Jump to content

francisleung

  • Content Count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About francisleung

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Over the last ten days I have been listening to Mario's tracks downloaded from this thread and given him my views based on my own sonic preference and audio system. So here are what I said and perforce others with different preferences and audio systems may have different views: 1. Hi Mario, I have compared track 3 of the drum solo, version 2 and version 3. Let me say how I carried out the comparison. I put both tracks into the playlist and set to repeat. In other words the same setting in the audio system for both and I do NOT know whether version 2 or version 3 is playing until I stop and look at which is which. Version 3 performs better than version 2 in the following ways: The image of the drum set is larger and closer to a real set being put into the listening room. Version 2 has a more compact image (shrunk to smaller size). With version 3 having a larger image, items of the set have better separation between them. Moreover the snare, the cymbals and high-hat appear to sound sharper and more delineated. It is clear version 3 sounds better to me and therefore I have deleted version 2 from the files (except the archive in hard disk) and put in version 3 as the reference. **Two other tracks of version 2.0 are now in my reference playlist on desk top: 1. Ideale 05 track, Songs of Paolo Tosti vocal and 2. Iberia 03 track Book 1 piano If you have these 2 tracks in version 3 and give them to me, I would be glad to carry out a similar comparison and tell you my findings. 2. Hi Mario, I have listened to the Beethoven Wind Quintet. It is of reference quality, bravo! Most likely because of my audio system itself I have to adjust the right channel much louder than the left to obtain a balance, -24/-18. Sound of all instruments come out from the centre between the inside spans of the two speakers, some 6" ft wide, all in 3D. Also because my audio system again: placement of the players are NOT in accordance with your layout----I have the clarinet and oboe in front of the "tip" of the piano body whilst the bassoon and french horn are at the back behind the piano sound. Anyway to me it does not matter where they are placed so long as the overall sound is balanced. An excellent recording indeed! 3. Hi Mario, I have now got round to the 3.0 piano track. For my personal taste, it is a gem though others who prefer recessed sound may think otherwise. I put this Falla piece into play list together with your Iberia and the Beethoven track from 2L, Norway recorded natively at 24/352.8. The 3.0 Falla wiped out the other two on my reference list. *I personally like an immediate sound. The 3.0 piano is in 3D, with an image starting from the plane of the speakers to the rear wall (5 ft in depth). With this track I am akin to sitting in the front row of a studio, with the piano being placed 9 to 10 ft from me. The Iberia and 2L have the piano only 3 ft from the rear wall, a more recessed sound and not as open and transparent. *The 3.0 has a wider image, more harmonics and clearer vibration of the piano strings when compared with the other two. * I have reduced slightly the level of the left channel and increased that of the right channel so that the hammers are just left off the centre. I an aware this placement is not in accordance with your stage layout. My personal preference and anyway I am able to get all the hammers/strings in a straight line, from the high notes at the speaker plane to the low ones at the rear wall. This to me is what I get from listening to a piano recital in a rehearsal room or concert, with it being placed horizontally and me sitting perpendicularly to it. @In conclusion, the 3.0 in my view is clearly an improvement over the 2.0 as evidenced by this and the solo drum track. Well done!
  2. Hi esldude, Well, you have checked that the Jay recording was monophonic. This I would not dispute. In ripping audio from the video, the software that I used turned the track into two channels. And just now I checked with the Audacity software the ripped track that I have been listening to has two channels. Double mono perhaps even though Audacity describes it as "stereo" as shown in the screen shot above. Whether monophonic recordings turned into two channels in this way can have no side to side imaging in them honestly I do not know and unable to agree or disagree. I tried another video from YouTube, a transcribed Air on G String ( J S Bach) with 8 players with ancient instruments. I ripped the audio in same manner and they spread across the soundstage. But I have not checked whether the audio track BEFORE ripping is mono or stereo. Anyway, so long as I am able to reproduce in my audio system solo instruments with a small enough image in the centre and upfront, that fulfils my requirement. Whether a monophonic track is reproduced with two side to side images that should only be front to back to each other is not really my concern because I own few and rarely play mono tracks (yes, I have Rachmaninov playing his own works in mono). Thanks for pointing out this issue to me.
  3. Hi esldude, I have dug out the Audacity software that I might have used for less than a handful of times. Below is the info of the Jay Leonhart track that I have been using, which as I said was ripped into "stereo". You may say it is double mono. To me double mono or stereo sometimes relate to absolute phase and in the days when I played LPs, there were albums that I engaged the double mono switches (mono for both left and right channels) instead of the stereo one.
  4. Thank you STC. As you rightly guessed, I did not move the speakers at all because it will be daunting to move them for different settings and get them back in original place later on. More over the dipoles from high to mid bass are not supposed to be angled.
  5. Hi esldude, I have downloaded the Aria 3D software you kindly suggested and played the Jay track with it in my usual audio setup without adjusting anything. My observation: Jay's voice and his double bass are slightly laid back towards the rear wall behind the speakers (playing the track directly without the software in my setup, the two are more upfront). Via the 3D software, the two more or less overlap in the same spot (slightly more separation front to back without the software and Jay's voice is slightly to the left from the listener's perspective). Gain is slightly higher (slightly louder) via the 3D software. Tried also Carmina Burana Telarc version: the orchestra and chorus are slightly louder but the soundstage depth is shallower such that the soundstage only comes over to the plane behind the speakers (two ambience phenomenon). On the other hand without the 3D software, my system has the soundstage extended to the front of the speaker plane. I will try other tracks later.
  6. Hi esldude Playing the Jay Leonhart track again, I switched off the “right channel” meaning the ribbon tweeters, midrange quasi ribbons and mid bass planar magnetic units of the right channel. Those of the “left channel” are on, meaning the midrange quasi ribbon units still remain in the centre of the soundstage. The images of the double bass and Jay’s voice are in centre positions as I described, only being moved slightly backwards and slightly softer. My setup is that the mid range quasi ribbon units of BOTH left and right channels, back to front of each other and positioned in the centre of the soundstage, are placed on the same speaker plane as the line source ribbon tweeters and line source mid bass units. That is, all sounding speakers, including cone subwoofers are on the same horizontal line and plane, with each sounding speaker unit driven by its own amplifier. Complicated to follow what I use, right? That doesn't matter as it is off subject. What I have been trying to say is that images and front/back positioning of them are not measurable. Surely some or many may have their own opinion and disagree.
  7. Hi esldude, A mono track ripped into stereo will not sound the way I described it and that’s your opinion, alright. I would only say there are numerous tracks other than the ones I previously mentioned having similar phenomena. So I am hoping to stage some time towards the end of August a session or two in a dealer’s room where 4 persons are able to listen properly and find out if they are also able to discern what I have described using my front end and tracks.
  8. In the same High Life track, the vibraphone also came forward during its solo time, in fact outside and in front of the speakers in my system. By the way, the vibe was not used and to me it sounded more like a marimba than a vibraphone. The come forwardness of soloist does not bother me at all. Why? For example, the (new) Duke Ellington Band, when a handful of players did their solo piece, each came forward to the edge of the apron, and then returned to their seat for group playing afterwards.
  9. Hi STC, I think it is the mixing and a louder sound during the solo passage of this High Life track that caused the moving forward. I say this because I do not experience such forward movement in other drum recordings nor do I perceive similar forward movement when the brasses or the chorus go into full blast for example in the Mahler 8 track that I mentioned in my first post. Neither does Ron Carter's double bass move forward when he plays a solo passage in the track with a female singer; his double bass stays put in the rear whilst the vocalist is singing and also when he is on solo.
  10. Hi STC, I might not have made it clear. On solo passage, the tom and snare in the High Life move away from the rear wall and stay near the speaker plane and NOT conversely closer to the rear wall and further away from the listening seat. I am unable to give you an answer with certainty whether or not the moving forward of the tom and snare towards the listener during solo passage is caused by bouncing of their sound from the UNTREATED rear wall. Short of experimenting with different treatment methods and materials on the rear wall, I would not have a valid answer of yes or no. I will not be treating the walls, rear and sides because as they are, they give me a large soundstage when large orchestral works are played, wall to wall, up the ceiling and a ft or two in front of the speakers, and also a unified ambience, not two as I mentioned in an earlier post. I am aware the resultant sound is a bit muddied and less refined and articulate as in live or as many audiophiles prefer. It boils down to compromise and different personal preference. I am unaware of Stereometer. I do not like to insert anything in the audio path because even the passive pre-amp that I have, basically a source selector, muddied the sound to a discernible extent. After removing the LP and CD, I dispensed with this passive gear and started using the computer MIDI to set gain and channel balance.
  11. Hi STC, The wall behind the speakers is untreated. The recording apparently used multiple microphones and mixing afterwards. When the drum is on solo, the tom and snare come to the front, in centre, almost to the plane of the speakers because they being louder. Do others hear the same coming forward of the tom and snare? If they also discern such image movement, this is the very thing I doubt whether it can be measured (relevant to the topic of the thread). The measurement only shows increase in amplitude I guess but then in other cases, increase in amplitude does not necessarily entail a moving forward of the image.
  12. Hi Semente, I mean audio system dispersion, principally the front end (DAC/turntable plus peripherals) and speakers. To me dispersion of the sound from instruments is intrinsic, and the phenomena I described are more or less the same if I sit two, three or four metres away directly facing them in a live performance.
  13. I am not sure whether or not the term "dispersion" that I have used is the orthodox term as used in the industry. I have bookmarked the link you kindly provided for my further understanding. Assuming the features and phenomena I have described are there, I regard any audio system being unable to reproduce them has dispersion problem. That is the context I have in mind. Do you think "dispersion" is right term? Or if not what other term should be used more correctly instead?
  14. Hi Semente, it is two channel and I do not use room correction or sound processing because in my view they pollute the sound.
×
×
  • Create New...