile vinyl though. The coughing and some weird noises are from the recording."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tin said:

In my experience musicians, while first entering a room, will test the acoustic response, and try to adapt to it.

I've heard a soprano hitting a particular frequency that really gained waaaay too much energy in small church. During the performance that never happened. She adapted to it.

I'm sure you've also noted that a lot of bands mention their sound-guy. There is a reason they bring him along.

 

If a band is using a sound guy, then it's going through a PA - the sound is now dead meat, bearing little relationship to what anyone on stage is actually producing - some modicum of sanity can be restored to this mess, by 5,000 bits of fiddling ... not something I have much interest in, as a pleasurable experience.

 

This being the main reason I stopped going to any shows - I wasn't going to pay good money to be assaulted by terrible sound ...

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

I think a bunch of us, musicians and audiophiles with style are.

You have all the best mic recommendations and in all price ranges and for both XLR and USB connections.

...Less than $50, less than $100, less than $500, the top ones in the four digits. 

 

Ok. Thanks. I was looking for a better understanding of the type of mic to be used to record vocal because most recommend only mono mic. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

If a band is using a sound guy, then it's going through a PA - the sound is now dead meat, bearing little relationship to what anyone on stage is actually producing - some modicum of sanity can be restored to this mess, by 5,000 bits of fiddling ... not something I have much interest in, as a pleasurable experience.

 

This being the main reason I stopped going to any shows - I wasn't going to pay good money to be assaulted by terrible sound ...

 

I'm almost tempted to get into a discussion with you, as I notice some others are trying, but per the subject of this thread, I'm not going to.

I wish you all the best.

 

 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Okay - you caught my interest. Damaged record from 1954. Ultrasonic cleaning, followed by vacuum cleaning, followed by a treatment with a roller buddy. Lots. Of. Noise Contamination, groove damage, and of course thousands or 10’s of thousands of clicks and pops. 

 

How to optimize a system to get to get rid of that? Me? I clobber it with iZotrope RX7. WD40 did not work. :)

 

 

The basic principle is to lift the quality of the playback chain, so that the brain gets enough data to sort the wheat from the chaff - not intuitive with audio, but that's how it works; it seems pretty amazing, but it works every time - I shaken my head many, many times at the ability of the mind to filter out crap in the recording, if the underlying replay SQ is in place.

 

Thought experiment: the cocktail party, everyone is yabbering away; you still can pick up what the person in front of you is saying. Now, replace each person with a just OK mini PA relaying what they're saying; the room is full of loudspeakers filling the room with a jumble of sound; rather than live people. How do you think your ability to sort out the key conversation you're in would go? ... this seems to be the principle in operation, with regard to human hearing.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Tin said:

I'm almost tempted to get into a discussion with you, as I notice some others are trying, but per the subject of this thread, I'm not going to.

I wish you all the best.

 

 

 

Other people's thinking about whether the SQ is good enough does affect me - as just said, a whole lot of entertainment is off limits for me; because I'm not going to put up with the poor standard being dished out  - I can't switch to the "high quality" channel, because, it just ain't there!

 

The mediocrity is everywhere - so what's wrong with me is that I'm pissed off that there are very few alternatives, if I want to listen to music in most public places.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

And how do i apply this to what you suggested earlier?  Do I also capture the ambiance or just the vocal alone since I am using the recording to check the speaker’s accuracy?

 

If you want the most accurate vocals reproduced by a mechanical loudspeaker, do you also want the room ambiance with it?

Do you want a singer recorded live in the room or in a booth? We're talking real live vocals here in the room where your stereo speakers are reproducing the music playing, the vocals. Your room is part of the chain. 

Invite a friend professional singer in the room where you listen to music. Ask her to sing and record her with a condenser mic with large diaphragm cardioid pickup pattern. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Axial said:

 

If you want the most accurate vocals reproduced by a mechanical loudspeaker, do you also want the room ambiance with it?

Do you want a singer recorded live in the room or in a booth? We're talking real live vocals here in the room where your stereo speakers are reproducing the music playing, the vocals. Your room is part of the chain. 

Invite a friend professional singer in the room where you listen to music. Ask her to sing and record her with a condenser mic with large diaphragm cardioid pickup pattern. 

 

Thanks. 

Link to comment

In music playback as in music recorded it's all about experimenting, because no two rooms sound the same and no two people listen the same. The goal, through experimentation and measurements is to get the speakers sound like real singers that sang live in that exact same room earlier. Each room will have have its own each pair of speakers designed for it to sound best. ...No? 

 

Can the best designed speaker (vocals reproduction) sound the best in all rooms? In general yes. 

 _____

 

Tropic: Altitude and heat temperature (humidity, dryness, coldness, ...) all have an influence on sound.

 _____

 

Topic (general): Living atop a mountain in a mansion with view on the ocean doesn't need a multi million dollars stereo system, but it sure fits the bill and the decor.

Living in a trailer from the most dilapidated neighborhood of wetlands the same; an AM/FM radio fits better the bill and the environment. 

Mix those two audiophiles' styles in the same audio forums of the Internet and we might encounter some differentiations once in a while, plus the occasional thread like this one with a similar editorial. 

It doesn't matter much the gear, the style serves the end...the love for the music playing, the joy of listening. 

Everything else IMO is preconceptions and classes separations. It can lead to conflicts.  ...Yes? 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The basic principle is to lift the quality of the playback chain, so that the brain gets enough data to sort the wheat from the chaff - not intuitive with audio, but that's how it works; it seems pretty amazing, but it works every time - I shaken my head many, many times at the ability of the mind to filter out crap in the recording, if the underlying replay SQ is in place.

 

Thought experiment: the cocktail party, everyone is yabbering away; you still can pick up what the person in front of you is saying. Now, replace each person with a just OK mini PA relaying what they're saying; the room is full of loudspeakers filling the room with a jumble of sound; rather than live people. How do you think your ability to sort out the key conversation you're in would go? ... this seems to be the principle in operation, with regard to human hearing.

 

So you are saying two contradictory things here. First “lifting” the playback chain may reduce some of the noises, but will greatly increase others. The chain will faithfully reproduce whatever errors are there.  But then you seem to be saying, just live with and pay selective attention to the music and ignore the noise. 

 

Either path can work, though in this case, lifting the playback chain means inserting software manipulation to declick, decrackle and perhaps equal8ze some of the sound. Ignoring it is also an option, but an easier option to swallow if you remove the gross errors first.  :)

 

I am am afraid I will have to disagree with some of your conclusions about the quality possible from low end equipment. Just because AM radio can actually be listenable does not mean other things, say FM are not inherently better. I think you are having a lot of fun doing what you do though, and honestly? That *is* what counts at the end of the day. 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

So you are saying two contradictory things here. First “lifting” the playback chain may reduce some of the noises, but will greatly increase others. The chain will faithfully reproduce whatever errors are there.  But then you seem to be saying, just live with and pay selective attention to the music and ignore the noise. 

 

Anomalies that are introduced by the playback chain are reduced. What you can hear in finer detail in the recording is improved - which are what the microphones, in normal recordings, picked up; as well as artifacts of the recording process and storage imperfections. It just turns out that the important content - the musical event - makes so much more sense as a listening experience, than all the niggling problems of the recording medium, provided that the playback doesn't add another layer of distortion and artifacts.

 

Yes, it's selective attention, but it's completely instinctive - you don't "decide" that it's nicer to pay attention to the music; rather, you can't stop your hearing tuning into the music - it would take quite a degree of deliberate determination to then switch focus, and carefully note every recording defect as they come along. I use the light switch analogy to describe the difference - because it is as stark as that.

 

24 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Either path can work, though in this case, lifting the playback chain means inserting software manipulation to declick, decrackle and perhaps equal8ze some of the sound. Ignoring it is also an option, but an easier option to swallow if you remove the gross errors first.  :)

 

A Glen Miller album I have with some denoised tracks, professionally done, has exciting tracks, and, dead, army blanket over the speakers efforts - guess which are which?

 

24 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I am am afraid I will have to disagree with some of your conclusions about the quality possible from low end equipment. Just because AM radio can actually be listenable does not mean other things, say FM are not inherently better. I think you are having a lot of fun doing what you do though, and honestly? That *is* what counts at the end of the day. 

 

 

 

The same ol' problem - money magically transforms the quality possible ^_^ ... the critical components that low end gear uses are only slightly "less good" than what really expensive stuff includes - what the money brings in are better auxiliary elements, like more beefy chasses, and switching componentry; and of course, bling ... if one knows how to identify the key shortcomings in cheaper stuff, then those areas can be sorted adequately.

 

At one stage I spent months and years listening to every "high end" rig I could access - universally, in the range from awful, to tolerable in small doses - so far from evoking the sense of listening to the "real thing" ... I gave up trying to track down a reasonable one.

 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A Glen Miller album I have with some denoised tracks, professionally done, has exciting tracks, and, dead, army blanket over the speakers efforts - guess which are which?

 

 

Yep, too much processing equals dead sound. Just right though, is magic. And fun to make happen as well. 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Humor only, nothing's wrong with that (too many people are just not serious enough) ... should they? ...Like Theranos with Elizabeth Holmes and her ex-boyfriend Sunny Balwani. ...What a bunch of clowns everyone who have bought into it; high caliber people too. ...Intelligent? Are you kidding! ...Blindfolded by a scam artist believing their investment would generate high yields. They were bloody wrong. 

 ___

 

What's wrong with my wife? ^

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...