Jump to content

Audio Myths and Human Perception - Explored


mikebse2a3

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, etc6849 said:

I think there is less perceived loss on a system that has the best possible S/N ratios in the signal chain (e.g. a lot more dynamic range)

 

I have to say that it hasn't been lost on me how virtually no one picked up on the Griesinger presentation on clarity, which is at the root I believe of what you are hearing.  See the Griesinger presentation on this subject.  It's like manna from heaven in my estimation:

 

On 7/29/2017 at 4:51 PM, Chris A said:

...the Griesinger stuff on clarity and phase distortion is really a big deal...phase fidelity does have a real effect on hi-fi performance: a BIG effect.

 

In the case of clarity, the first components that affect this most strongly are

1) room acoustics, and

2) loudspeaker directivity to perhaps lower midbass frequencies or below.  

 

When you get to the point where you're using electronics and software to correct for room acoustics/loudspeaker issues you're a little further down the food chain in terms of what you're able to achieve but that's not saying that you can't achieve improvement...it just gets really expensive to hear big improvements over and above the room/loudspeaker factors.  I found this out while experimenting with the K-402-MEH center channel versus all the other center channels in my room.  The differences in clarity and in apparent "crispness" of presentation were dramatic over the tri-amped JuBelle or any other configuration that I've used in that position.  More than the Jubs on each side.

 

A couple of excerpts from that presentation:

5985e20d80b60_Speechmusicspikes.png.74014826dbc8e2747cb70801639729c9.png

phase.png.2d4bfe3d0b0b6296fbdf6f01abfcc80e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay while that's sinking in, let me relate the second part of the punchline:

 

1) probably 95% of all music discs, phonograph records, tapes, and downloads that have been produced to date used minimum phase filtering in their mastering EQ operations.  That means that the little peaks on the music track will begin to disappear as more and more mastering EQ is applied to the original recorded tracks.  That means that the clarity (i.e., perceived dynamic range) of the presentation suffers from mastering EQ--alone. 

 

When I demaster tracks, I find that when I get close to undoing the mastering EQ (more on this subject perhaps later), the little peaks begin to reappear, and the tracks' clarity goes up.  Extremely small changes in EQ at this point yield large changes in the perceived sound and clarity of the track.  This is due to the use of minimum phase filters during the demastering process, which when applied to the commercially available tracks with lots of mastering EQ applied, results in a reversal of the phase shifts that were introduced during mastering EQ.

 

2) When the mastering guy clips the peaks off of the waveforms, he is also reducing clarity by the percentage of peaks per unit of time that have been clipped (...do you see that?).  This information is lost and it occurs during the loudest portions of the track.  If the entire track is loud enough to have no quiet section (like Bob Katz's videos showed) then any further limiting also directly reduces clarity of the tracks.  I have found that this is directly perceived also as "lower signal/noise ratio in the signal chain".  (Do you still follow?)

 

3) For the much smaller percentage of tracks that have been mastered to date of the entire music catalog using linear phase (i.e., FIR) filtering, therefore leaving the higher frequency phase information (i.e., the easiest to damage) alone, any further limiting or compression loses clarity, because you're clipping off those little peaks that the ear is looking for to detect consonants, syllables, and musical transients of all types...perceived dynamic range...

 

4) For tracks where the amount of EQ, limiting, and compression used is so great that the original waveform is unrecognizable (like the "Chris Lord-Alge" mastering techniques induce), say goodbye to clarity: it's gone for good.  It's probably better to not use acoustic instrument musicians themselves and just admit that they're basically just sampling,  staying in the electronic music domain altogether where the mixing/mastering person can also be the music creator without the appearance of trying to be "acoustic".  The problem is: what do you call "hi-fi" in this genre?  I first heard these effects in the late 1960s-early 1970s with Wendy Carlos's albums.  I enjoyed the music, but it never occurred to me to call any of that "hi-fi". 

 

Has any of these realizations occurred to anyone?

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
15 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

 

@dwilawyer have you read "Hearing vs Measurements" by Heyser I posted ..?

 

That article was 30 years ago..... If he had not passed away I could only imagine how much more progress would have been accomplished. .!!!

 

miketn 

Yes I did, you had posted it several years ago, or someone did, in another forum, and I recall at the time how much more could be sorted out.  Which prompted me to ask, what is Hi-fi?  Is that even capable of being objectively determined?  Say a Flat FR from X to Y, a max IM distortion of Y, polar plots at various angles with a max db drop?  i'm not technical enough to even put  the criteria into words.  

 

Or is hi-fi something that is a completely subjective thing that varies from person to person.  In other words, is "hi-fi" something that you know when you hear it, but can't define?

 

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chris A said:

I now wonder--just like in unemployment statistics used nowadays--how does the average person integrate all these measures to get to an intuitive feel for how much loss of dynamics is occurring, and how that affects the listening experience (especially with hi-fi setups)?

 

 

 

 

IMO, the average consumer is not going to look at technical data about a recording.

 

As a classical music lover, my criterion for assessing the quality of a recording is fairly simple:  Does the recording sound like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house (where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural).  I recognize that memory is fallible – nonetheless this is my criterion.

 

We listed in an earlier post some examples of recordings of classical music that sound natural.   OTOH, I have a studio recording of Anna Netrebko (who I love) singing a collection of individual arias from operas, and some of them sound to me like an engineer ruined them (i.e., it sounds like a pop recording’s “wall of sound”).   Did some producer convince Anna that their heavy-handed approach to editing is necessary to sell CDs?  

 

Maybe it’s more complicated than this, but the attitude of many classical music lovers (including me) is that we want recording engineers to keep their grubby paws (and their software or DAW or whatever they use) off our recordings.  :)  Sometimes the recordings that sound the best are the ones where the liner notes say that the recording was NOT electronically manipulated (I.e., no signal processing).  Again, I’m not a recording engineer, and therefore I’m probably over-simplifying what is required to faithfully capture what was heard in the symphony hall or opera house. 

 

As I said in an earlier post, each consumer must define their goals for reproduction of music in their home.   Do they want to blast heavy metal music so loud that they it might cause hearing damage?  Do they want unobtrusive background music, in which case dynamic compression may be indicated?   (My opinion is that dynamic range compression should be handled by a parameter setting in the consumer electronics, as is the case with my Oppo universal players and Chromecast Audio.  I have mine set to “Off”.)   Do they like thumping bass?   Sizzling highs?   My goal is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera.  (Though there are limits to the dynamic range that almost any home hi-fi system can reproduce – except perhaps those of you who own Jubilee.  I’m thinking about the difference (in a hi-res digital recording) between the opening of Movement 4 and Movement 5 in Mahler Symphony 2.)   And I want the inevitable deviations in recorded music to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant – to my ears.  On one hand I recognize that this is probably more complicated than the average consumer (including me) might assume, on the other hand there are some 60 year old analog recordings that sound natural, and are enjoyable to listen to.  (Did the old mics and tube equipment used to record classical music provide an inherent form of dynamic compression that is pleasant when played on a home hi-fi system?)

 

As I said in an earlier post, it seems to me that for some pop music – specifically if there never was a live performance (not even in the studio) - the issue of high fidelity is not as relevant.  (If the music was never performed in the real world, how is it meaningful to talk about hi-fidelity reproduction?   You can’t “faithfully reproduce” something that never existed in the real world.)   Apparently, for at least some pop music, the issue is what sounds “good”.   (Or, perhaps, what is a “winning formula” – i.e., for winning “ear-share”, and winning “wallet-share” by selling CDs and downloads.  For most consumers, what grabs their attention, and causes their head to start bobbing up and down?)   Moreover, what sounds “good” apparently differs on cheap earbuds vs. in the car (where there is high ambient noise) vs. on a good hi-fi system in the home.  (This is not something I’m concerned with, because I don’t often listen to pop music.  With that said, I respect the fact that different people like different music.)

 

I’m not saying that recording engineers should never have an active role in any recordings – as long as it’s disclosed.   For example, I like the following recording (for more than one reason), which apparently involves sophisticated audio and video editing to create a product wherein a single classical guitar player performs all 4 parts.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPu1om4WZsQ   (Unfortunately this is not available as a Blu-ray video.)  This reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend recently.  He said that he really liked his CD of Ray Charles performing with the Count Basie orchestra titled “Ray Sings, Basie Swings”.  I told him that I like Count Basie, and some of Ray Charles’ work … but Ray Charles and Count Basie never performed together.   (AKAIK.)  This recording was created by engineers - but at least they were honest about it in the liner notes.  (“This pairing never happened, but it should have.”)  And I believe that I have a recording wherein Anna Netrebko sings a duet with herself.   (However, I’m not crazy about this recording – it has that “over-engineered” sound.  I’d rather hear (and watch) a real duet between Anna and Elina Garanca.)

 

Regarding the “average volume level” of recordings, I was amused by an Amazon customer review of a recording of miscellaneous arias sung by an opera singer.  The customer complained that “something was wrong with the recording”, because it was at a much lower volume level than all of their pop recordings.  My perspective is the opposite.   The digital folder that contains the few pop recordings that I possess is labeled “TURN DOWN THE VOLUME – Pop Music” to remind me to not blow up my speakers (and my ears) when I listen to them. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Yes I did, you had posted it several years ago, or someone did, in another forum, and I recall at the time how much more could be sorted out.  Which prompted me to ask, what is Hi-fi?  Is that even capable of being objectively determined?  Say a Flat FR from X to Y, a max IM distortion of Y, polar plots at various angles with a max db drop?  i'm not technical enough to even put  the criteria into words.  

 

Or is hi-fi something that is a completely subjective thing that varies from person to person.  In other words, is "hi-fi" something that you know when you hear it, but can't define?

 

Travis

 

FWIW, my answer is my post immediately above.  Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robert_kc said:

...my criterion for assessing the quality of a recording is fairly simple:  Does the recording sound like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house

The problem with this is that you wind up buying a lot of discs that you listen to no more than once...if that.  The idea of a resource like the DR Database is that you can find at least the degree of compression/limiting that has occurred to the exact version of the disc. (For popular music there are sometimes dozens of CD versions available.)

 

This works well to find discs with the highest retained DR rating.  Curiously, most of the oldest/highest DR versions are also the cheapest (...well...perhaps not so curious, but that's another story).  Once demastered, the resulting tracks are the best versions that I've heard anywhere--for a cost of perhaps 30 minutes to an hour of my time and ~$4.00 a disc. 

 

The criteria that I use for demastering: does the recording sound like what I remember the piece (or similar piece) sounding like in a real music performance hall/room?

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Or is hi-fi something that is a completely subjective thing that varies from person to person.  In other words, is "hi-fi" something that you know when you hear it, but can't define?

 

Travis

 

Travis,

 

Heyser made a statement that I believe answers your question in an article published in Audio Magazine (June 1977). 

 

5986263b9ac90_Heyser-YououtthereGoldenEars.jpg.f7f8828c02d00793590ed5c740185e52.jpg

 

There will always be some range of human perception (since it is multi-dimensional and is influenced by these dimensions) that we all must fall into but we all share a lot of commonality as well.

 

What Heyser taught me was that measurements are to be used in service of what we humans perceive in "Audio Reproduction" as well as other fields that are involved in human perception. Measurements are the results of tools that we have designed to take them and they are only good for and always limited by the limitations we have designed into them. It's the same thing with Mathematical Equations we use to describe, design and develop things and they have limitations that we may or may not recognize until they fail to give us the answers and solutions to what we are looking for then we realize they are incomplete or flawed for the purpose we have developed them for.

 

It's not that Heyser would have us give up on measurements but instead he was calling our attention to their limitations as well as actively developing and demonstrating measurements that would be capable of describing (ie: by Mapping between multiple planes of view) what the listener would perceive. He was showing us that we were getting one-dimensional answers and were often mistakenly trying to us them to describe a multi-dimension event (ie: Audio Reproduction). They are useful but not sufficient (due to being a one-dimensional view) on there own for the goal of describing what we perceive(a Multi-Dimensional Experience).

 

Heyser saw the need to correlate what we measured with what we perceive as the way to progress forward in improving all aspects of Audio Reproduction and he was showing mathematically as well as with measurements how with mapping between domains we could begin to correlate measurements with perception unfortunately after his untimely death it seems we have not progressed as much as he hoped we would..! 

 

Heyser was truly a man ahead of his times with visions reaching far into our futures..!!!

 

 

miketn

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Or is hi-fi something that is a completely subjective thing that varies from person to person.  In other words, is "hi-fi" something that you know when you hear it, but can't define?

 

Let me add this thought.

 

Hi-Fi or Fidelity is one aspect we often desire and music and how we perceive it is a very personnel emotional experience and that means to me that we will to some degree always have subjective experiences that varies from person to person.

 

So in some ways it's about fidelity to a sound but is it also not an emotional aspect as well that we are often trying to trigger and that is an aspect with many variables including personnel ones.

 

Heck our perception changes with our moods.

 

Perception changes with the number of times we have heard a recording. I can remember getting "goose bumps" during certain points from a vocalist in a song for example when hearing it the first few times but after repeated times the effect might not even occur I suspect because the first time it's new and totally a surprise that triggers the "goose bump response" but after multiple listening it becomes predicted in my mind. Also interesting is that multiple times of listening reveals details not noticed the first time a song is experienced.

 

One other interesting observation to me anyway: In the days of my youth I listened to a lot of music through a juke box and as we all know it's not reproduction of the highest fidelity due to the many colorations of that "juke box sound" but I can tell you today if I hear that music over the stereo it's not the same emotional experience and doesn't take me back to the same emotional feeling that listening to it does if I listen to it again on my friends juke box because that juke box coloration brings back the good memories associated with that song and my youth.

 

To hear a recording of my parents or brother's voice "who have passed on" can bring back feelings to a degree that a picture has never been capable of.

 

miketn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 8/4/2017 at 0:41 PM, Chris A said:

It's one of the key videos that I've found on the subject.  It's interesting that it shows the progression in thinking of the cultural aspects of recording and mastering as it transitioned from analog to digital, and the problems of over-saturation used for decades in analog tape recording. 

Was interested in hearing his thoughts on tape over-saturation but he doesn't discuss over-saturation at all in this video.

 

His comments confirm who makes the call on this stuff, it is not the ME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 hours ago, Chris A said:

4) For tracks where the amount of EQ, limiting, and compression used is so great that the original waveform is unrecognizable (like the "Chris Lord-Alge" mastering techniques induce)

Chris Lord-Alge is a mixing engineer, not mastering.  Famous for use of aggressive compression and limiting during the MIXING process.  

 

If you are manipulating his stuff (a lot of stuff, Born in the USA jumps out), you are "de-mixing" I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See https://www.digido.com/portfolio-item/level-practices-part-2/.  I was referring to the relative loudness levels used on CDs that kept rising over time, which was in his video.

 

I own perhaps 2 albums that have been processed by Lord-Alge.  I referred only to the publicly advertised "aesthetic" of compression and EQ used during the production process, not him personally.  For instance:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2017 at 5:07 PM, dwilawyer said:

That is not only a myth, it is just simply untrue.

I was referring to the corporate culture that sustains mastering practices in the industry by those that keep demanding that the recordings be louder and louder, and the reality that relatively unprocessed recordings are not typically released, which leads to the apparent idea that everything must be mastered. That evidence prevails in all of the 1000+ albums that I've examined thus far. 

 

Individually, mastering engineers can be either reluctant to employ those techniques or enthusiastic about them.  The fact is that the mastering people keep performing those services.  The excuse is that they do it because the customer demands it...but they still perform those services.  It's the culture that is the issue, not the individuals, by and large (like anything else).  For an introduction to how this occurs, I recommend Edgar Schein's Organizational Culture and Leadership.

 

Those practices have been incorporated into the culture of the music industry (notably those making the final decisions--whomever you wish to point the finger at), as evidenced by the products of that culture over time. 

 

The reality is that the cultural assumption that recordings must be as loud as possible is not supported by the technology (...gain is cheap, on whatever device you might choose as the "target platform for 'translation'"), or apparently by the consumers, as evidenced by AES papers written about 10 years ago.  It's the organizational culture that sustains the practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over four decades ago....!!!  :)

Audio DEC 1974 ad

 

598764ef563ab_HowAmplifiersAreTested-Audio1974ad.thumb.jpg.026f43b32932e563fe8fe87592128824.jpg

 

 

 

 

Which begs the question are there researchers developing measurements using music as a test signals..? Seems the only logical path forward to make real progress in audio reproduction..!!!

 

Here is one example I found:  "Emotion Recognition In Music Signals using AANN and SVM"

Emotion Recognition in Music Signal.pdf

 

miketn

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ASC site has a test signal " Musical Articulation Test Tones ( MATT ) " that I have found useful and recommend.

 

598779e2b90eb_ASCMATTTESTSignal.jpg.3453a05b0d23c104e13fca3f475bb071.jpg

 

What is great about it is that you are actually using your perception to perceive parts of the frequency spectrum where you have acoustical room issues affecting articulation which then if your so inclined you can treat the room for reflections and modal issues and actually hear if you have made improvements. It could also help in testing for different loudspeaker and listener locations that you may want to try for best performance.

http://www.acousticsciences.com/matt

 

The signal is available as a download wav file or on the Stereophile Test CD 2 (Track 19)

 

Go to the linked page and Be sure and listen to the test signal demo at the top right of the page pictured here (Click RED ARROW).

598776d17e12b_ASCMATTTEST.jpg.52dbc37017d4165ad870175b0289c99b.jpg

 

an how it sounds in different treated rooms by pressing the MATT Test Tutorial immediately below the test signal demo.

598777cd17d3b_ASCMATTTESTTUTORIAL.jpg.f00be6737b1109fa169b2cb87096f0de.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the instructions that come with the Stereophile Test CD 2.

Note: you can us a stop watch and calculate what frequency region you have articulation issues with.

 

 

598783732f43b_MUSICARTICULATIONTESTTONEinstructions.thumb.jpg.35a7e7cc6ebce4189888fb910282a24b.jpg

 

 

NOTE:  It helps to use headphones to become familiar with how it should sound versus how it sounds after the room acoustics have affected it's reproduction.

 

miketn

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 8/5/2017 at 2:38 PM, robert_kc said:

 

FWIW, my answer is my post immediately above.  Your thoughts?

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.  It's the music BUSINESS and the recording INDUSTRY.   They record, mix and master for the mass market.  Sometimes that results in a great recordings in terms of hi-first, others times not. 

 

I'm a big opera guy, we go to performances literally all over the US.

 

Not really a classical person unless it is live, so I can't really add to much there.

 

I have a lot of opera reel to reel tapes that are excellent recordings I consider true high-fi.  There are some awful ones as well.  

 

I think opera is the most difficult to come close to because you are missing the visuals.   Mike  @mikebse2a3was talking about the emotion in music, having a recording bringing you back.  There are some arias I just know hearing live bring me literally to tears, and I just don't get to that level listening to the music alone, regardless of the recording quality.

 

@LarryC is one of the most knowledgeable people I know for classical recordings.  He can converse both on the quality of the recording and the conductor and musicians.

 

I have heard some greats classical recordings from the late 1950s and 60s so I know they had the tech and recording techniques to do it right, but it is just so hit or miss it tells me that it is highly dependent on the hall, microphone  placement,  recording engineer, mobile equipment, etc.

 

@DrWho is an engineer for Shure and has experience in recording live ensembles in large halls and churches and can probably speak about the complexity of trying to get everything captured correctly. 

 

@Marvel has experience in laying down tracks in some reputable small studios and can tell you what they did to get the best sound from him.

 

@Mallette is working with tapes that PWK made in connection with the Museum.  These include jazz, classical and organ in all kinds of venues.  The quality on these, recorded in the 50s, is pretty spectacular.  He is working on a new quad microphone system to try and increase the quality of recordings in typical classical halls.  I believe his impression is the the actual recording process is more than sufficient,  it is the microphone placement and arrays that are the weak link and can be greatly improved upon.

 

I would be interested to hear what your top rated opera recording are.

 

Travis

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 8/5/2017 at 2:35 PM, robert_kc said:

As a classical music lover, my criterion for assessing the quality of a recording is fairly simple:  Does the recording sound like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house (where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural).  I recognize that memory is fallible – nonetheless this is my criterion.

I think this is going to be largely a matter of personal taste in the classical and opera realm, at least from what I have seen from the sites and people who review classical and opera recordings for hi-fI esthetics along with the quality of the performance.  There seems to be a lot of variability.   

 

Some audiophile classical music lovers prefer the older recordings like Shaded Dog and older Mercury, some prefer the sound of multi-Miking and othersee seem to have a strong preference for L-C-R making.  

On 8/5/2017 at 2:35 PM, robert_kc said:

OTOH, I have a studio recording of Anna Netrebko (who I love) singing a collection of individual arias from operas, and some of them sound to me like an engineer ruined them (i.e., it sounds like a pop recording’s “wall of sound”).   Did some producer convince Anna that their heavy-handed approach to editing is necessary to sell CDs?  

I like her as well, I have seen her live in SF and NY.  Was the studio recording on DG?  If so that could be the issue there, they don't seem to be well regarded by classic music audiophiles.  I haven't researched their recording methods, and the industry people I know are all here and don't run in those circles.

 

She mat be listed as the producer on that CD, I don't know.  Her producer may have been given 3 choices from their in-house mixing and mastering people and he picked that one.  It is usually the producer in most cases that makes the selection, or approves the master.

 

If you are not already on Steve Hoffman forums I highly reccomend it for reccomendations on hi-fi quality  classical, what to avoid, etc.  There are recording industry people that speak to technical issues as to mic placement, what processing, if any, etc.

 

Here is a representative thread where Steve chimed in, this one is on classical vinyl

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/classical-vinyl-lps-what-labels-sound-the-best-rca-living-stereo-london-bluebacks-mercury.313997/

 

On 8/5/2017 at 2:35 PM, robert_kc said:

Sometimes the recordings that sound the best are the ones where the liner notes say that the recording was NOT electronically manipulated (I.e., no signal processing).  Again, I’m not a recording engineer, and therefore I’m probably over-simplifying what is required to faithfully capture what was heard in the symphony hall or opera house. 

 

Every recording was electronically manipulated and had signal processing if it went to tape, or vinyl.  A DDD recording is still going to be electronically manipulated or have signal processing by the selection of microphones brands and types which have their own eq signature.  It also has to be mixed, and so that can be 2, 3, or 60 channels depending how they recorded it.  How they set those levels on the mix master will determine how natural sounding it is to you. As I said before, in the classical are an from what I have seen it can vary widely as whether something is natural sounding or not.  People can have widely divergent opinions on the exact same recording. 

 

Just some thoughts on what you specifically mentironed in your post.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis, I don't know if you've ever watched any of the AudioTree shows on youtube or not, but they have a nice live, comfortable feel about them. I just read an article in TapeOp, a recording mag up in Oregon. Put a who new perspective on what they do for a show. I get the print magazine, but you can read the who article here (I think...)

 

Bruce

 

http://tapeop.com/interviews/120/audiotreetv/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Note: you can use a stop watch and calculate what frequency region you have articulation issues with.

You can also take an upsweep with a calibrated microphone and REW, then you have waterfall,  spectrogram, and decay images to help you find those narrow frequencies...

 

598830de98a2b_JubscalaK-691centeronfloorwaterfall.png.dc0e6ce4ca976a1ecb8150a833d3dd34.png

 

598830f3ebd6b_JubscalaK-691centeronfloorspectrogram.png.e3a7ddfcdbcf93776d9ec081b800cb0e.png

 

598832ee943db_JubscalaK-691centeronfloordecay.png.940b46b3fef1bfcc674be53b39689564.png

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2017 at 3:44 PM, mikebse2a3 said:

 

Hmmm..... if an amplifier is good at producing music should it also not be good at reproducing music.... or does that beg the question why would that add up to be to much of a good thing..???:P..............

 

Not too much of a good thing, but a good example is, in my case, an old Fender Bassman rig that is all tube has a bloom/boom to it lots of 80 - 160 Hz and not much output at 40 Hz (low E) and my Traynor DB200 sounds like it.  My friend and teacher also has a Nemesis combo with two 10s and is also solid state that digs really deep (low B), sounds flat (all notes the same loudness), but also dry and articulate.  The Fender has the classic 60s sound.  My brother went through a succession of guitar amps starting with SS Marshals and finally hand-wired tube Vox's to get the warmth, growl/grit and type of distortion only a tube amp can make.  Like U2, Queen, The Beatles. the Stones and others used.  Vox was the sound of “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida”.  That is "producing music", a flavor chosen to be a unique sound.  An amp used for reproduction should never add any flavor to the sound.  So, no, and amp that is a good producer, like a Vox, should not be used to reproduce music. 

 

On 7/30/2017 at 3:44 PM, mikebse2a3 said:

 

Accurate and Musical are not mutually exclusive IMHO whether we are talking amplifiers or loudspeakers even though some seem to believe that myth.

 

 

Here was my experience a few years ago and I still own and enjoy all of them...:)

 

miketn

 

I agree completely.  In fact, I cannot see how inaccurate could be considered "musical". 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...