Advice for Beginners....

[Khornukopia]

5 hours ago, Schu said:

Acoustical... electronic... samplers... what kind of musicians make the most talented golden ear listeners.

 

Acoustic instrument musicians will be tuned into the true tones. The others will be hearing most of their music through overdriven studio monitor speakers fed by SS power amps that might not be of audiophile quality.

[MEH Synergy]

[Khornukopia]

No offense intended by my comment above, to all the excellent musicians who use amplifiers. I listen to amplified live music on a frequent basis and I love it as much as I enjoy the purity of sound from an acoustic symphony orchestra.

[babadono]

4 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:

The mind is a tricky thing.....

And my acoustic memory is even trickier, one might even say deceptive or deceitful.

[windashine]

just for a homemade test here, listen to Duane Allman play "Little Martha" on the album - 'Eat a Peach' - what I'm hearing throughout his melody, are deep breaths at 19, 31, and 43 sec's (just to pin a few within the 1st min) which, with only his guitar and no other bandmates, to me relates to a realistic experience with live music reproduced through a fine Klipschorn at home... I love live acoustic music outdoors especially, under the tree's, in the summer, when crickets persist...

[tromprof]

Since my name was mentioned I will give my 2 cents on musicians and audio equipment. The people I work with are all professional orchestra musicians. We all know intimately what the instruments sound like. No audio system, regardless of how good, can reproduce what we hear daily. Sit close to a 12 foot Steinway being played by a world class pianist. That cannot be reproduced electronically. Some of us however do chase having an audio system that can come as close as possible. Yes, budget plays a huge factor. Money for living and for your instrument comes first. However thanks to forum members like Claude and Chris I have been able to put together a first class system without going broke.

[Deang]

Can you hear the difference between different brands/quality of trumpets?

[Deang]

What about violins and such? Can a trained musician hear the difference between a Strativarious and some other high dollar violin?

[Chris A]

Dean, I can say that you can hear differences in mouthpieces--the same as for clarinets and saxophones.  It's much more difficult to hear timbre differences and attacks on wind instruments, but they exist (in spades) for the player. 

 

I remember sitting through a documentary on the Stradivarius and Guaneri violins--notably a panel of "experts" that selected the best sounding violins from a blind test.  They found that the Strads and Guaneris weren't always picked.  Actually it was apparently a bit scandalous how many panelists picked modern instruments having no pedigree--except for perhaps the most famous Strads and Guaneris--worth millions of dollars each.  These I figure are famous due those experts having imprinted on their exceptionally distinctive sound, and probably not necessarily because they sounded the most compelling and distinctive to the panel). 

 

To the players, each instrument is very distinctive in my experience, be it a piccolo or a tuba/string bass.  Each has its own feel and responsiveness that sets it apart to the one playing it.  I believe that this is why so many pro musicians have multiple instruments--because of the feel and the "gestalt" that the instrument imparts to their playing.  This is pretty important.  I remember the feel of many B-flat clarinets that were fairly close together in playing feel and response, but then I got an Buffet "A" clarinet for orchestra (provided by the music school) that had just had a leak fixed earlier in the year, and I have to say that clarinet changed my outlook for the entire day--there's really no other way to say it.  I loved that instrument and what it seemed to do to my playing (it's much closer to the original basset horn in terms of its tone and extension). 

 

Most instruments impart significant constraints on the player and what they can do vs. what they want to do, so I feel the instruments that are preferred by the musicians are the ones that facilitate the musician being able to do things or produce a certain tone that they otherwise couldn't do on other instruments--mouthpieces, too.  That's been my experience, at any rate.

 

Chris

[robert_kc]

On 11/9/2018 at 11:49 AM, Westcoastdrums said:

 

 

I’m not knowledgeable about audio recording, so perhaps someone who has experience can help me understand the following issues.

 

For those who listen to electronic music (or electronically altered or amplified music), am I correct that if you have installed in your home the same large speakers (JBL?) shown in this picture of the control room of the recording studio, and the same amp that was used to drive these speakers, and your listening room has acoustics similar to the control booth where the music was mixed, then you can reasonably assume that you’re hearing what the producers heard when they mixed and mastered the popular music recording?  (In this case the “producer” of electronic music presumably is a music business executive who determines (perhaps in collaboration with the musicians) how the final recording should sound - by adjusting various hardware and software electronic tools, such as the pictured console that appears to have 1,000 slider adjustments, or software plug-ins for a DAW.)     

 

OTOH, if the consumer doesn’t own the same speakers and amp used during mixing, then how does the consumer know how this electronic music is “supposed” to sound?   (If you’re listening to a decades-old rock or pop recording, are your speakers and amp anything like the equipment used in the control booth decades ago?)   

 

Or, has someone figured out multiple EQ curves that will replicate the sound of these large studio monitors - based on the recording studio for each pop recording – such that if that “pop music EQ curve” is overlaid onto a home hi-fi system that has “flat” in-room frequency response – then the sound will replicate what the producers heard in the control booth when they created the music?  

 

For music that is electronically produced, and/or electronically modified (i.e., deliberately distorted), and/or amplified, what is the meaning and relevance of “accurate” sound reproduction via a home hi-fi system?   Accurate compared with what benchmark?   As I said earlier, I respect the fact that different people like different music.   I’m just trying to understand whether having your home hi-fi system adjusted via DSPs to “flat” in-room frequency response has any relevance to what the producers of electronic music heard when they created the recording in the control booth.  (I have no experience with recording – so I’m probably not saying this correctly.)  In simple terms:  Do your speakers sound like their speakers?

 

OTOH, it seems to me that for classical music, the “producer” isn’t someone sitting at a mixing console or DAW.   For classical music, the “producer” is a conductor leading an orchestra that is playing natural instruments in a venue designed for classical music (i.e., symphony hall or opera house).    For classical music, the musicians perform together live (i.e., no mixing of instruments recorded at different times and places).   For classical music, there are no electronics used to amplify, alter or deliberately distort the music.   For me the benchmark for the reproduction of classical music via a home hi-fi system is straightforward – i.e., the benchmark is the live performance.   When my home hi-fi system falls short of this goal, I want what I hear from my hi-fi system to be a pleasant simulacrum of the live performance.   

 

As a classical music lover, I don’t care what the recording engineers heard on their studio monitors.   I want the sound on my home hi-fi system to sound like the live performance.   For classical music, it seems to me that if your home hi-fi system is adjusted via DSPs to “flat” in-room frequency response, then that might be a good starting point for tuning your hi-fi system so that it recreates the live sound.   However, I certainly would not blindly accept that the sound that I’m hearing from a “calibrated” hi-fi system is “accurate”.   Rather, I’m going to assess whether the sound from my hi-fi system reminds me of the countless live classical performances that I’ve attended.   If I have to manually adjust tone controls, or choose a different amp/speaker combination, or different tubes in order to recreate the original classical concert - so be it.   

 

I’m trying to understand the relevance of “flat in-room frequency response” to the reproduction of any type of music.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I think that a newbie needs to decide for themselves what “accurate” sound reproduction means, and what “true high fidelity” means.  
 

[MEH Synergy]

First, those are not JBL speakers, they are very high end speakers powered by bryston amps (there are JBL subs hidden, four of em).

https://augspurger.com

 

Second, no you will not hear the same. Your ears aren't tuned to listen for subtle flaws and mixing elements (hardware and software).   BTW, the studios in general sound VASTLY different from your home hifI system and I think most would hate it.   It's not tuned for sound staging, imaging and infinite tweekerw paradise.   The speakers are tools to make the mix translate as transparently as possible.  You do not listen in the studio working the same as you do at home whatsoever.  You are nitpicking and tearing apart music to find problems.   

 

Third, you continually state electronic music.   You are using the terminology incorrectly IMO.   Electronic music to me is music solely composed in the digital and or analog realm with tons of synths and distortion, usually completely without live instrumentation/miking (although these elements are introduced sometimes). 

 

In response to your question about reporoduction of electronic music, proper reproduction for my taste is hard to put down as words on paper.  I am quite picky with the way it sounds however as I'm sure you are with what you listen to. There is still soundstaging and dynamics (although more modern recordings are highly compressed, but automation is heavily emphasized). I dont strive for 100% flat music in my home whatsoever.   I try to avoid large peak and valleys by positioning the best I am able, but at the end of the day, that is what I like about klipsch products.   They are much easier to place that many typical "hifI" brands as the rear and side walls are designed to be utilized in their final tone.   I strongly prefer to enjoy the music the best way I can recreate it in my home whatever the genre may be with my budget set.  I don't spend my time tinkering relentlessly chasing something that I am not sure of the desired end result.   

 

[Chris A]

23 minutes ago, Westcoastdrums said:

Second, no you will not hear the same. Your ears aren't tuned to listen for subtle flaws and mixing elements (hardware and software).   BTW, the studios in general sound VASTLY different from your home hifI system and I think most would hate it.   It's not tuned for sound staging, imaging and infinite tweeker paradise.   The speakers are tools to make the mix translate as transparently as possible.  You do not listen in the studio working the same as you do at home whatsoever.  You are nitpicking and tearing apart music to find problems.   

Toole talks about this subject in his book.  There is no real resolution to the conundrum except to say that mixers and masterers are trying to suppress in-room reflections in the studio in order to hear the music as clinically as they can, while the opposite is true for home hi-fi enthusiasts--even the same people doing mixing and mastering--but at home.  The biggest differences are the absence of lateral reflections in the studio.  In addition, a lot of studio monitors aren't designed for high fidelity enjoyment in the classic sense, but rather as a "golden medium" of how home loudspeakers behave as a group (most often--direct radiating ones, that is) but uncharacteristically having fairly flat frequency response--and sometimes flat and  smooth power response (i.e., consistent coverage)...but often this is not the case.  So they're not really that interesting to listen to.  Think of the Yamaha NS-10 loudspeakers that failed in the consumer marketplace, but became icons as a commonly used studio monitor for many years in the 1980s-2000s.  They're not terribly interesting to listen to.

 

Chris

[MEH Synergy]

The NS10s are terrible to listen to period. If you can make a mix sound good on them, that will translate well onto most other stereos of all sorts.  Part of the reason they were and are still used in abundance in the studios.  

[robert_kc]

I understand that some people may quarrel with my use of the term “electronic music”.  (And I’ve sometimes loosely used the term “pop music”.)  I’m not meaning to be disrespectful of someone else’s choice of music.  And I recognize that some music is what I’ll loosely call “hybrid” (i.e., some natural instruments, and some electronically amplified instruments).

 

The problem - from my perspective - is that for the purpose of this discussion I need to use convenient terms for two types of music:

1. Music performed by natural instruments (e.g., violins, trumpets) in the intended venue (e.g., symphony hall), where no sound reinforcement system is used.  No electronics are employed in the performance of the music.  And the music is not deliberately distorted (e.g., via a DAW) during mastering.  Classical music is an example.  Some forms of big band, jazz, folk, etc may fall in this category.   For convenience, I’ll call this “natural music”.
2. For other music, which involves electronics in some form when the music is performed, or created (e.g. using a DAW), I’ll refer to as “music that is not 100% natural”.   (I’m not an expert in these types of music.) 

This distinction is relevant IMO to the question:  What is your benchmark for “true ‘high-fidelity’ reproduction” of recorded music in the home?

 

As a classical music lover, my benchmark is the live performance of classical music in its intended venue.  Granted there are differences in the acoustics of one symphony hall vs. another, but I have a pretty good idea of how a large-scale orchestra sounds in a symphony hall, when no sound reinforcement system is used (which is the norm).   I have a pretty good idea how opera sounds in an opera house, when no sound reinforcement system is used.  (This is completely different from musicals, for which body mics and sound reinforcement is common.)  I have a pretty good idea how chamber music sounds when performed in a venue when no sound reinforcement system is used.   I recognize that a problem with my approach is that it relies on my memory.   However, I attend live classical concerts more than 20 times a year, and I’m content with relying on my ears and my memory to assess the sound quality of my hi-fi systems.

 

For “music that is not 100% natural” (i.e., music that is created or altered by electronics), how do you know how the music is “supposed to” sound, unless (as I said in my earlier post) you were in the control room when it was created, or you have installed in your home the same speakers, amp, and acoustic treatment that were in the control booth when the recording was mastered?  

 

It seems to me that for music largely created by synthesizers, and when distortion is deliberately introduced, it is impossible to define “high fidelity reproduction”, because the consumer doesn’t know how the music is “supposed to” sound.   It seems to me that the “original sound” is what the producers heard on the studio monitors when they used electronic tools to create the sound, whereas the consumer’s speakers probably sound different from the studio monitors.  Am I wrong?

 

OTOH, let’s consider music that doesn’t use synthesizers or deliberate distortion, but involves (for example) electric guitars, or a classic electric organ.  I’m interested in opinions from people who listen to (or perform, or record) such music.  I’m not knowledgeable about electric guitars.   Do some electric guitar aficionados know how a particular guitar (e.g., Stratocaster) sounds when played through a particular amp (e.g., British vs. US amp)?  Does a particular guitar player have a “signature sound” based on which tubes are in the amp?   If so, and the music is not deliberately distorted, would an aficionado be confident that they know how the original performance was “supposed to” sound, and is such an aficionado therefore able to assess whether what they’re hearing in their home is “faithful to” the original performance – i.e., “high-fidelity reproduction”?  (What if a wah-wah pedal is used to “distort” the guitar?  Are there a few classic wah-wah pedals that an aficionado would recognize?)  What about a classic Hammond electric organ? 

 

I want to be clear, I think it’s perfectly OK to have as a goal for a hi-fi system to “sound good”.  But some people are suggesting terms like “accurate” reproduction, or “true high fidelity”, and I’m trying to understand what they are implying that these terms mean, depending on the type of music involved.  And, I think this is relevant to this thread’s topic, because this issue IMO should be important to a newbie.   In my first post to this thread I suggested to a newbie:  “You must define the goals for your home hi-fi system.” 

 

Bottom line, it seems to me that the meaning (or lack of meaning) of “accuracy” and “true high-fidelity” for in-home audio reproduction is dependent on the genre.  How do you define “imagined differences vs. real differences” for the music you love?  Are you satisfied with letting some “expert” tell you that your hi-fi system is “accurate”, or are you concerned with how the music that you love sounds to you when played via your home hi-fi?  

 

Your thoughts?

[MEH Synergy]

and I’m content with relying on my ears and my memory to assess the sound quality of my hi-fi systems.

 

ME TOO!   Music thay is artificially created has a place in my memory as well.   After playing with stereos for years and years, working in the studios, car audio and attending concerts of many genres for years, I also know, according to my memory, what each genre should sound like IMO, the way I want to hear it.  Simple as that.   You hifI system surely does a decent or perhaps great job of reproducing what you hear live, unamplified.   But guess what?   Your music can be flavored simply through the recording process by Mic selection, placement, mic Preamps, mixing style and choice of outboard and "in the box" plug-ins.   Get my drift?   Your music DOESN'T sound the same reproduced on your hifI system as it does as you swaafeive in your memory.  However, I'm sure if it sounds amazing to you on your system and can stop you in your Tracks and temporarily allow you to "escape", it is perfect to you.   

[tromprof]

On 11/10/2018 at 5:33 PM, Deang said:

Can you hear the difference between different brands/quality of trumpets?

 

With a professional player very small alterations to an instrument are easily noticeable. A change of mouthpiece is usually easy to hear. A different instrument, even if the same brand and model is easy to hear. My instruments are made by the S.E. Shires company and are modular, so all the parts like bells, valves, tuning slides, etc can be swapped out. That makes it possible to customize an instrument and to easily alter one depending on repertoire. Even the smallest change profoundly affects both the sound and playability. It can actually be a bit overwhelming at times.

As far as violins go the value of an instrument has nothing to do with sound. Stradivarius are valuable because they are old, rare, and collectors value them. Some sound quite fantastic, other only pedestrian. That has no effect on their value. My violinist wife used to play an Italian instrument made in 1773. The instrument gained quite a bit of value over the years and we happily sold it and replaced it with a "modern" (1948) Italian instrument that is vastly better sounding  and quite a bit less expensive.

[kink56]

My advice is this amps DO make a difference!   I can instantly discern the difference between using my Threshold S300 II and my Crown Power Line Four in my system with Forte I speakers.   The Crown has softer highs, harsher midrange and woolier bass. The Threshold is liquid smooth, fast and much more natural sounding.   I can hear the difference IMMEDIATELY.    If amps do not make a difference we'd all own NAD integrated amps! 

[Don Richard]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:50 PM, Chris A said:

Think of the Yamaha NS-10 loudspeakers that failed in the consumer marketplace, but became icons as a commonly used studio monitor for many years in the 1980s-2000s.

 

The Yamaha NS-10 came into wide use because of Bob Clearmountain, an award winning audio engineer from that time period. Bob worked with many artists and engineered many albums back then. Because he was in such demand he travelled to different studios, all with different equipment. He began to bring the NS-10s with him to jobs for consistency's sake, and because he discovered that using this speaker as a near-field monitor for recording and mixing worked well when placed on the console's meter bridge. When located there more direct sound and less reflected sound was the result, enabling the engineer to hear detail in the mix better than using the larger soffit mounted monitors .

 

The problem was that other engineers who were not as talented as Bob thought he was using them because they were really good monitors, which they were not. Today, near field monitoring is widely used for recording and mixing,  employing small powered monitors such as those made by Genelec and Dynaudio. These days the large soffit mounted monitors are mostly used when the producer and band members are auditioning a mix.

[Chris A]

I figured that the large midrange-tweeter horn-loaded monitors (usually employing Smith horns) were being used for mixing/auditioning by the musicians, but the "translation" masters were being done typically off-site under the control of the A&E execs.  Thanks for the confirmation on the large monitor use. It's the only thing that I could figure out. 

 

The story about the calf making a trail through the woods seems apropos:

 

Quote

The Calf-Path

Sam Foss

I.
     
One day through the primeval wood
A calf walked home as good calves should;
  
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then three hundred years have fled,
And I infer the calf is dead.


II.

But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day,
By a lone dog that passed that way;

And then a wise bell-wether sheep
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,

And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bell-wethers always do.

And from that day, o'er hill and glade.
Through those old woods a path was made.
     
     
III.
     
And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about,

And uttered words of righteous wrath,
Because 'twas such a crooked path;

But still they followed—do not laugh—
The first migrations of that calf,

And through this winding wood-way stalked
Because he wobbled when he walked.   
     
IV.
     
This forest path became a lane,
that bent and turned and turned again;

This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load

Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.

And thus a century and a half
They trod the footsteps of that calf.
     
V.
     
The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;

And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare.

And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis;

And men two centuries and a half,
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.  
     
VI.
   
Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed the zigzag calf about

And o'er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.

A Hundred thousand men were led,
By one calf near three centuries dead.

They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;

For thus such reverence is lent,
To well established precedent.

VII.

A moral lesson this might teach
Were I ordained and called to preach;

For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-paths of the mind,

And work away from sun to sun,
To do what other men have done.

They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,

And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.

They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move.

But how the wise old wood gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf.

Ah, many things this tale might teach—
But I am not ordained to preach.

Chris

[Marvel]

22 hours ago, Don Richard said:

The Yamaha NS-10 came into wide use because of Bob Clearmountain, an award winning audio engineer from that time period. Bob worked with many artists and engineered many albums back then. Because he was in such demand he travelled to different studios, all with different equipment. He began to bring the NS-10s with him to jobs for consistency's sake, and because he discovered that using this speaker as a near-field monitor for recording and mixing worked well when placed on the console's meter bridge. When located there more direct sound and less reflected sound was the result, enabling the engineer to hear detail in the mix better than using the larger soffit mounted monitors . 

 

I used to record at a small studio in central Illinois, built partly as a demo facility for the equipment for which the owner was a dealer. I had bought a pair of JBL 4311s from him (about the size of Heresy speakers). At the time, in the early '70s, he had some huge EV speakers and an MCI console. He had a national act,  can't remember their name at the moment, who came down to mix at his studio. Their producer and group couldn't wrap thier head around the sound of the EVs, so Jerry borrowed my JBLs for a week for them to check against the larger system. And yes, I loaned them to him for the week. For all their faults, they were still a reference for their ears, as the NS-10s were for others a few years later.

 

Still use the JBLs on one of my systems. Some old '70s music just sounds right on them. 😀