Mallette Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 We're talking apples and oranges Dave. Fully agree. However, we aren't just talking about my own work. I just happen to have an advantage over many of my fellow music lovers in that I've spent significant time recording acoustic space/time events and so have a standard to judge by. However, I and many others hear have enough understanding of the sound of acousitic instruments and thier interactions with the space they are played in to be able to make judgments about the accuracy of the source material and it's playback. For instance, I have years of experience withe the Meyerson in Dallas, the organ there, the DSO, and the Wind Symphony. Therefore, I can make judgements both about the accuracy of the recording as well as its playback. I am assuming you mean "amplifier" when you say "...the engineer developing a new stereo..." as that phrase is meaningless. While science must be understood and obeyed in recording, recording itself is an art. Let's call it a blended science. The developer is correct if he can respond to his boss that "Because what comes out measures identical to what went in except for signal strength." Otherwise, he is certainly wrong in the scientifc use of "accurate" as a descriptor. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 A stereo. Sorry. My only reference for that is two channels of sound from a slightly different perspect creating an image in the brain of an acoustic space/time event. Your output is pressure waves from six pistons pumping away there in those two boxes. I said I assumed you meant "amplifier" as your use of the word "stereo" to describe equipment makes no sense to me other than people back in the '60's used it to describe the big box they had in the living room to play records on. Amps I am familiar with don't have any pistons at all. Nor are they "stereos." Just amps with one or more channels that may be used for various purposes including creating what is commonly referred to as a "stereo image." I have another "stereo." It's a sort of binocular apparatus from the turn of the century that uses a similar precedure to create a 3D image. Referred to as a "stereoscope." Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSnyder Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 My cat can't make hide nor hair of my HD TV. Just a bunch of colored lights as she isn't conditioned as we are to make sense of it. However, a snarling dog on the loudspeakers will send her up the wall in a heartbeat. my cat loves hdtv and watches dillagintly (sp? in-transe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 A stereo is a foreign concept I understand full well the vernacular use of the term. However, I am a rather technical person in my trade and tend towards "accurate" usage in such discussions as this. A sound system that can reproduce a stereo image...something that does not exists outside the brain...is simply a dual channel device. If you feed one side the White Album and the other side Messiah, you'll see what I mean. If you turn the balance all the way to the right, is it suddenly a "mono?" In fact, yes. 1: reproducer in which two microphones feed two or more loudspeakers to give a three-dimensional effect to the sound [syn: stereo system, stereophonic system] 2: two photographs taken from slightly different angles that appear three-dimensional when viewed together [syn: stereoscopic picture, stereoscopic photograph] Same for the image device. Just two pictures with the same composition slight offset. Simply redundant pictures until the brain creates a "stereo" image. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Can we use Mallette's Cat as a standard for "accuracy?" Our cat ignores bird tweeting on TV and on our bedroom system. We have a CD with bird sounds on it, and when it is played over Klipschorns the cat goes into alert mode and looks around the room for the birds. Now that's caturacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Can we use Mallette's Cat as a standard for "accuracy?" Our cat ignores bird tweeting on TV and on our bedroom system. We have a CD with bird sounds on it, and when it is played over Klipschorns the cat goes into alert mode and looks around the room for the birds. Now that's caturacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Well, in spite of the venerable Deneen's rejection, Mallette's Cat has been a standard for objective testing in my home for a long time. Whilst the mention below of a cat that watches HDTV might cast doubt, it would only be if said cat reacted to the images, say, getting excited at a cat food ad. When "glassless" 3D video gets to the point towhere my cat freaks when a dog jumps toward her with the sound turned down I'll say video has reached the same level as audio. If we assume animals react instinctively rather than evaluating a threat, then Mallette's Cat is valid. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Well, in spite of the venerable Deneen's rejection, Mallette's Cat has been a standard for objective testing in my home for a long time. Whilst the mention below of a cat that watches HDTV might cast doubt, it would only be if said cat reacted to the images, say, getting excited at a cat food ad. Have you tried any videos made for the cat audience? I bought one years ago at a pet show. It was not very long, maybe 15 minutes, and consisted of footage shot in a park from cat eye level, showing birds and squirrels moving around.The cat noticed the bird sounds first, but the screen caught his eye soon after and he would touch the screen, apparently trying to reach the little feathered and furry menu items. After that, I always put a hassock under the TV when I put on the video for him, so he didn't have to stretch and jump up. It seemed realistic enough to make him very curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Fascinating experiment. However, I'd want to have known whether your cat would have shown interest with the sound turned down. You may well have trained a cat to make sense of the colored lights using the sound to focus the cat. But without the control in place it's flawed. I'd like to try that myself sometime when I have the time. Take some close up ground level views of a dog barking and growling and test Mallette's cat with the sound off...then turn it up and see what happens. Thanks for sharing... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniper8 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 This is a most interesting discussion, to say the least. First, so many things define what we "consider musical" as in experience, preference, our genes, as in the accuracy of our ears, and how we have used our ears!!!!!! Secondly, quality of recordings and engineers hands have alot to do with what we hear and how we hear it.Thirdly, true accuracy as a benchmark must be defined as listening to live music in the perfect spot in the perfect place in the perfect room, including so many variables that no such place shall ever exist so as far as live music, what did you really hear? Recording engineers in many instances create unnatural sounds that some consider this as "musicality" others consider this coloration or artificial and these variables go on and on. Musicality for me is what I have learned from my past conditioning as far as what I have been exposed to and what I like and what is pratical! The best speakers I have ever heard were huge infinity speakers that were so massive that you would need a auditorium to listen to them were they colered? Yes! were they Musical yes! were they pratical for most of us no! It is all about what works for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 This is a most interesting discussion, to say the least. Works for me, too. Not enough of it in the Fora, IMHO. "Musical" is not a term I use with speakers. I know that many use it, and if it's meaningful to them and others know what they mean...cool. Good with it. However, when someone describes a speaker as "musical," my first thought is "Duh." I can slap a transducer to the bottom of a tin wash tub and describe the result as "musical." "Accurate" is something that more can agree on, especially if they spend time listening to live acoustic instruments. To me and many, it's very easy to pick out things that are "editorialized" either by engineers or other parts of the chain...and especially the loudspeakers. No matter how "musical" they are, if they aren't accurate, they aren't going to work for me. On your other point about recording engineers, my question to them is: You are recording a Stradivarius in (won't name one...enter your favorite) Hall and just WHAT IS IT YOU THINK YOU CAN DO TO IMPROVE THIS!!!! I approach a recording session realizing there is nothing I can do to improve the situation. Anything I do, no matter how well I place the mikes, use the most direct means possible to the storage medium, or anything else, can do anything but harm. My amazement and pleasure comes from the results not sounding half as bad as I expected... I wish these guys would get that message. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The more I listen to live accoustics instruments, the less accurate any loudspeaker becomes. Mark, once a person gets to where you are with audio you'll never be able to really enjoy. In my case, the more I listen to acoustic performances in less the the place "where my ears want to be" the more I wish I had a recording done from the right spot of the same stuff. You made a living listening to what is WRONG with equipment...and our very best still has a long way to go. But when first class source material engineered by somebody with an attitude of "my job is to deliver this with as little editorializing as the technology allows" is played back on the best we have, the result is magical and transformative. The issues introduced by the playback chain are minimized to where it is really possible to close one's eyes and be there. If that were not the case, this site wouldn't exist and there would be no audiophiles. When I am invited to someone's listening room, I listen first and foremost to the music. It's a rare audiophiles system indeed where I hear some equipment issue so pervasive it overcomes the music. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Don't make too many assumptions about how I listen to records - really. Made no assumptions. Simply commented on your statement. I cannot know what you hear. I know you've said you have never heard accuracy. My assumption is limited to feeling you somehow expect a perfect sonic hologram. Technology isn't there yet and many of us know where it ends and make allowances for it. I still have no comment on what "musical" means when applied to systems. If they aren't "musical" they are useless as I see it. To the extent they are accurate, they are useful. "Musical" is to me like "pretty." My wife wants things to be "pretty." I could care less as long as they work... One likes certain source material, and then must be able to make it sound good on playback! e.g. make it sound musically convincing. Again, I cannot comment on "musically convincing" as I have no idea what that means. If one likes certain source material (again, acoustic only here) that is not "high fidelity"...that is, faithful as technology allows to the original space/time acoustic event...I again have no comment as I cannot understand such a mentality. I have 80+ year old material that is as faithful to the original acoustic space/time event as the technology allows. Some of it I don't even much care for the music. But I revel in the time traveling and the sense of "being there" that only an accurate recording can provide. OTOH, I don't care how great the music or the performance...if the recording sux I don't enjoy it. If that were not the case, I'd get into something else for fun. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Fugly, but my "stacks" are the most musical speakers. Straight axis horns with LARGE throat drivers down to 180 Hz. with MWM bottoms (only one fold). Only need milliwatts for incredible detail, impact, imaging, and depth. Sounds like the musicians are in front of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Sounds like the musicians are in front of me. Even with a really crappy recording? How do the Archies sound on it? [6] Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Sounds like the musicians are in front of me. Even with a really crappy recording? How do the Archies sound on it? Dave LOL. Actually your recordings sound incredible on them, be4st piano recording I have. Otherwise I like most anything involving Steely Dan or Bob James, and of course Jazz from the late 50's, early 60's....Van Gelder and others. Kind of Blue by Miles Davis still blows me away with it's sonic qualities as well as the music. It's all an illusion, anyhow, but a good illusion. The key for me was the bigger horns, less folds, and expecially the amazing Peavey MB-1 running the majority of the music (180-1200 Hz) before handing off the the fabulous JBL 2360's with 2446J drivers. PWK was right the midrange is where we live but we must have horn bass and horn tweeters that can keep up as well. Better than my Khorns (over 30 years with that). I have had everything Klipsch has made from Heritage to Mid Heritage to RS, etc. and I still think the ultimate is the Commercial Theater line the Grand 4T being the pinnacle followed by the Jubilee. Big throats on big horns rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBryan Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 'Most musical' is relevant only to the listener and not a comparable term in my opinion but Mark sparked a thought with his "Turn it DOWN!" comment. I've sat in front of many systems over the years and on several occasions, I've asked the fella demonstrating his system if he could turn it down a bit. Sometimes its because its just TOO LOUD as I have to yell my request but sometimes I only have to raise my voice a little to communicate. Some folks feel 'the louder, the better' and I can appreciate that but in some systems, a less than adequate setup or piece of gear will emphasize distortions or increase stridency which irritates me at higher volumes. With better sounding systems, I have experienced just the opposite where I'm very comfortable with the SPLs and its only when I turn to my friend to comment that I realize how loud the music actually is. I start to say something like "...sounds good!" and only then realize that he can't hear a word I'm saying. I've experienced this phenomenon with forward-sounding and laid back systems, horns and otherwise but it seems that those systems (usually built around efficient speakers) with good soundstage and imaging and lower or more pleasant distortion can be turned up quite a bit without any discomfort. It may be that I've become conditioned as a result of listening to low-wattage systems so long but this phenomenon seems to coincide with the better setups I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Kind of Blue by Miles Davis still blows me away with it's sonic qualities as well as the music. Truly amazing piece of engineering combineed with a one of a kind session yielding muscial magic, that. While they vary, even the CD reissues of KofB just sing of "real." As I remain a willing "transportee" who can cancel my surroundings and the minor shortcomings of my system I love slipping between here and there listening to these very special recordings. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Sometimes its because its just TOO LOUD as I have to yell my request but sometimes I only have to raise my voice a little to communicate. Yeppem, aggressive volume can be nasty. Whilst I love to pin an unspecting newcomer to the world of Klipschorns to the wall for a few seconds of Midnight Oil's "Beds are Burning" I do not leave them stunned on the floor for long. My preference is "realistic levels." Of course, that doesn't apply to Pink Floyd, et al, as one just has to go for what feels good with such work, but for recordings of actual performances it isn't too hard to achieve. We're talking 90's db at max for a full orchestra and that isn't sustained. Pretty much the same for pipe organ, but any such levels for a chamber orchestra is way overkill. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Most of the music I enjoy listening to comes on really mundane or even lousy recording products. Most of the spectacular recording products come with really mundane or even lousy music. Convergence is so rare it almost doesn't matter. No idea what your tastes are. If we are talking barbershop or accordion, I commiserate. Certainly a shortage of well engineered recordings of these fine genre. In my case, I purchase most of my "new" recordings from Gothic, Linn, Harbor House and similar. The worst of these is exceptional (by comparison to the mass of recorded music) and the best of them are truly extraordinary. Also, without specifices of what you mean by "spectacular recording products" it's hard to comment. I know the last couple of release of George Mimm's I reviewed in these pages certainly fit that in the modern sense. Virgil Fox's Crystal Clear releases meet that criteria from olden days, and there is much in between that is hardly "mudance or lousy music." Perhaps one man's feast is another man's famine... In my case, my cup runneth over. So many fine recordings, so little time. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.