How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 155 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6389Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #4621 of 5320 Old 09-01-2019, 05:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Consider attending a concert - what equipment could they use that would play a perfect impulse response? There is none. You will never hear it because even the "real thing" is using speakers that adhere to the same physics as in our homes.

An ideal impulse would probably sound unnatural if we were to achieve it, as it wouldn't be what the recording engineers had in mind.
How 'bout a real thing that's the 'real thing' as in no speakers.
dowop likes this.
Scotth3886 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4622 of 5320 Old 09-01-2019, 05:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
Problem is, I don't think there is a typical FR of a lower quality speaker.
Agreed. In that case if producers include some information about the target sound profile for which they have produced their music, amplifiers could decode that information and produce the sound similar to what was intended. While not perfect, it may be a step in the right direction.

Has there been any effort to encode that info in music?

Last edited by SouthernCA; 09-01-2019 at 05:57 PM.
SouthernCA is offline  
post #4623 of 5320 Old 09-01-2019, 07:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,289
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1354 Post(s)
Liked: 1286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
How 'bout a real thing that's the 'real thing' as in no speakers.
You tell 'em!
Scotth3886 likes this.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4624 of 5320 Old 09-01-2019, 07:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,893
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
How 'bout a real thing that's the 'real thing' as in no speakers.
I can't say I've attended a concert that didn't use speakers of some kind. I'm not even sure how a rock band would exist without them.
motrek, Squirrel! and Lp85253 like this.
Soulburner is online now  
post #4625 of 5320 Old 09-01-2019, 07:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I can't say I've attended a concert that didn't use speakers of some kind. I'm not even sure how a rock band would exist without them.
https://www.google.com/search?q=la+p...L0FKfKRNCeKIM:
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4626 of 5320 Old 09-01-2019, 08:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,893
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Okay, clearly "it depends". I would love to attend a show like that, someday.

However, most of what we're talking about in this thread, at least in terms of music recording and engineering, deals with various speakers as a target and making sure your music translates properly to as many speakers as possible.

On the topic, because frequency/amplitude response is related to impulse, I would think trying to achieve a "perfect" impulse might change the sound in unnatural ways if record engineers don't design with that in mind. Someone with direct experience here could chime in.
Soulburner is online now  
post #4627 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 06:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 9,609
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2100 Post(s)
Liked: 1637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I can't say I've attended a concert that didn't use speakers of some kind. I'm not even sure how a rock band would exist without them.
That's interesting. In any case this isn't a thread about a specific musical genre.

I might type 2K for 1080p.
UDP-203/ATV4K(6,2)/X3500/LG C8
bodosom is online now  
post #4628 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 06:36 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,341
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3275 Post(s)
Liked: 3362
Small jazz or other acoustic groups, choral groups, handbells, orchestral performances, piano/organ recitals... I believe this thread is about meeting the challenge of reproducing music of any genre.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #4629 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 06:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 9,609
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2100 Post(s)
Liked: 1637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
However, most of what we're talking about in this thread, at least in terms of music recording and engineering, deals with various speakers as a target and making sure your music translates properly to as many speakers as possible.
I don't believe that's correct. Per the subject this thread isn't about making recordings it's about assessing a speaker's ability to sound "good" in the context of the CTA/ANSI standard and the relevant research.

I might type 2K for 1080p.
UDP-203/ATV4K(6,2)/X3500/LG C8
bodosom is online now  
post #4630 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 06:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,893
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1630
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodosom View Post
I don't believe that's correct. Per the subject this thread isn't about making recordings it's about assessing a speaker's ability to sound "good" in the context of the CTA/ANSI standard and the relevant research.
What I stated has been a major topic in this thread. Read Floyd's comments on the circle of confusion.
Soulburner is online now  
post #4631 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 08:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Consider attending a concert - what equipment could they use that would play a perfect impulse response? There is none. You will never hear it because even the "real thing" is using speakers that adhere to the same physics as in our homes.

An ideal impulse would probably sound unnatural if we were to achieve it, as it wouldn't be what the recording engineers had in mind.
Powered speakers that use DSP crossovers can very easily be configured to time-align the signals to their drivers and thus produce nearly perfect impulse responses, e.g.:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...m-measurements

The review is very positive, but presumably not because of the time-aligned drivers.
motrek is offline  
post #4632 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 08:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernCA View Post
Agreed. In that case if producers include some information about the target sound profile for which they have produced their music, amplifiers could decode that information and produce the sound similar to what was intended. While not perfect, it may be a step in the right direction.

Has there been any effort to encode that info in music?
I doubt anybody knowingly engineers music for non-neutral speakers. Studio monitors are always advertised to be flat and neutral. Of course they might not achieve that goal but studio engineers are presumably going to think that they're using pretty neutral equipment, so if you ask them to encode the FR response that they're mixing with, I assume they'd always just say it's neutral.
motrek is offline  
post #4633 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 08:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 9,609
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2100 Post(s)
Liked: 1637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
What I stated has been a major topic in this thread. Read Floyd's comments on the circle of confusion.
I believe I understand your point. However I believe the crucial bit that you wrote was "making sure your music translates properly to as many speakers as possible" which I don't believe is the point of the thread. The Orbit of Order will come closer when the monitors used to create recordings are "Good" (e.g. Genelec with a "good" curve) versus "Not good". Then if the playback speakers are "Good" we have maximum fidelity. I think the goal is optimizing "Good" to "Good" not "Good" to "Not Good" (see figure 18.8) and the point of this thread is finding "Good" speakers (other than Revel).

I might type 2K for 1080p.
UDP-203/ATV4K(6,2)/X3500/LG C8

Last edited by bodosom; 09-02-2019 at 10:23 AM.
bodosom is online now  
post #4634 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 09:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodosom View Post
I believe I understand your point. However I believe the crucial bit that you wrote was "making sure your music translates properly to as many speakers as possible" which I don't believe is the point of the thread. The Orbit of Order will come closer when the monitors used to create recordings are "Good" (e.g. Genelec) versus "Not good". Then if the playback speakers are "Good" we have maximum fidelity. I think the goal is optimizing "Good" to "Good" not "Good" to "Not Good" (see figure 18.8) and the point of this thread is finding "Good" speakers (other than Revel).
I'm not a sound engineer but I've read many times that sound engineers will try to optimize whatever they're working on for a wide range of speakers/environments.

I'm not sure if that's true or not though.

It strikes me as probably kinda dumb though. It doesn't seem possible that you could make a recording sound as-intended on one non-ideal speaker and have it still sound as-intended on good speakers or different non-ideal speakers. Especially since many sound systems are non-ideal in different and often opposite ways. For example, many people listen to music on TVs and laptops and computer speakers that can hardly produce any midbass. And then many other people will listen to the same music on portable Bluetooth speakers and headphones with the midbass boosted by 10+ dB. How could you possibly engineer something to sound similar on both.

Probably best to just engineer something to sound good on good speakers, and make it the consumer's responsibility to buy stuff that sounds good.

(Tangentially related: some TV shows seem to be engineered with huge midbass bumps, presumably to make them sound more impressive on standard TV speakers. But they sound ridiculous when listening with a good sound system. I thinking of the TV show "Elementary" in particular...)
motrek is offline  
post #4635 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 09:51 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Horse View Post
I assume you are familiar with concepts of phase locking and volley theory? It seems that our very ability to hear and resolve frequencies relies on ability to detect phase, at least at some frequencies. How does these abilities (that also help us calculate ITD and aid in localization) play into our ability (or lack thereof) to detect phase difference in music?
Sorry for the slow response - I took a couple of days away from forums.

Whatever the biological mechanisms involved in our inner ear/auditory cortex operations, in the end there are two separable operations: monaural and binaural. Monaural perception has to do with sound quality, and binaural with directional and spatial qualities. For spatial perception it has long been known that humans can distinguish tiny differences in interaural (between the ears) timing - down to the microsecond level in carefully constructed tests. It does not matter what the time/phase integrity of the sounds at the ears are, only the differences are attended to.

As for "monaural" effects, there have been several careful tests over the years, explained in Section 4.8.1 in the 3rd edition, showing that even in anechoic or headphone listening to specially constructed sounds, humans are essentially phase deaf. Why? Because if we were sensitive to phase shift in sounds we would go crazy - virtually everything we hear is randomly corrupted by phase shifts because of reflected sounds. Think about just carrying on a conversation across a table - the voice waveform is corrupted by the strong table reflection, but it is not a perceptual problem.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #4636 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 10:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Squirrel!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 820 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I'm not even sure how a rock band would exist without them.
Called "Accoustical" versions.

Main: Mitsubishi 73736|OTA|fireTV|Sony BDP-S1100|Denon AVR4311CI|MartinLogan Preface|Phantom|MartinLogan Encore TF|1-1000watt & 1-500watt DIY 12" Subs|2 Bass Shaker|APC H15 Power Conditioner|Harmony Hub|Sennheiser RS 160|SMSL B1 BT Rx|Linksys SE2500
MBR: Vizio VF550M|OTA|fireTV3|Sony BDP-S1100|Denon AVR-X1000|Chane A1rx-c|Dayton SAT-BK|MartinLogan Dynamo 300|Belkin PF30|Harmony 550
Squirrel! is offline  
post #4637 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 10:03 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Okay, clearly "it depends". I would love to attend a show like that, someday.

However, most of what we're talking about in this thread, at least in terms of music recording and engineering, deals with various speakers as a target and making sure your music translates properly to as many speakers as possible.

On the topic, because frequency/amplitude response is related to impulse, I would think trying to achieve a "perfect" impulse might change the sound in unnatural ways if record engineers don't design with that in mind. Someone with direct experience here could chime in.
Technically the impulse response of a loudspeaker can be Fourier transformed into the amplitude and phase responses vs. frequency. They are interchangeable information. Perceptually, though, it is the amplitude response that is the prime determinant of how a loudspeaker sounds. Humans are substantially unresponsive to phase shift - this means that we do not hear waveforms. This fact has not prevented people from promoting impulse or step response as being somehow meaningful beyond showing evidence of resonances. Resonances definitely are audible, but the metric of how audible is in the amplitude response, not the time domain response. Just because we can measure it does not mean that it matters.

See section 4.8.1 in the 3rd edition of my book.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #4638 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,893
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel! View Post
Called "Accoustical" versions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xKM3mGt2pE
I see microphones and speakers.
filecat13, motrek and drh3b like this.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is online now  
post #4639 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 12:35 PM
Member
 
SDX-LV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchco View Post
In my limited testing of loudspeakers, I find there is quite a bit of variability between manufacturer specifications versus how the speaker really sounds/measures.

Don't know if this has been posted before, but the ANSI/CEA-2034-A Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers is available as a free download at:
https://www.cta.tech/Research-Standa...px?search=2034

One needs to create an account, but if you are interested, it is worth the time to register and download the document as it is quite an interesting read. It also provides the basis for estimated in-room response calculation. I.e. providing a usefully accurate preview of how a given loudspeaker might perform in a typical domestic listening room. While the predicted curve is quite accurate, it cannot estimate the effects of room modes below transition/Schroeder. But we know how to take care of that

Note that Revision B is in final draft and will also be available for free download towards the end of the year: https://standards.cta.tech/apps/grou...project_id=540

Enjoy!
This is amazing info! Thank you very much! Not only they give away CEA 2034, but also ANSI 2010 and a bunch of other standards that are extremely good reference for lots of audio things! It felt like stealing compared to all the prices I am used to seeing on standards

Last edited by SDX-LV; 09-03-2019 at 10:49 AM. Reason: fixed mess-up with quoting
SDX-LV is offline  
post #4640 of 5320 Old 09-02-2019, 02:15 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This thread is gold. My sincerest thanks to all of the scientists who have improved the state of the art.
I am 57 and can really appreciate how much speakers have improved over my life.

I was at a venue and was under a hanging line array...the engineer was playing music through it at
a low background level before the show. I was struck by the sound...it was amazing and so much better
than sound stage stuff in the 70's. I made it a point to note the brand of the array. JBL.
cistercian is offline  
post #4641 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 03:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
That was during the Bush economic crash, right?
I noticed ridiculous sales on Infinity Primus speakers when I first started researching speakers back in ~2014. That's right when the new Reference line was coming out so maybe Harman was trying to get rid of the last of the Primus stock at that time. But since then, I've read that the Primus line was often massively discounted before 2014 too. I don't know if the discounts stretched back to ~2008 though.
motrek is offline  
post #4642 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 05:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
I noticed ridiculous sales on Infinity Primus speakers when I first started researching speakers back in ~2014. That's right when the new Reference line was coming out so maybe Harman was trying to get rid of the last of the Primus stock at that time. But since then, I've read that the Primus line was often massively discounted before 2014 too. I don't know if the discounts stretched back to ~2008 though.
I see that with many speakers such as on the AVS home page https://www.avsforum.com/forget-amaz...io-590-towers/.

Had I known about the Primus at the time I probably would have bought those too.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 09-03-2019 at 06:27 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4643 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 06:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,336
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1439 Post(s)
Liked: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Technically the impulse response of a loudspeaker can be Fourier transformed into the amplitude and phase responses vs. frequency. They are interchangeable information. Perceptually, though, it is the amplitude response that is the prime determinant of how a loudspeaker sounds. Humans are substantially unresponsive to phase shift - this means that we do not hear waveforms. This fact has not prevented people from promoting impulse or step response as being somehow meaningful beyond showing evidence of resonances. Resonances definitely are audible, but the metric of how audible is in the amplitude response, not the time domain response. Just because we can measure it does not mean that it matters.

See section 4.8.1 in the 3rd edition of my book.
Does this hold true for the lowest frequencies? For example, I usually notice more articulate bass with sealed subs, compared to ported subs. I have assumed that I am hearing the difference with times smearing/ringing, but they also have differences in amplitude response.

Thanks!
rcohen is offline  
post #4644 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 08:08 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Central, PA
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
I'm not a sound engineer but I've read many times that sound engineers will try to optimize whatever they're working on for a wide range of speakers/environments.

I'm not sure if that's true or not though.

It strikes me as probably kinda dumb though. It doesn't seem possible that you could make a recording sound as-intended on one non-ideal speaker and have it still sound as-intended on good speakers or different non-ideal speakers. Especially since many sound systems are non-ideal in different and often opposite ways.

Theoretically, studio monitors are supposed to be accurate / neutral and set up correctly. How often that actually happens (particularly in pop/rock music) is anybody's guess. The primary goal of any good studio monitor is to provide a result that translates well to a wide variety of playback systems, of varying quality and sophistication. As everyone paying attention to this thread can understand, this is no small task. See "circle of confusion".


Depending on the genre of music being produced, "as intended" has many different definitions (for lack of a better word). Most classical and traditional jazz recordings (and other acoustic genres) are generally engineered to be "natural" sounding. That is, an accurate representation of what's taking place in the performance space. That said, some newer recordings of "traditional" acoustic jazz take more creative liberties (i. e. closer micing and panning elements of a drum kit across the stereo field) than in the 50's / 60's, but the sonics of the instruments remain basically natural. Check out The Brubeck Brothers Quartet / Lifetimes for an example of (in my opinion) an excellent newer (2012) jazz recording that uses more modern recording techniques. Compare that to an old Miles Davis or Coltrane recording for reference.


There are interesting things going on in Modern or avante garde classical recordings as well. Check out Alarm Will Sound / Acoustica. Released in 2005, the album recreates the electronica of Aphex Twin with an all acoustic ensemble. This modern music ensemble was in residence at Dickinson College here in my home town while I was still working at the college. They recorded most of the material at one of the college auditoriums and I had the pleasure of serving as the liaison between the college and the group during the process.


Heavyweight classical engineer Charles Harbutt did the recording and the set up was a combination of classical recording techniques (Decca tree with outrigger mics) and modern techniques (close micing - lots of overdubs, edits, etc). It was easily one of the most complex recording set ups I've seen. Interestingly, he cut everything at 16bit /44.1kHz. I asked him why he wasn't using higher res or DSD to cut, and he said that he preferred to cut at the same bit depth / sample rate that the finished CD would end up to avoid sample rate conversions.


Sorry about that little off topic tangent. I guess my point is that "as intended" is mostly someone's creative decision making at it's core, and thus hard to actually define. See "circle of confusion".

Even if every recording was made on speaker X, then played back on speaker X in the consumers home, you still wouldn't know if it's being reproduced exactly "as intended" because the room will have changed. It would almost certainly be closer but... See "circle of confusion".

The "loudness wars", genres of modern music that have exponentially more low frequency content and electronically generated music with no acoustic instruments or actual acoustic spaces have also made it damn near impossible to know what "as intended" actually is. See "circle of confusion".

Recording engineers /producers will almost certainly take their mixes to other systems (large, small, in cars, headphones, earbuds, mono, etc..) during production to see how well things are translating. There is a practical limit to how many other systems they can listen on, so at some point, someone has to determine that the mix is working well enough across a variety of systems to
call it done. Additional mixing / mastering can and often is employed for broadcast, iTunes, streaming, etc. See "circle of confusion".

Humans are involved in every aspect of production and playback. See "circle of confusion".
Scotth3886, Floyd Toole and overg like this.

Last edited by garygreyh; 09-03-2019 at 08:12 AM.
garygreyh is online now  
post #4645 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 09:01 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3081
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygreyh View Post
Theoretically, studio monitors are supposed to be accurate / neutral and set up correctly. How often that actually happens (particularly in pop/rock music) is anybody's guess. The primary goal of any good studio monitor is to provide a result that translates well to a wide variety of playback systems, of varying quality and sophistication. As everyone paying attention to this thread can understand, this is no small task. See "circle of confusion".


Depending on the genre of music being produced, "as intended" has many different definitions (for lack of a better word). Most classical and traditional jazz recordings (and other acoustic genres) are generally engineered to be "natural" sounding. That is, an accurate representation of what's taking place in the performance space. That said, some newer recordings of "traditional" acoustic jazz take more creative liberties (i. e. closer micing and panning elements of a drum kit across the stereo field) than in the 50's / 60's, but the sonics of the instruments remain basically natural. Check out The Brubeck Brothers Quartet / Lifetimes for an example of (in my opinion) an excellent newer (2012) jazz recording that uses more modern recording techniques. Compare that to an old Miles Davis or Coltrane recording for reference.


There are interesting things going on in Modern or avante garde classical recordings as well. Check out Alarm Will Sound / Acoustica. Released in 2005, the album recreates the electronica of Aphex Twin with an all acoustic ensemble. This modern music ensemble was in residence at Dickinson College here in my home town while I was still working at the college. They recorded most of the material at one of the college auditoriums and I had the pleasure of serving as the liaison between the college and the group during the process.


Heavyweight classical engineer Charles Harbutt did the recording and the set up was a combination of classical recording techniques (Decca tree with outrigger mics) and modern techniques (close micing - lots of overdubs, edits, etc). It was easily one of the most complex recording set ups I've seen. Interestingly, he cut everything at 16bit /44.1kHz. I asked him why he wasn't using higher res or DSD to cut, and he said that he preferred to cut at the same bit depth / sample rate that the finished CD would end up to avoid sample rate conversions.


Sorry about that little off topic tangent. I guess my point is that "as intended" is mostly someone's creative decision making at it's core, and thus hard to actually define. See "circle of confusion".

Even if every recording was made on speaker X, then played back on speaker X in the consumers home, you still wouldn't know if it's being reproduced exactly "as intended" because the room will have changed. It would almost certainly be closer but... See "circle of confusion".

The "loudness wars", genres of modern music that have exponentially more low frequency content and electronically generated music with no acoustic instruments or actual acoustic spaces have also made it damn near impossible to know what "as intended" actually is. See "circle of confusion".

Recording engineers /producers will almost certainly take their mixes to other systems (large, small, in cars, headphones, earbuds, mono, etc..) during production to see how well things are translating. There is a practical limit to how many other systems they can listen on, so at some point, someone has to determine that the mix is working well enough across a variety of systems to
call it done. Additional mixing / mastering can and often is employed for broadcast, iTunes, streaming, etc. See "circle of confusion".

Humans are involved in every aspect of production and playback. See "circle of confusion".
AND, when one does comparisons of multiple different loudspeakers as I/we have done for decades, one is in reality testing the ability of the program to "translate". All I can say, is that the "translations" are not "literal" because they are often audibly different performances. Of course the essence of the music - tune, lyrics, etc - is communicated and history has shown that we have been able to derive pleasure in spite of poor "translations". I think the entire concept of "translation" - and it exists in movies as well - is largely the recognition that sound quality is far from standardized, although it certainly is getting better. See "circle of confusion". .
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #4646 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 09:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Oddly in video no production or editing would ever take place on anything less than fully calibrated equipment. Not so much on a 32" 720p 99$ out-of-the-box screen bought from *random store*. Yet in audio a small square with a 5" paper full-range is regularly used to "check on translation". It's a stupid practice that has been in place for far too long. Same goes for placing otherwise excellent speaker sideways on consoles (no they don't feature white cones or tissued tweeters)
motrek and garygreyh like this.
TimVG is online now  
post #4647 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 10:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygreyh View Post
Theoretically, studio monitors are supposed to be accurate / neutral and set up correctly. How often that actually happens (particularly in pop/rock music) is anybody's guess. The primary goal of any good studio monitor is to provide a result that translates well to a wide variety of playback systems, of varying quality and sophistication. As everyone paying attention to this thread can understand, this is no small task. See "circle of confusion".


Depending on the genre of music being produced, "as intended" has many different definitions (for lack of a better word). Most classical and traditional jazz recordings (and other acoustic genres) are generally engineered to be "natural" sounding. That is, an accurate representation of what's taking place in the performance space. That said, some newer recordings of "traditional" acoustic jazz take more creative liberties (i. e. closer micing and panning elements of a drum kit across the stereo field) than in the 50's / 60's, but the sonics of the instruments remain basically natural. Check out The Brubeck Brothers Quartet / Lifetimes for an example of (in my opinion) an excellent newer (2012) jazz recording that uses more modern recording techniques. Compare that to an old Miles Davis or Coltrane recording for reference.


There are interesting things going on in Modern or avante garde classical recordings as well. Check out Alarm Will Sound / Acoustica. Released in 2005, the album recreates the electronica of Aphex Twin with an all acoustic ensemble. This modern music ensemble was in residence at Dickinson College here in my home town while I was still working at the college. They recorded most of the material at one of the college auditoriums and I had the pleasure of serving as the liaison between the college and the group during the process.


Heavyweight classical engineer Charles Harbutt did the recording and the set up was a combination of classical recording techniques (Decca tree with outrigger mics) and modern techniques (close micing - lots of overdubs, edits, etc). It was easily one of the most complex recording set ups I've seen. Interestingly, he cut everything at 16bit /44.1kHz. I asked him why he wasn't using higher res or DSD to cut, and he said that he preferred to cut at the same bit depth / sample rate that the finished CD would end up to avoid sample rate conversions.


Sorry about that little off topic tangent. I guess my point is that "as intended" is mostly someone's creative decision making at it's core, and thus hard to actually define. See "circle of confusion".

Even if every recording was made on speaker X, then played back on speaker X in the consumers home, you still wouldn't know if it's being reproduced exactly "as intended" because the room will have changed. It would almost certainly be closer but... See "circle of confusion".

The "loudness wars", genres of modern music that have exponentially more low frequency content and electronically generated music with no acoustic instruments or actual acoustic spaces have also made it damn near impossible to know what "as intended" actually is. See "circle of confusion".

Recording engineers /producers will almost certainly take their mixes to other systems (large, small, in cars, headphones, earbuds, mono, etc..) during production to see how well things are translating. There is a practical limit to how many other systems they can listen on, so at some point, someone has to determine that the mix is working well enough across a variety of systems to
call it done. Additional mixing / mastering can and often is employed for broadcast, iTunes, streaming, etc. See "circle of confusion".

Humans are involved in every aspect of production and playback. See "circle of confusion".
"some newer recordings of "traditional" acoustic jazz take more creative liberties (i. e. closer micing and panning elements of a drum kit across the stereo field)"

ECM's Manfred Eicher does this and it sort of ruins the spatial relationship and scale between 'objects' in the sound field. He only does this with the percussion. He's done this for two or three decades and sort of ruins an otherwise superb recording.

Don't get me wrong, ECM is still one of my favorite labels, but it can it be distracting to listen thinking everything else is to scale, but damn man does that drummer have long arms.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 09-03-2019 at 10:54 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4648 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 10:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygreyh View Post
...
Depending on the genre of music being produced, "as intended" has many different definitions (for lack of a better word). ...
It seems like "as intended" can only mean what the sound engineer intended, no?

Since nobody else can intend for the recording to sound a particular way... well, I suppose the artist... but that's getting off into the weeds.

So if the sound engineer hears something on his equipment and says "yup, sounds great, I'm done" then what he's hearing is what he intended for the recording to sound like.
motrek is offline  
post #4649 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 11:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Central, PA
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Same goes for placing otherwise excellent speaker sideways on consoles (no they don't feature white cones or tissued tweeters)

Right, because those speakers with the white cones and tissued tweeters and the word "excellent" shouldn't ever be in the same sentence.
TimVG likes this.

Last edited by garygreyh; 09-03-2019 at 11:46 AM.
garygreyh is online now  
post #4650 of 5320 Old 09-03-2019, 11:25 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Central, PA
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"some newer recordings of "traditional" acoustic jazz take more creative liberties (i. e. closer micing and panning elements of a drum kit across the stereo field)"

ECM's Manfred Eicher does this and it sort of ruins the spatial relationship and scale between 'objects' in the sound field. He only does this with the percussion. He's done this for two or three decades and sort of ruins an otherwise superb recording.

Don't get me wrong, ECM is still one of my favorite labels, but it can it be distracting to listen thinking everything else is to scale, but damn man does that drummer have long arms.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but that type of production decision doesn't ruin the recording for me. Perhaps partially because I'm a drummer, but mostly because I don't necessarily have expectations of what the recording values should be, only how well the existing recording values are executed. This is a perfect example of how subjective ideas form opinions of what's good and what's not. I can't say that either is right or wrong, better or worse, just different.


Seems like no matter how deep we dig into the science of sound reproduction, we're never very far away from the "circle of personal preference". To me, that's not a bad thing in any way, shape or form. Just how it is.
Scotth3886 likes this.
garygreyh is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
cea 2034 , double-blind , listening tests , loudspeaker measurements , spinorama

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off