| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» A single worst thing in today’s acoustic systems. (29 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (29 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"...  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  19560  09-04-2005
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 26
Post ID: 12322
Reply to: 12276
Independence of position
fiogf49gjkf0d
What they all can´t do:
Give an instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and "substance", no matter where in the stereo panorama it/he/she is located. I do not even speak about total realism of these aspects, just about their independence from position.
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 12325
Reply to: 12322
I would not exactly agree.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 el`Ol wrote:
What they all can´t do: Give an instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and "substance", no matter where in the stereo panorama it/he/she is located. I do not even speak about total realism of these aspects, just about their independence from position.
The giving to an “instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and substance” is a noble task itself but it is not the animate goal of sound reproduction. We value the “size, focus and substance” juts because we feel that it is easily quantifiable categories and we believe that by mimicking it in the same way how it was during live musical event it would be some kind an assurance that we reproduce music “properly”. It is false assumption, or put in this way it is not necessary correct assumption. The “size, focus and substance” are external evidence of sound. Yes, most of acoustic systems can´t do but to peruse ONLY for “size, focus and substance” give only externals or superficial satisfaction from sound. My claim would be following: if an acoustic system properly handles the “thin” moments of Sound then the way how it does the “size, focus and substance” become less relevant or even irrelevant. Think about a pencil sketch. A talented artist would be able with a dozen of lines to draw a portrait that would be more characteristic then a full blown oil painting. The very same is with a playback. A good acoustic system shall not impersonate attributes of live sound but rather shall capture the essence of musical metaphors ™. If in addition of this very primary but completely neglected by Audio Morons duty a playback is able to take care about all of those “size, focus and substance” moments then it is not a good playback but a phenomenally good playback…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
noviygera


Chicago, IL
Posts 177
Joined on 06-12-2009

Post #: 28
Post ID: 12327
Reply to: 12276
I don't know why everyone has a "wrong" opinion on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.
fiogf49gjkf0d
The answer is dynamic balance.  It's objectively easy to prove too. Let's say you are in a room behind a closed door. In the other room is a musician playing an instrument. Even an easier example -- a person talking in the other room. You know that it's for real.

It's not because the imaging is good. Not because the soundstage is good. Not be cause the bass response or HF is good. All that make no difference to the real thing.  AND to music reproduction. Imaging, soundstage, HF, midbass, midrange, bass, clearness -- neither is the SINGLE and THE MOST APPALLING quality of today’s high-end audio loudspeakers. Because they have no relationship with reality.
Now let's see what HAS the relationship to reality.

Let's see: behind a closed door, a live instrument, a live sound, a live voice. Let's not SEE, let's HEAR Smile
We hear definition, attack and decay, we hear timbre, and most importantly we hear a CONTINUOUS EVENNESS in definition, attack and decay, and timbre over the entire freq. range of the sound. Of the voice, of the instrument and music.
That's what makes it real. An EVEN definition from top to bottom. But to state it bluntly I called it dynamic balance. Today’s high-end audio loudspeakers, yesterdays loudspeakers have had this inferiority to REAL sound. The "sharpness", the attack and decay, the "dynamics" are varying with respect to frequency. "Mids are smooth, highs are transparent" what a bunch of BS. It's the evenness of each attack and decay with respect to the attack and decay of every other frequency that the speaker system can reproduce. Another way to put it "transient response" cannot vary with respect to frequency.

That's how you know the voice or instrument behind the door is real.

Herman.
11-19-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 12328
Reply to: 12327
The playback generally or acoustic systems?
fiogf49gjkf0d


Herman, good post, but I think you are knocking into a wrong door. Let take it step by step.

 noviygera wrote:
The answer is dynamic balance.  It's objectively easy to prove too. Let's say you are in a room behind a closed door. In the other room is a musician playing an instrument. Even an easier example -- a person talking in the other room. You know that it's for real.

This is a classic “the second floor piano example”: you walk down a street and hear a piano playing on the second floor with a window opened. You do recognize immediately that the piano is real or a recording.  The question is how do you know? You suggest that it is by dynamic balance. I am not sure.

 noviygera wrote:
Let's see: behind a closed door, a live instrument, a live sound, a live voice. Let's not SEE, let's HEAR We hear definition, attack and decay, we hear timbre, and most importantly we hear a CONTINUOUS EVENNESS in definition, attack and decay, and timbre over the entire freq. range of the sound. Of the voice, of the instrument and music.  That's what makes it real. An EVEN definition from top to bottom. But to state it bluntly I called it dynamic balance.

Here is where I am not sure that I agree. I would agree that “definition, attack and decay, and timbre” is in live music and in the recordings is different over the entire frequency range but I am not sure that if shall be CONTINUOUS EVENNESS and identical for all frequencies and for all dynamic ranges. I have written about it many times including the AMI article

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=12186

I do feel that there is a pattern how harmonics need to be changed with respect to frequency range and volume but I would more attribute to amplification not to the acoustic systems. BTW, the AMI conception is trying to deal with it inclusively….

 noviygera wrote:
Today’s high-end audio loudspeakers, yesterdays loudspeakers have had this inferiority to REAL sound. The "sharpness", the attack and decay, the "dynamics" are varying with respect to frequency. "Mids are smooth, highs are transparent" what a bunch of BS. It's the evenness of each attack and decay with respect to the attack and decay of every other frequency that the speaker system can reproduce. Another way to put it "transient response" cannot vary with respect to frequency.

Herman, how methodologically, subjectively of objectively, you recognize that it is necessary the evenness? I think it would be a good idea to know HOW it shall be. Live sound is not a constant and it’s “definition, attack and decay, and timbre” wary upon many different conditions, so I am not sure that it need to be CONTINUOUS EVENNESS, I think there is more to it than just the “continuous evenness”.

Anyhow, what you describe is probably a single worst thing in playback generally but it is not specifically relates to acoustic systems.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 2 (29 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"...  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  19560  09-04-2005
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts