Dynamics - What have you done to approach live sound

[Mallette]

Hey, Frzn...have you had any contact with KeepItSimpleStupid (Ron) about his work on DBX remotes? I cannot recall what his previous account name was, but we had conversations on this several years back and I heard from him last month. He's still at it. New account on the Forum and I don't think he's posted outside PMs.

Really interesting and promising work. Told him I'd gladly pay up to 150.00 for a solid, working 4BX remote. I suspect there is a small, but eager market for them.

Dave

[NOSValves]

I love my system when reproducing well recorded live events I believe it does an admirable job of it. With that said no I do not want it to make studio recordings sound like live events..

I will also state I've witnessed many live events that sounded spectacular especially in smaller venues both with and without sound reinforcement.

[Frzninvt]

Hey, Frzn...have you had any contact with KeepItSimpleStupid (Ron) about his work on DBX remotes? I cannot recall what his previous account name was, but we had conversations on this several years back and I heard from him last month. He's still at it. New account on the Forum and I don't think he's posted outside PMs.

Really interesting and promising work. Told him I'd gladly pay up to 150.00 for a solid, working 4BX remote. I suspect there is a small, but eager market for them.

Dave

Hello Dave, no I haven't. James Gammel was the individual that figured the one out for the DBX 5BX because it needed repeaters for the controls. DBX consumer group used 4 digit proprietary remote codes and they are tough to clone or mimic. I have not seen much activity from him. If I had remembered you were looking for one I have seen a few originals pass through eBay for less than the asking price of a clone. I will keep my eye out for you. I like to be able to tweak adjustments from my easy chair when listening.

[mark1101]

I play "Live" music to approach "live" sound..........oh and I built the biggest thing Klipsch offers, and drive it with McIntosh's. Going big, and doing it right has been the number 1 improvement over the years. The smaller Klispch systems simply don't measure up to this, and don't offer the separation that you hear in a live performance. This setup does all that very well.

[Chris A]

Now that the thread seems to be digressing, I'll add "some other factors and observations" on creating dynamic, clear and live sound on sound reproduction systems:

1. No phonograph record can approach the fidelity of the best two-channel or multi-channel digital recordings in higher bit rate/deeper bit depths than typical commercial-quality digital recordings. Note that I'm not saying that red book recordings cannot be live, dynamic and clear sounding. I find that the format of lossless digital recordings of at least red book quality isn't that important, but the recording, mixing, mastering and transfer-to-production engineers and their practices are the problem areas. When I find good live sounding recordings, I try to remember who produced them rather than the format used.
   
2. The more that you are willing to allow your ears to decide what should be done to your listening space (rather than your eyes), the better the acoustic results toward that goal of "liveness". This typically means bigger loudspeakers with very low modulation distortion and compression distortion, and more acoustic room treatments than the WAF typically would prefer.
   
3. Making sure that any form of harmonic distortion or modulation distortion is minimized in the signal chain--especially the loudspeakers and output amplifiers These two noise sources produce non-live-sounding results that are opaque and muddy "loud sounding". When these two forms of distortion are minimized, the results are much bigger sound and more liveness as the volume control is increased, but not not perceived as "loud". This also means no amplifiers providing extra "sweetness" via higher low-order harmonic distortion levels that turns into opaque sounding intermodulation distortion on the output.
   
4. I avoid dipole-like room reflections that artificially add depth to the experience at lower volume levels. This is perhaps where my opinions depart the most from the rank-and-file. I'd rather hear the acoustics that are on the recording itself so that when I do find an outstanding live recording with the original recording venue room acoustics captured on the recording itself, I can experience its liveness. Having your loudspeakers pulled out into the room increases front wall first reflection delay that camouflages the original recording venue acoustics. I avoid this effect in my room: there is no magic of high output impedance power amplifiers, no dipole-pattern loudspeakers in the midrange passbands to add artificial depth. That's reserved for the recording itself. Adding reverb at playback time can accomplish the same effect as using dipoles, and it can be easily turned off.
   
5. I find that typical recording engineers tend to add artificial reverberation to their default mastering streams. If you are looking for live sounding reproduction, you have to find recordings where this hasn't been added and the recorded music is transferred directly from the microphones without alteration in any way except perhaps gain leveling and perhaps some EQing: no smashing/reduction of the original recording dynamics via post-processing is performed. I can add these effects myself at playback time, thank you (which I never do).
   
6. I think that the biggest single issue that I highlight above is the issue of recording and mastering engineers changing that which they record from the musician's original creation: I have found that most recording engineers believe that is not only their right but their duty to alter the musicians' original creation. This is the real problem that we have nowadays and I don't mince words on this subject: if all the currently practicing recording/mixing/mastering engineers and their producers were to suddenly disappear, to be replaced by rank amateurs that believe that altering the musicians' original creations at all is the antithesis of what they are entrusted to do, then I believe that the world would be a better place acoustically.
   
7. Consider that what you are hearing in a live venue with sound reinforcement systems but it still sounds "live"--is that no recording/mixing//mastering engineers are in there mucking up the sound.

YMMV.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Chris A

[wvu80]

My shop system does live better than anything else. It is big, no acoustic treatment, cement, drywall, and steel. The speakers are 25-50' apart, and the ceiling eves are 24'. When I play any live sound, this place does it very well.

I love watching live performances on the system, or listening to live recordings.

The shop has the crappiest acoustics ever on Earth. But it can do live very well.

I suggest multiple vintage VW Beetles placed strategically around the shop can help with the resonance breakup and give you a smoother sound.

One is not enough.

[Mallette]

James Gammel was the individual that figured the one out for the DBX 5BX because it needed repeaters for the controls.

Not sure of the name, but he seems to have puzzled out the codes and prototyped a remote. Appears to be quite the reverse engineer type. And, yes, please inform me of any 4BX remotes that turn up. While I am pretty quick at settings, I hate to get up and will often sit through something I realize could use a bit of trimming just to avoid it.

Dave

[Mallette]

With that said no I do not want it to make studio recordings sound like live events..

That would be a contradiction in terms, and, by definition, inaccurate. While I know this is something you of all people understand, many here do not: A system should be transparent. It should not make a recording "sound" anything but what it actually is.

It's the engineers job to ensure that whatever he has recorded is precisely what he intended (in the case of a studio recording) or as close to the acoustic space/time event as possible (in the case of a live recording).

Dave

[Frzninvt]

James Gammel was the individual that figured the one out for the DBX 5BX because it needed repeaters for the controls.

Not sure of the name, but he seems to have puzzled out the codes and prototyped a remote. Appears to be quite the reverse engineer type. And, yes, please inform me of any 4BX remotes that turn up. While I am pretty quick at settings, I hate to get up and will often sit through something I realize could use a bit of trimming just to avoid it.

Dave

Another option would be pick up a second 4BX with the remote. I would then dedicate a 4BX unit to each channel. One Left and one Right. Use 4 "Y" two male to a single female adapters and adjust the trims on the back to match that of the other. I have run 3BX-DS's, 4BX's and 5BX-DS's in this manner and it opens up the soundstage considerably. Perhaps this is due to DBX using mono triggered VCA's. The difference is really noticeable, the remote can adjust both units simultaneously. There is one on eBay with about 11 hours on it that as the remote. If you don't like it you could easily resell it for what you paid for it and keep the remote.

[JJkizak]

Regarding spacial, in 1969 I set up two shure cardoid microphones on stands tweeter high 3 feet perpendicular from the speakers (in the corners) and tape recorded

all things in the room during a party with an Ampex deck. During playback three people went to answer the phone in the corner of the L shaped room and

there was no one on the phone. Yes, the phone rang during the recording. The spacial integrety (phasing) was perfect and absolutely unbelieveable no matter where you stood in the room, the sounds all

came from the exact location they were recorded from. As far as "intensity" you would need about 20 of those Jubilee midrange horns and tweeters in parallel to accurately reproduce

a "cymbal hit". So think about what you are up against here.

JJK

[Mallette]

Another option would be pick up a second 4BX with the remote.

Excellent idea, but I've already burned my available equipment budget until I sell off some more stuff. However, I'll bear that in mind.

Just occurred to me. I have a 3BX that isn't in service at the moment. I don't much use the impact restoration with LPs as what it does to the occasional click or pop isn't nice, so it might be interesting, at least as an experiment. Makes sense to me you'd get a bit better imaging processing left and right separately.

Dave

Edited June 9, 2014 by Mallette

[oldtimer]

Now that you have edited, does that mean you are not going to sell your scout to me?

[ChuckAb3]

I love the sound of live music, and in fact I play live music on a 1958 Hammond B-3 and Leslie. That's what I look for in sound reproduction and my Klipsch speakers get much closer to it than most other brands. The speakers are a huge part of getting closer to "live" but the electronics play a role too. Some source components, amps and pre-amps add their own coloration to sound and it's usually not good. My goal is to get as close to "neutral" as possible in the electronics as well as the speakers. Judgments like these of course are subjective but I think most of us can tell if the dynamics of a piece sound artificially colored, especially after gaining the listening experience of a few different amps, sources, etc. Anyhoo, that's my $.02.

[Quiet_Hollow]

...also bear in mind that at a live event that is using a sound reinforcement system, the crest factor is often times 12-16 dB, even with the use of compressors on the vocal and percussion channels.

So even though the sound is going through what equates to a "giant stereo", the native dynamic range of most of the instruments are preserved across the board.

Big difference between that and the typical plastic-media mastering process.

[joshnich]

Interesting question. Most of the responses are way beyond my technical expertise.

For the most part I am with Mark on this as most live performances I attend are in smaller clubs etc. And I find myself hugely disappointed particularly when the performers use some pickups on acoustic instruments. - Specifically on pianos and guitars. The reproduction sounds nothing like the actual instrument. In fact they for the most part sound horrible.

I think it is easier to reproduce electric performances than acoustic ones or at least my experience would indicate that is the case.

It might be because I own some very fine acoustic guitars and a very fine piano so I know how they are supposed to sound.

I have built my system to reproduce, to the best that I can, live acoustic music. As close as it is, it still requires a leap of faith to believe that there are performers in my living room!

[garyrc]

When these two forms of distortion are minimized, the results are much bigger sound and more liveness as the volume control is increased, but not not perceived as "loud".

Isn't there "real" loud, and "synthetic" loud? A cheap TV can sound "loud," and, as I infer from your statement, it might sound loud because the high distortion fools the brain. A good system in a good room can also be turned up until it sounds loud, big and live, and because the distortion is relatively low, the SPL will be higher than that of the distorting TV ... infact, the SPL might be pretty close to that of our old orchestra playing The Great Gate of Kiev, live, with 0 distortion, just a few anomalies of hall acoustics, and the sound of the paint peeling off the walls. Now, that was loud.

As far as "intensity" you would need about 20 of those Jubilee midrange horns and tweeters in parallel to accurately reproduce a "cymbal hit".

Even in a small room?

I'd think that the leading edge of a cymbal hit would be pre-distorted (blurred and fubar) on most of today's lousy recordings, but the rest of the cymbal sound (after the leading edge) often sounds great -- and "live" -- at my place

Edited June 9, 2014 by Garyrc

[ClaudeJ1]

I will also state I've witnessed many live events that sounded spectacular especially in smaller venues both with and without sound reinforcement.

Same here. I guess the simple answer for the OP, is that I have ALL HORNS when reproducing good recordings. Reasonably flat from 15Hz-18Kz. with 40 db headroom.

[Chris A]

When these two forms of distortion are minimized, the results are much bigger sound and more liveness as the volume control is increased, but not not perceived as "loud".

Isn't there "real" loud, and "synthetic" loud? A cheap TV can sound "loud," and, as I infer from your statement, it might sound loud because the high distortion fools the brain. A good system in a good room can also be turned up until it sounds loud, big and live, and because the distortion is relatively low, the SPL will be higher than that of the distorting TV ... infact, the SPL might be pretty close to that of our old orchestra playing The Great Gate of Kiev, live, with 0 distortion, just a few anomalies of hall acoustics, and the sound of the paint peeling off the walls. Now, that was loud.

I once talked to an audiophile expert that came to my place about higher SPL output from loudspeakers. He mentioned that he had MartinLogans at home--of the type that used cone-type woofers and curved panel electrostatic direct radiators. He spoke of "pressurizing the room" at "high volume" with his MartinLogans. I merely reached over and boosted the in-room volume of the Jubs from the low 60 dBC range into the 90 dBC range. His eyes grew quite large and the smile ran away from his face. He was searching for words, I believe.

Now, I would describe the new, higher volume in my listening area as closer to "concert volume"--and not loud at all, but rather "lifelike". I remember the conversation trailing off rapidly after that.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

...also bear in mind that at a live event that is using a sound reinforcement system, the crest factor is often times 12-16 dB, even with the use of compressors on the vocal and percussion channels.

So even though the sound is going through what equates to a "giant stereo", the native dynamic range of most of the instruments are preserved across the board.

Big difference between that and the typical plastic-media mastering process.

No kidding. See http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/28050 and look down in the comments section. You will see that there are two different discs listed here. Clearly one with typical compression used and one without. Notice the typical crest factors of greater than 30 dB for the uncompressed version.

And this is just for a jazz combo that's not using any brass or single reed instruments. Imagine the crest factors for wind orchestras or stage bands - say, the older Stan Kenton stuff, or even Maynard Ferguson (who did the "Rocky" soundtrack number "Gonna Fly Now"). I'd guess crest factors of greater than 40 dB in real life - easy (I heard his band more than once in person, and it could knock your socks off). And it happens often during this type of music.

The sad thing is...red book CDs can easily handle that amount of dynamic range--no problem. However, I've never seen a CD with that amount of crest factor left on it, It's a shame, really. PWK's loudspeakers could also handle it--easily.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Chris A

[JJkizak]

I should have stated that a typical cymbal is approxiamtely a +-20" diameter air movement radiator. Your Jubilee diaphram is 2". True the horn amplifys the sound but in no way can it move 20" of air. It would be nice to have a real drummer jump in here. If the tweeter diaphram was 20" in diameter that would be heaven. This is my opinion devoid of facts.

JJK