Jump to content

STC

  • Content Count

    2368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About STC

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Klang Valley

Recent Profile Visitors

3965 profile views
  1. Or it is simply a case of "first love" like sympthom. Hard to forget the first time you experience it.
  2. No one knows what an engineer or composer heard. If that statement is relevant than I can also claim to any unintelligible sound as accurate as what Beethoven heard and composed when he was deaf.
  3. STC

    Live Piano and playback.

    Yes. Contrary to what I thought it sounded poorer compared to what I heard long ago. Maybe, i should try vimeo.
  4. STC

    Live Piano and playback.

    A toy piano? Mmmm...... Initially, I was reluctant to post the samples because you could easily tell the difference even if you couldn't tell which is real and recorded correctly. After a long thought I said I would risk it and if you could even guess the difference then you deserve the credit. Maybe, the next one will be a toy and real piano.
  5. But we don’t listen for accuracy. We judge SQ based on preference. Our hearing is hardly consistent nor accurate to be used as a measuring tool. Its Fq response and DR varies through out the day. The only thing that can be consistent is the preference even that IME not consistent as I discovered recently while trying to find the best version of Nutcracker - March rendition.
  6. I edited my post which you may have missed. Just to illustrate this point, give a listener or a recording engineer to tweak the recording via eq and you will have infinity number of FR. I used to demo tracks EQ’ed to my preference and have three or four versions of the same including the orginal recordings. Different visitors prefer different tracks.
  7. As you said " one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound". Where is the reference? Does it sound perfect when you sit 1 meter away or 4 meters ? Can the FR at 1 meter be the same as at 4 meter? It helps when the FR of the recording and playback instrument is accurate but the preference or perceived accuracy is dependant on the listener frequency response which is inconsistent and varies according to the loudness level. About inconsistency, which A4 note is correct? Does it matter if the conductor decides to set the pitch standard to 435Hz vs 440Hz? FR accuracy is overrated virtue for music, IMO. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate.
  8. I will confine to what's in quote. About frequency response (FR) - this is only useful if the listener's ears also hear similarly. A flat Frequency response can have peaks and dips as high as 20dB or even more. For many, a speakers that measures somewhat inverse to a listener's FR can sound better than a perfectly measuring speakers, amplifiers or DAC. [ A recording need not go to the extreme to capture the listening environment. The listening environment is separate from the sound from the instruments. A violin sound is the same but the listening environment reverberation is different. What is the best environment is subjective as you can't agree which is the best seat in a concert hall which depends on individual preference and hearing. It can be difficult for you see from my POV unless we are able to demonstrate to each other. ]
  9. STC

    Live Piano and playback.

    Thank you for the honest answer, i.e you couldn’t tell the difference. Perhaps you want blame the medicore piano. Even if it is the case, which one is live and which is recorded? I am sure you could tell the diff since the SQ if Soundcloud playback is better than Youtube. Hint - live piano recorded from various distance. The playback was recorded at LP.
  10. @John Dyson sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to sound quality not stereo quadraphonics. Although, IMO Quad can sound better than stereo when implemented right.
  11. This poll is in response to Fas42's acceptance of the challenge. Others are welcome to take part in the poll. My position is you cannot identify a real piano and a recording in situations that Fas42 claims that he could. The samples areiin the post after this.
  12. It depends on which parameter's accuracy you are referring to.
  13. This is actually very relevant. Human localize sound among others by the timing difference between the two ears. That is limited to about 700µs depending on the ears spacing. When the reverberation is recorded it is still localized by the same location as the timing difference between the ears are still the same. The reflection from the room comes from other directions around you. This sound when it is within 1ms to 30ms is not perceived to come from a distinct location but fused together with the initial sound. The timing is only relevant if only a single short pulse is used. In complex sound like music, the difference can extend a couple of hundred ms without being perceived as a separate event. The ideal level is said to be 80ms for the late reflection for orchestra music in concert hall. I agree they are not handled in the same way but when it comes from the speakers they are interpreted as how the original sound is heard. We are actually talking the same thing but the only point that needs some clarification is your statement that is " So again, for reflections with very short delays the amplitude is added to the original, and the delay is ignored." Do you have a specific number as to how short is the delay? This is going OT so it is best we move to a new thread.
  14. Blackmorec, thank you for your input, but my understanding is different. The brain processes all delays which are crucial for localization. Perhaps delays below 22 microseconds are the ones that brain couldn't detect. Reference Blauert. That depends. I use 22 speakers spaced in the configuration of a circle ( using time delay). I control the reverbs by using at least 48 individual impulse response of an actual concert hall which can be anywhere from 0.4 to 3.3s without echoes or other usual problem that you may have in a real room with long reverberation. My rooms original RT was 0.28s. I have modified the RT by adding diffusers over the absorbers and increased it to 0.4s. Unlike, the reverberation of the room the concert hall's IRs are smooth and the decay is a gentle slope which is hard to get in a typical room. With audiophiles vocals, they are at low RT value and good classical it can be at almost 1 to 1 ratio. Not my room's reverberation but a concert hall's reverberation. Reverberation is crucial for the feel of the ambiance. No one number fits all but thanks to today's technology now it is possible to do that with a single click of the mouse. A room cannot selectively reproduce the reverberation. It reproduces whatever sound that comes out of the loudspeakers reverbs plus direct sound. The actual amount of reverbs in the recordings usually around 0.3 or 0.4s long. This is correct but for a different reason. It is impossible to have a long RT in a small room. It cannot occur naturally and a concert hall reverberation is unique which the architecture of your room will not allow that to happen. If you are speaking from your knowledge as someone involved in recording than it is correct. But this is about playback of a recording. A better understanding of this will be playing a violin recording in a concert hall and listen how good it sounds. AR 1960 live vs recorded demonstrated that it was hard to distinguish a real and recorded performance in a concert hall. The concert hall own reverberation would have overwhelmed the recording 's reverberation, but that did not happen because no recordings meant for playback over the speakers contained reverberation other than the frontal stage which is also at a low level as close miking would have avoided most of them. Even if you use the critical radius for the mic placement that will be about 1/3 or 1/2 of the 1.1 ratio distance so still not even half of what a listener hears at his LP.
×