Archimago on Greene vs Harley

[semente]

Is Harley protecting the industry or just defending his own approach to audio? His arguments are but a house of cards...

[semente]

16 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Soundstage is mentioned quite frequently as the argument against measurements. As in "we don't know how to measure a soundstage". I've encountered this argument plenty of times myself.

 

"Soundstage" which is a surrogate effect and is often "enhanced" through the use of side-wall reflections (in spite of the negative impact that this has on sound and phantom imaging).

 

I think that many reviewers just spend too much time glowing over something which is, from a musical perspective, but a secondary or complementary aspect of music.

[semente]

15 hours ago, opus101 said:

Going back to Greene's apparent lacuna on 'soundstage' for a moment. After stating his straw man he says this :

 

Since no one has any idea of what kind of soundstage ought to arise from most recordings, soundstage is not really a sensible criterion for evaluation of anything.

 

Hmm, dismissive over-much? In the course of my DAC development in the past week or so I've uncovered (in the limited context of multibit DAC design) something objective that appears to affect soundstage. That is - noise in the analog stage after the DAC chip. I'm using a passive filter followed by an opamp (which can't be a virtual ground because of the preceding filter). The opamp introduces noise as far as I can ascertain beneath the dither level of RBCD (-93dB) but a lower noise-gain circuit using the same opamp makes the soundstage bigger. I don't though have any evidence that the soundstage is clearer and larger beyond that of my own ears.

 

It must be taken into account that Greene's comments are entirely concerned with the reproduction of classical music.

And, as most people know, you can only achieve a reasonably realistic soundstage using minimalist mic'ing. But even that depends on the mic technique use (spaced vs. near-coincident) and the distance of mics to sources.

His site is down at the moment but there you will find a few pieces about this subject.

 

On the other hand, the soundstage of multi-mic'ed studio mixes is not captured but fabricated. Which is why he says that "soundstage is not really a sensible criterion for evaluation of anything."

[semente]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The reverb of the spaces used in the recording is captured, and when adequately reproduced allows the mind to decode the staging of the recording - this is the 'transformation' that occurs when SQ reaches the requisite level ...

 

Unless you're listening to (most but not all) classical music then all reverb is an add-on effect as is phantom image location. In sum, the whole soundstage is fabricated, unreal and uncaptured, like a photomontage:

 

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

t's certainly captured, because the microphone was on - in a fully synthesized piece, the reverb is added via software, say ... but IME this takes nothing away from the impact of the piece.

 

No. Close mic'ing only captures direct sound, not room ambience cues. And added reverb is definitely not captured spatial information. This is a fact (unless your name is Donald).

 

It may or may not "take away from from the impact of the piece" depending on the recording as well as the listener but that is a whole nother matter (of opinion and taste)...

[semente]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

There is this idea that microphones do what they're told ... 😁. Luckily, they're not that obedient, and actually capture whatever impinges on their diaphragm - unless you record in an anechoic chamber, there is always echo information, which 'fills out' the sound. If reverb is added, then that will dominate the acoustic picture, normally - every recording will be different.

 

You're making stuff up.

Call any of your friends. Ask him to talk or better still sing into the phone mic at close distance (10-20cm) then do the same with the phone a couple of meters away. The effect will be more obvious in the bathroom.

 

You may have not realised but people have been taking nearfield measurements of speakers and drivers since the '70s precisely to avoid capturing room effects or the need for an anechoic chamber.

 

[semente]

Close-mic'ing is useful because it allows the isolated pick up of a single instrument of vocal which will go into its own track for easier mixing (pan-potting, EQ, levelling, effects, etc.). It removes the room sound and the sound of the other instruments/vocals.

[semente]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

I haven't come across a recording yet where the reverb information, one way or another, doesn't add desirable texture to the piece - if you're a purist then you may disagree, strongly - and that's fine.

 

Reverb is mandatory with close-mic'ing. There are youtube live performances of rock/pop where too little was used and it doesn't sound good at all. Too much sounds just as bad.

[semente]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

Only other manufacturer I’m aware of basing its design on similar principles to Vandersteen. It’s too bad they’re no longer in existence.

 

Dutch & Dutch and Kii (DSP), and PSI Audio (analogue) also design speakers which are phase/time-coincident. Probably others that I don't know of.

 

Edit: and Quad ESLs.

[semente]

17 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Agreed, same for me. But a nice sense of direction sometimes adds to the realism. With headphones, I can frequently hear sounds that just startle me, coming from directions where I could swear they are in the room or just outside and make me look (voices, claps, foot steps, etc.) It's a neat sensation, but, as you say, unnecessary for enjoying music.

 

I nearly suffered a heart attack when I first played this (loud on headphones, alone at home): https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_stereophonicsound.php