What about the TYPE A network??

[sfogg]

Greg,

"It's no different for the person using information based only on
technical evaluation, it's still just the end-users ears, still their
room, still the other equipment they are using, the music they are
listening to, and it's just as likely that something will sound good or
not as good. They still will have to taste it first to know if they
will like it. "

It is different if one uses the technical side of the equation to understand their own tastes. If they understand something like that then technical information from another source may be able to give themselves clues as to how they will interpret the sound.

The real progress in audio lately is researching and trying to understanding what technical attributes contribute to the majority of listeners impressions on sound quality.

Of course very very few people try and understand this. It is far simpler to just call it all vodoo and magic. The great thing about totally subjective reviews is if one uses enough flowerly prose they don't even have to bother listening to the article in question to write the review. (Said only half jokingly). And it still doesn't change how two people may verbalize the sound completely differently...one mans 'deep soundstage' could be anothers 'recessed midrange.'

Shawn

[Al Klappenberger]

Shawn,

Yes, I am generating the center channel by simply mixing left and right with a resistor network PWK style. It's the only way I have to do it. All the recordings I have are simple CDs and other standard 2-channel sources. I have found though that I really don't need a center channel. I have it turned way down. The extreme slope networks just don't need it for stereo program material.

My earlier comment about the headphones got me to pull out my set of Grado headphones. They are a middle of the line quality set but still sounded a lot better than my Belles when they were "stock". That's one of the reasons I started fooling around with speaker upgrades in the first place. Anyhow, I just did some listening with the headphones on stereo stuff switching back and forth to mono. This really illustrates what's going on. A set of headphones have no crossover network, no comb effects with only a single "driver" to each ear totally isolated from each other. Your ear / brain combination is doing everything. On mono, everything is squarely in the middle of your head. If you move the pre-amp balance control to one side it's like somebody hooked a vacuum cleaner to one ear. It actually FEELS suffocated! I doubt two speakers in a room could ever focus a mono program squarely in the middle like that!

Al K

[greg928gts]

Greg,

"It's no different for the person using information based only on technical evaluation, it's still just the end-users ears, still their room, still the other equipment they are using, the music they are listening to, and it's just as likely that something will sound good or not as good. They still will have to taste it first to know if they will like it. "

It is different if one uses the technical side of the equation to understand their own tastes. If they understand something like that then technical information from another source may be able to give themselves clues as to how they will interpret the sound.

The real progress in audio lately is researching and trying to understanding what technical attributes contribute to the majority of listeners impressions on sound quality.

Of course very very few people try and understand this. It is far simpler to just call it all vodoo and magic. The great thing about totally subjective reviews is if one uses enough flowerly prose they don't even have to bother listening to the article in question to write the review. (Said only half jokingly). And it still doesn't change how two people may verbalize the sound completely differently...one mans 'deep soundstage' could be anothers 'recessed midrange.'

Shawn

I understand what you're saying, but I still think the information from a subjective listening test, even by one person can produce some very good information for the end-user to use in determining what might work for them. Of course the best thing is for the end-user to be able to listen before deciding to purchase.

Greg

[Arkytype]

Al, et al

Here's a site that has some interesting audio-related animations. http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/demos.html Not as dramatic as the comb filtering animation but instructive nonetheless.

Al wrote: Another factor is the way modern recording engineers mix their many tracks from multiple microphones down to two tracks. I can only assume that mono recordings from years ago were also mixed down from multiple microphones. It's just another confusion factor!

Amen to that! I have the good fortune to record our university's symphony orchestra several times a year in a well-designed auditorium. We use a spaced pair (25' or so) of Neumann M 150 tube mikes and six Neumann KM 84 as "spot" mikes. The eight mikes are recorded discreetly to an 8-track digital recorder and mixed post-event with Digidesign Pro Tools. The typical mixdown session involves establishing a L-R balance with the two M150s and then panning and setting the levels of the "spot" mics.

So, from what listening perspective should we mix the eight sources?--- the conductor, front row orchestra, mezzanine? After our last mixdown session this spring, I had a blinding light revelation--why not measure the distance from each of the six spot mikes to an arbitrary center point between the flanking L-R mikes and then (using Pro Tools) delay each mike's acoustic arrival time so that (in theory) each orchestral section near a spot mike would be properly integrated with the main L-R pair.

BTW, I usually set my Bruel & Kjaer 1/2" mike about six feet high in the center of the orchestra to measure the peak SPL. So far, I've measured peaks of over 114 dBA SPL during fortissimo passages! Maybe OSHA should be notified??!!

In addition to the above recording setup, I also record with a M-S array. While (again, in theory) the orchestra's acoustic output arrives within a fraction of a milli-second to the figure-of-eight and cardioid capsules, the overall realism is lacking. Placement is critical for the best balance and I'll continue to look for the sweetspot.

Lee

[radiogram]

Lee:

I recently went to a party a few ago where they had a live band (of couse the eventual sound was still coming through amplifed electronics and JBL speakers). They were playing a lot of classic rock like CCR, Alman Brothers, etc. Never in my course of that session I had any thoughts about any audiophile jargons like midbass, upper bass tightness, etc. The only things I were remarking on were how the drum and symbals sound good and so the drummer must be good or the singer is OK but really cannot go high pitch like Fogerty, etc.

I came back home and put on my CCR, etc CDs, that were played at the party. It did not sound the same. It did not sound bad but I was only reminded of lower mid congestion and all audiophilia jargon that never entered my mind in the party. I hear bass but not distinct drums, I hear symbals but something burried in the mix, soft and not metallic and live as it sounded. In fact this is the case with many of my CDs and even some Vinyls.

Of course the Room has a LOT to do with it. But I somehow feel that it is not just the room and the recording has a lot to do with it.

In that context I am surprised as to many people cite commercial recordings as a reference in evaluating speakers when they are mixed as per the Engineer's preference and based on what room and what monitors he used to equalize, when none of them match up with the system and environment under evaluation.

[sfogg]

"Of course the Room has a LOT to do with it. But I somehow feel that
it is not just the room and the recording has a lot to do with it."

It is easy to seperate the room from the recording.... listen on headphones.

The room does have a large influence on the sound.

When you are listening to live music the instruments are producing sounds that interact within the acoustic space they are playing in. If a recording of this is made it is also recording the sound of those instruments interacting within the original acoustic space. If it was a multi-track studio album that acoustic space is typically engineered into the recording.

You now play this back in your room. The recording has the original acoustic spaces sound still contained within it. However, you now have your speakers producing sounds within your room and those sounds are interacting within the acoustic space they are playing in. You get conflicting cues from the original hall sound on the recording and your own rooms sound.

Shawn

[Al Klappenberger]

Lee's comments really illustrate the complications involved in recording and mixing. As an example, Lee set me a CD of one of his recording of a Mendelson symphony. It was a very good sounding recording, but had one flaw. As a live recording, the conductor made a few comments about the work before the orchestra began to play. You could hardly hear him on the recording! What should the recording engineer do to fix this next time? Should he move the mikes? Should he provide a separate mike just for him? Should he have the conductor dub the comments in after the recording was made? There is a lot more to this than you might think!

Al K.

[Arkytype]

Al,

Yep, when the main mikes are 25 feet apart and the conductor is in the shadow of the mike's coverage pattern, he's hard to hear!

gram, you have pointed out one of many variables when it comes to capturing the essence of a live performance. First, I'll differentiate recording a live amplified band such as the one you heard from an orchestra.

Just to take an amplified bass for starters, do you stick a mike directly in front of the loudspeaker, take a feed from a direct box, or set the mike ten feet away to capture room ambience? If you have the tracks to spare, do the first two. You'll usually prefer a blend of the two tracks as opposed to one or the other.

Recording a trap set can be as simple as hanging a pair of cardioids X-Y fashion over the ensemble or spending hours miking everything that can produce a sound. According to Chris Morris recording assistant on Fleetwood Mac's album Rumours, "We spent ten hours on a kick drum sound in Studio B." Extreme? Perhaps. But you have to admit their drums do sound good!

There are few CDs that are ever going to be recorded using the theoretical 90 dB of dynamic range they are capable of; so what you heard as a live event (assuming the amps weren't clipping) may have spanned 60-80 dB of dynamic range. OTOH, your CCR CDs were probably recorded in their heyday (1969-70)---a decade before CDs were introduced. Not knowing the facts, I doubt they recorded on anything but analog tape and possibly without noise reduction. That means their tapes may have had a 60 dB signal-to-noise ratio at best. If your CCR CD was mastered from the vinyl mastering tape, the dynamic range was manually tweaked downward further.

You also wrote, "In that context I am surprised as to many people cite commercial recordings as a reference in evaluating speakers when they are mixed as per the Engineer's preference and based on what room and what monitors he used to equalize, when none of them match up with the system and environment under evaluation."

It wasn't until the 1970s that the design of control rooms using other than egg cartons for wall treatment :>) underwent a major evolution. Michael Rettinger's "Acoustic Design and Noise Control" was one of the first non-textbooks written for the DIYer. Chips Davis' Live End Dead End (LEDE) further revoltionized the acoustic space an engineer mixed in. For the first time, using these techniques, a room's acoustic signature could be all but eliminated as a variable in the recording and mixdown process.

Peter D-Antonio's brilliant application of Manfred Schroeder's Reflection Phase Grating (RPG) experiments led to acoustic treatment products that can make a wall disappear acoustically. I have used the BAD panels in one of my listening rooms and can attest to the effect of not hearing reflections from a rear wall behind the listening position.

http://www.rpginc.com/products/badpanel/index.htm

The science of controlling diffusion is a mature one and there are many DIY sites showing you how to roll your own diffusors, absorbers, etc.

As for recording orchestral (unamplified) music---well, that's another chapter for another time. Here's a link that chronicles one of the finest (no pun intended) recording engineers that ever lived. Using a single microphone in 1951, he raised the bar way over the heads of the recording engineers who preceeded him. http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html

My ultimate goal is to have a playback system that is limited only by the source material. With my present system, 30% of my CD collection is enjoyable and the other 90% is tolerable. :>) As I am fortunate to listen to and record live unamplified music a half dozen times a year, I am aware of my playback system's limitations. I could probably double my investment in playback gear and realize an incremental "improvement" but I'd rather feed my other hobbies!!

Lee

[radiogram]

Shawn:

The room does have a large influence on the sound.

I do agree with that. However, the reason I also brought up the recording was, for example I have a test CD that has a track that has only the drummer and no other instruments. This track in the same room and the same system, the drum and symbals sound very close (if not quite) to natural. If it was mostly the room this track must have also been influncenced as it does with other commercial ones. But many commercial ones I have, even modern digital masters, the drums and symbals do not sound stand out separate as much and they are somewhat burried as part of some many others.

It is easy to seperate the room from the recording.... listen on headphones.

Now, this gives me a good excuse to buy a pair of good headphones that I have been putting off for a long time. Any suggestions under $300?

Thanks

[radiogram]

Lee:

I understand your points. My dissatisfaction with many recordings actually extends beyond the CCR example. Even many modern CDs I have that were digitally mastered while they "sound" good there seem to be an aritificiality to it. Ironically even though the CCR album may not be up to the mark, it sounds relatively much less artificial than some modern digitial recordings. As I have mentioned in another post in this thread, the drum track on a test CD I have sounds pretty close to real. I am able to identify that drums with what I experienced last year up close in a small Italain resturant in Greenwich Village NY where a live Jazz band was playing sort of a spanish fusion Jazz, pure live unamplified (It was an awesome experience BTW). But I am unable to relate the drum and symbals in the same manner with many recordings I have, even modern ones.

Maybe I am conditioned growing up listening to good old rock & roll that was just pure and simple - Drums, Lead guitar, Bass Guitar, maybe a keyboard and that's it (no other ecletronic crap) and perhaps this why I am finding them to be more natural than modern ones in spite of their limitations using analog equipment for mastering.

And thanks for the pointer to RPG.

Gram

[radiogram]

According to Chris Morris recording assistant on Fleetwood Mac's album Rumours, "We spent ten hours on a kick drum sound in Studio B." Extreme? Perhaps. But you have to admit their drums do sound good!

Yes, they do and I also like Mick's drumming. This reminds me of the song "Dreams" and made me realize that I have not listened to FM in a long time. I am going to serach that CD down and play it on the Cornscala's I built recently.

Cheers

[Al Klappenberger]

Sankar (Gram),

I can't comment on the recording techniques discussion because I know so little about it, but one thing I will go along with totally is the suggestion about headphones. This is my standard to fall back on when questions about effects added by speakers or crossovers are raised. Sibilance, for example (the sss sound often heard on some vocals). It has been blamed on ringing in crossover filters. Headphone listening shows the sibilance is still there and part of the recording! Sarah Britmen has a HUGE case of it!

I use a set of Grado SR225:

http://www.gradolabs.com/product_pages/sr225.htm

They are not extremely expensive. They sounded a lot better to me than my "stock" Belles did. Now that I have done a lot of upgrades to them the sound is very similar. I don't think they are very comfortable though.

Al K.

[sfogg]

"Now, this gives me a good excuse to buy a pair of good headphones that
I have been putting off for a long time. Any suggestions under $300?"

If you can handle in ear headphones (kind of like the foam ear plugs) Etymotic ER-4S (or maybe ER-4P to use without a headphone amp) are incredible headphones. They block out around 20dB of external noise for all that much more resolution. Some have said it is like having the speaker cables soldered directly to your brain. I think these are around $200 now.

If you can still find any for sale the Sennheiser HD580 are incredibly comfortable, great sounding over the headphones that would be under $300 now. They were replaced by the HD600 which I think would be over your budget. These are harder to drive though so you would likely need a headphone amplifier to get the best out of them.

Another really nice set of headphones is the Grado SR-60s. These are around $70 and sound very good. A little uncomfortable but if you bend the headband in the center it helps a lot.

And if you really want to blow the budget the Koss ESP-950s electrostatic (think Quad ESL or Martin Logan speakers) are superb and include an amp.

Of the above I have all of these but the Sennheisers. The Klipsch headphones are supposed to be good too but I haven't heard any of them.

A good site for headphone sales and information is:

http://www.headphone.com/headphones/

Shawn

[Deang]

I use HD650s quite a bit - with my Droid no less. It seems to drive them just fine. I had an amp in the house last year with a highly regarded headphone output. Imagine my surprise when I heard very little difference. The "high end" setup certainly sounded subjectively better to me, but it wasn't the level of improvement one would expect. Don't get hooked on good headphones - even the best systems sound oddly disappointing by comparison. The best part about it of course is that you don't need to be an expert in acoustics to get great sound. :-)

[radiogram]

Dean:

Thanks for the suggestion. I also read good things about HD600/650. The HD600 is very much in my radar even though it is a bit beyond my budget. Do you have any experience with Denon Headphones?

Don't get hooked on good headphones - even the best systems sound oddly disappointing by comparison

I am sure you are right about this. While I never owned quality headphones, I have herad a few.