Dear Halcro: That Jico SAS for the P77 could be something that you need to try and decide about. Is there a lot of difference with the original P77's stylus?, well I have to wait because again my system goes down but what my brief listening gives me was a welcomed add option to the Garrot/A&R 77.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
LOL - Plus ca change ....
I have to say that I am guilty to subscribing to the school of thought that states that if the measurement does not properly relate to the empirical experience, then you are not measuring the right thing.
The field of psycho acoustics is still one where new research is being done, and understanding is limited.
Given that our measured / quantitative knowledge of hearing is incomplete (at best)... it is difficult to attempt to take our subjective and variable language and try to find some universal measuring sticks with which to gauge our vague language so we can all know what we are talking about.
After all isn't that exactly what international standards are all about - an agreed way of defining a metre or a gram.
The subjectivist side of this debate puts forward that there can be no measuring stick for beauty. (although modelling agency requirements for their staff appear to imply otherwise)
My response to this is that the beauty is in the artform we are endeavouring to reproduce.... it is in the performance that was recorded, and NOT in the reproduction of that recording.
If a bad (ugly) recording is reproduced such that the end result in your listening room is in fact beautiful - an Alchemical transformation - then you have created something new.
(All such Alchemists should be burned at the spindle on a fire of overheated thermionics)
But I am repeating much of what is in the Stereophile article linked above....
I am no auronihilist... but the Stereophile glossary is usefull!
bye for now
David |
It appears, using the Stereophile's Audio Glossary (thank you Ecir38), and David's definitions, that Lew's usage of the word musical was correct in his discription of what his friend heard. |
Dear Henry, You are not addresed by me, uh, as Henry but
as architect. As such you need to combine the technical
with the aesthetical. The paradigma of objective/subjective
connection. No wonder that your vocabulary for both must
or should be extensive. You need to communicate with 'both
parties' and this imply switching the vocabulary. The art(s) are not about the truth/false aim which is the quidance for the science but about the other values which we connect with arts. At school I had no choice but to read writers
which my teachers Serbo-Croatian, Russian and German PRESCRIBED. Ie my literary education determined my literature, so to speak. But, for example, the art of painting was not teached and I was not interested in this art 'on my own'. However I live in a country with great painting tradition 'filled' with ditto museums or galleries which are visited by kids from 6 years old,etc.
The problem seems to be this. Those who admire whatever art see this as something positive but also want to make of this something objective even with 'truth pretentions'. At this point they come in conflict with the 'real objectivist'. I already had such a conflict but I hope that David will somehow menage to avoid them. But this is of course his own choice.
Regards, |
A question about Technics EPC-100C mk2: This cartridge is photographed as fully contained inside an integral headshell. Can the cartridge be removed from the headshell and mounted to a one-piece tonearm via 1/2" holes? |
Dear Raul, Perhaps I came down to hard on you, but that's because I know you can take criticism as well as deliver it. Anyway, as regards tubes vs transistors, we can agree to disagree. I surely do concede that solid state in the modern era has come a long way in a positive direction from what it was. (Note that this has happened despite the fact that the "measurements" have not changed much over the years; the old SS amplifiers that measured .000001% THD sounded like s**t. If anything, the newest SS products measure less well yet sound much better. Why? Because the typical lab measurements do not mean squadoosh when it comes to reproducing a musical wave form.)
The point is and was, the Grace Ruby cartridge (the one I own, anyway) is very musical, in the best sense of the word. It offers remarkable sound stage depth and 3-dimensionality. It separates complex musical lines very naturally. If it has any "weakness", I would only cite the extreme low bass response, which may be a little "shy" but not lacking in detail. My MM phono stage (the Silvaweld) may be partly responsible for that shyness. The Ruby is so good that I am interested to revisit my other cartridges and also the ones I have not auditioned, so as to determine whether anything else is much better. This leads me to be interested in trying some of the highest regarded of the LOMC types, some of which I already listed. |
Lewm my friend.... there is no 3d in real live music and this is not subjective!!... like I have said in my earlier posting about these issues we should be talking about how our playback systems relate to the live event and speak that way...
example.. you will never hear a conductor talk about how 3d his orchestra sounded ...conductors speak on things like timing, color, togetherness etc..again there is no holographic imaging!! I would love for all audiophile terms to go away and speak about how live music relates to our playback systems....why is that so hard?!
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Dear Dgarretson: I have not that experience but normaly is hard to take out a cartridge in that condition and when goes out ( if this coukld happen. ) there is no way to mount it in an universal headshell: that cartridge was not prepared for that kind of set up/mount. In the other side always exist the posibilioty that trying to do it the cartridge could be damaged.
Now, I know that " something " is better that nothing but here differences on quality performance level are important beteen the MK2 and MK version, I mean not subtle. Of course that if you already own it you have to live with but if not then try to wait for a better carrtridge " offer ".
yes, I know too that the P100CMK4 ( stand alone version. ) is very hard to find out .
Btw, I was so stupid to let it go my MK4 version but fortunately I recove it. IMHO, any carrtridge looking for be name it the best out there must pass over the Technics P100CMK4 before can achieve that " name ". The MK4 is an extraordinary performer in its stand alone/non-integrated version.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
There is most certainly holography-- depending on the recording, of course. This requires a system capable of revealing small variations in volume as depth cues. It's a function of superior electronics, not room variables or speaker placement. |
Dear Larry, Because I disagree with you completely on the subject of "3D". Some systems with some software sources can sometimes deliver an image that has "depth". Sometimes not. I perceive this, so you cannot legislate it out of existence by making a pronouncement. What does this mean? This means that when its happening, one can sense that the guy hitting the tympani is at the rear, the trumpets are a little more to the fore and the sax players are sitting in front of the trumpets and maybe the vocalist is standing in front of the whole entourage, for one example. Why is this so inflammatory? The fact that the conductor of the actual orchestra in real time may or may not hear it the same way is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Similarly, I doubt that any of the musicians hear it the way either I or the conductor might hear it. So what? |
Lewm I enjoy reading your writing..... but obviously do not attend Live orchestral music as there is NO SAX instruments in a orchestra ...LOL if you were meaning french horns or some other brass ok then... but..
some of the more modern composers may have wrote music that included the sax saxophones but it is a more modern instrument...and not much music written IMMHO this is a jazz instrument not for orchestral IMO
Again there is NO 3d sound like audiophiles portray and I agree that there is some location of where a group or an instruments location is but nothing like how audiophiles portray like to point out pinpoint and 3d imaging its audiophile BS
Lets get back to the music people
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Dear Nandric and friends: As I posted maybe is time to have more precise and clear audio-words related to explain quality performance on audio-items.
A common audio language is a must to have but IMHO it is a lot more easy/simple tell it that achieve it.
I think that that " new " audio glozary must include two real aspects of the whole " thing ": objectivity with a touch of subjectivity.
The " touch of subjectivity " I'm talking is not the usualy: " I like it " or " what a soundstage " and the like, what I'm talking is a little on the side of what happen with live music through an audio system on subjects like: tone color, dynamic. agresiveness, direct sound, etc, etc. and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system, we can't compare it in any way and IMHO the best we can do is to take the live music as a reference of something we can't achieve.
Example, Dlaloum posted: ++++ " Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music. " +++++
why those " speed/dynamics " diferences are IMHO THE MAIN DIFFERENCEs BETWEEN LIVE MUSIC AND AUDIO SYSTEM. My take here is that in live music there is nothing but the air between the music instrument sound and you: fastest than this does not exist, is from here where the full live music dynamics belongs to that straight and simple: an audio system never can not even but not be near it. You have to think all the linka that exist between the live instrument to be recorded till that sound emanate from the speakers!!!! all the speed/dynamics took by the microphone were loosed on all those audio links during the recording and playback proccess.
Dlaloum ( I love this guy. ) posted: " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect. " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system?, if you take a look to my virtual system music priorities this one is the last in importance to me.
I'm with Dlaloum about to take objectivity as main parameter to evaluate audio item performance. Not that I'm against subjectivity ( because I'm not. ) but if you think a little subjectivity depends on objectivity even if we are not measuring the right source, all what we heard/hear can be measure no doubt about.
Problem with subjectivity is that all of us are already biased to some kind of sound that we like because all what we learned ( bad and good things. ) and experienced and I have to tell: some of us and I can tell almost all are biased in a wrong way by the AHEE.
An example of this is that many people today still are in love with tubes ( please don't go inside that's is not a subject here but only an example. ) or with hoprns on speakers or LOMC cartridges or fancy cables.
How can we get or meet to a concens when we all are biased in some different ways?, to achieve that concens could be a fenomenal, titanic and almost impossible target with out a common bias on what we hear.
Years ago ( 1-2 ) in this thread I invited all of you to try again ( dertonarm posted the first official thread asking for the same and after 100 posts I was the only person that took the " bull by its horns ": no one else cares or understand the main importance of the subject in favor to understand in between all of us. ) to find out that common bias on what we heard. I explained about, even I linked my posts on that Dertonarm's thread, and the result was the same: no one cares. Everybody talks but no one really cares and do nothing about.
That's why some of you not only can't understand why I support that the FR-64/66 is the more distorted tonearm out there even some of you are in love with and like this tonearm subject there are many more.
We are in a Babel's Tower where more or less we think we understand each to other but the real subject IMHO is that is not that way: the warm term ( for example ) has several kind of meaning in each one of us, could be at random that some of us could coincide in the meaning but I can't know for shure.
An audio glossary terms IMHO means that we understand the same on one term ( tone color or dynamics or whatever. ): its meaning and that meaning how is reflected in our audio system. For achieve this we have to have a common bias on some LPs/tracks where all hear/experience almost the same. With out this common bias we can't go on.
Every one of us have their " propietary " system's proccess to make evaluations and that proccess is the one that we use every single time we are making comparisons.
I posted several times in this an other threads my proccess that always follow with the same tracks and the same protocol, I never changed and only make a change to enrich the whole proccess. That's why I'm so fast to evaluate not only an audio item but any audio system with over 90% of success, at least till now.
As you can see the task is a hard an complex one and more complex because as Lewm poste: normally " we agree to disagree ".
Anyway, sooner or latter we must do it. To live every single day in this Babel's Tower is useless and non-productiv for any one.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro, i had a shallow pastiche once, but i traded it for a '67 mustang and a carton of Luckys :) seriously, though that was an awesome post and well considered. i am iching to hear how mm's sound on my recently completed LCR phono stage.
mike |
As I understand him, Lharasim is not denying that 3d images of a stage can be rendered by an audio system/component. He denies that this capacity is a virtue, that is, makes the audio system a good one. It is not a virtue, the argument goes, because the purpose of an audio system is to reproduce as close as possible live music. And live music doesn't have such spatial cues and no standard of evaluation measures live music by that (that's the point of conductor example).
So, there are two different claims: one regarding the chief aim of audio reproduction (and its attendant virtues) and the second one regarding the existence and importance of spatial information at live events. In my opinion, spatial information at live events is given primarily visually. At a live event, the sonic field is so dense that the ability to say, based on aural cues alone, that the flute is two meters left of the oboe is severely limited (at best). And it is of no importance whatsoever that we able to make those judgments--for live music. I take this to more or less uncontroversial.
Now it is undeniable that some audiophiles tend to evaluate their system's prowess in part on how well it stages, e.g. "I put in a new power cord and the stage got 10 feet wide and a mile deep--brilliant!" However, if the chief aim of audio reproduction is realism (to use a bad word) or faithfulness to live music, then it seems puzzling (or if you're Lharasim, deeply annoying and contradictory) to want and care about such things.
I'm of two minds on this. While I believe that live music is and should be the standard, I rather enjoy and sometimes even evaluate the quality of a new component by its ability to render spatial information. As I type, I'm listening to Mahler's 6th (early Bernstein) using the AT 20ss cart and it renders spatial dimensions quite well (cowbells (!) left; tympani back center; woodwinds front center; etc..--but I know full well from experience that there is no way from an audience seat that the same symphony would be rendered in that way. Perhaps there's no contradiction here, since just as with other art forms (e.g., painting) we've abandoned realism as the sole standard, we should think of audio reproduction as following a similar path. (Although I don't know of any manufacturers who would embrace 'artificial' as an apt description of their product's sound.) If there can be different basic functions, then we can have room for different audio virtues (to use an example from above: hyper detailing and the ability to distinctly hear grains of rice falling) that facilitate the performance of them. |
Lharasim,
I don't understand what it is that you don't understand?
If you agree "that there is some location of where a group or an instruments location is", then you are excepting the fact that there is 3D! It's either flat or 3D. Perhaps it is you definitation of what 3D is? I do admit, it's not visual!
|
Plenty of saxophones in a jazz big band. They generally do sit in front of the trumpet section or the trombones if such are present. I hear big bands live all the time in the DC area; I try not to miss such performances, because I do love the sound of a big band playing jazz. Or do you turn up your nose at the idea of jazz? Frankly, your taste in music and mine are irrelevant to this discussion. Please try another line of argument.
Banquo, Your logic is not so different from Raul's, when he responded to my description of the Grace Ruby as "musical". It feels like you are trying to turn my own statement against me by inferring that I am actually after some artificially pleasing result. (In fact, all of audio reproduction in the home is in pursuit of artifice, but I would leave that aside here.) Every Monday night you can go to the Bohemian Caverns on U Street in Washington, DC, and hear their house band playing live, unamplified music. No microphones. I submit to you that there is a very real sense of depth and musical space conveyed by the acoustics of the club itself. Ergo, I do not accept yours or Larry's thesis that there is no sense of 3D-ness in live performance. in many cases of live performance, we are actually listening to huge speakers placed above and beside the stage, superimposed upon the direct radiations of the instruments; this can indeed destroy the dimensionality of the image, if not done well. |
Let me just say that some people have better musical IQ meaning know what real Live un-amplified music sounds like and please don't give me that crap about... I play musical instruments and know how they sound...I am around people that play music and when you talk about reproducing what was recorded most if not almost always these people do not have a clue and would/will be happy with computer speakers or there audio system in there car... thinking they are just fine
Let me also just say that I am not a good writer.. but if you would like to communicate with me in a more intelligent manner I would be happy to give you my number
Things need to change people get educated and learn how and what to listen for...I have a paper that describes how each musical instruments sounds the vowels and consonants along with there color..... if we keep going and using the same ol BS ways to communicate how our music playback systems sound/reproduce music we will never move forward..
I hope this makes sense
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Lewm: I certainly had no such polemical intentions!
If, however, you believe all audio reproduction aims at artifice then why do you (seem to) find it insulting to say that you are after an "artificially pleasing result"? As I noted, I'm ambivalent about the whole matter: I want realism (believability, as Halcro put it) but I sometimes value the pleasing result as well. To stay on point with this thread: I'll say that the Astatic mf200 is clearly my most pleasing cartridge; so pleasing that I really couldn't care less if someone told me that live music doesn't sound like that.
Regarding 3-d, I don't have a thesis. I was assuming it uncontroversial that (1) spatial cues are given primarily visually at live events and that (2) such cues are not used as criteria for evaluating musical quality. Of course, no one is denying that live music occurs in three dimensional space and therefore there are physical implications. At a live event, if I shut my eyes and concentrated, I could (probably) pin point the placement of instruments (kind of like trying to hear a conversation across a noisy room by deliberately blocking out extraneous sounds). But why would I want to do that?
At any rate, I am obviously mistaken to believe both to be uncontroversially true since you deny (1) and perhaps (2). Next time I visit my sister-in-law in Virginia, I'll be sure to check out the Bohemian Caverns and see what you mean. |
Hello all I believe that in no way can a home stereo system come off as a live performance by classical jazz or classic rock. I also believe if your goal is this impossible quest its still a free world to do so and god bless you.
What I attempt to do is have the most listenable stereo possible within my means.
My current system lives up to my quest delivering superior musical enjoyment. A wall of sound with speed and yep that 3d soundstage. Live performances are so dynamic un achieveable at home is a given but those live shows can't deliver those above mentioned sounds either . The truth is we are lucky to be able to enjoy both worlds.
Just a word on ss and tubes I am a newbie when it comes to tubes having ss and class d prior. If some want to call tube sound as distortions what in the world do you call sterile dry sounding ss and class d amps? Im loving my vintage tubed gear and would never go back to what I believed was good sound. Tubes deliver the magic and Mikey likes
Just my two cents.
Mike |
I am sure you are all nice guys, but this is going nowhere because we are all talking past each other. We are having to take turns denying that what the other inferred about our position is accurate. Yes, I agree that the language of audio is often inadequate. No, I did not write a treatise on it like Larry did. No, I did not say that I seek artifice; I inferred that what our systems give us IS artifice, no matter how sincere is our desire to hear "the truth". How can anyone deny that? But we all want some semblance of what is real-est to us. We are all in the same boat. Yes, we can never quite get where we want to be. Finally, I have a feeling that Larry, who has a unique understanding of how music sounds, should get together with Raul, who has unique capacity to hear distortion. No, I am evidently not qualified to talk to Larry about how live music sounds. I would rather spend the time listening to live or even electronically reproduced music. On to other subjects. Anyone who shows up at my house can have a drink and a listen. |
Sorry Lewm I did not mean to hurt feelings I am a terrible writer ...
my apologies
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Dear Raul,
I have two cartridges coming back from Axel:-
FR-7f & Clearaudio Virtuoso......both with the 'Nandric' approved nude Line Contact stylus in aluminium cantilever.
Should they prove to be as good as everyone says........I am intending to send him one of my Garrott P77 cartridges.
The only change the Garrott Bros made to the original A&R P77 cartridge....was the stylus so I anticipate that Axel can do even better? |
As I already stated disputes about words are contra productive. Words are used in sentences with the aim to express some thought(s). We are supposed first to understand the thought expressed , aka the meaning (or sense) of the sentence. After this understanding we are judging if the sentence is true or not according to our
own judgment. This however imply that we consider the
statements made truth-functional. But not all statements are truth functional. Only indicative statemnet can be true or false. The notions David try to explain (aka 'definitions') are indicative or 'objective' in this sense. Howhever repeat the same measurements or experiments should get the same results. That is why they are objective. The 'subjective part' is usually expressed in what is called 'propositional attitudes' ( x believes that..., hopes for, wants that, etc) which are not considered to be truth functional. Anyway there is no tenable logical interpretation possible. We will, I assume,
agree with those statements which we FEEL are ok or which we 'recognize' as our own. But if we disagree we have the inclination to believe that we are right and the other
wrong. One can 'see' this even at the level of words in the latest contributions to this thread. Subjectivity pretending to be objective.
Regards,
|
Halcro - I'm pretty sure that the original Garrot P77 contains many internal mods/tweaks compared to the A&R cartridge it was based on. So if you have one of the originals - do not throw the guts away. It was always much more lively than the equivalent A&R's, more speed and dynamics. I spent many hours listening to this cartridge at the Garrot Bros house in Sydney on their heavily tweaked NAD 3020 and home made electrostatics that Brian built. |
3D or not to be...
What a load of codswallop.
Last time I was in San Francisco Amanda McBroom sang for me without a mike in one of the hotels private reception rooms. I could close my eyes and tell you that she was standing about 10ft out from the back wall and was not hanging upside down from the roof whilst singing.
Last time I was at Westminster Cathedral in London for an organ recital I could tell which pipes were behind me and which were in front.
Do I want this from my stereo - Yes.
Would I expect this from my stereo - Not necessarily.
Why - because the ultimate stereo would reproduce what the microphones captured which is quite different from what you hear live.
Can I hear space and room recording dimensions from my stereo - yes, on well recorded material.
For the naysayers above perhaps you should investigate the ultimate moving coil cartridge - the Audio Technica AT-MONO 3/SP Moving Coil 78rpm cartridge. Some of the contributors above may as well listen to mono and save your pennies.
|
3D Audio Holography is indeed possible....
And most of the work on the topic was done a couple of generations back....
Blumlein stereo - which in its original version also ideally required 3 speakers at the front. - Stereo being from the greek for "solid" I believe... (solid as in 3D Holographic).
So when somebody speaks of stereo 3D holography, they are merely being tautologous....
Then we get to the difficulty in achieving it...
1) It must be recorded using the Blumlein method (and rare are the recordings that do this!)
2) To replay that recording requires the L & R speakers to be positioned at 90 degrees, rather than the much more common audiophile setup of 60 degrees. - With the widened speaker positioning, a center speaker assists in solidifying the central image. Nothing new in all this, it was worked out more than 50 years ago, but recording and playing back 3 channels was deemed too complicated, so they settled on a two channel system, and then marketing kicked in and said it would be too hard to sell people 3 speakers as opposed to 2.
As people only had 2 speakers and they were too close together to make stereo work properly, recording engineers started getting creative, and creating an artificial impression of stereo, by multimiking performances, then artififically combining the result into an ersatz "image"... and there we have where we are today.
The vast majority of recordings are completely artificial, and given the method of recording, could never actually reproduce the original event, as they are an artifice and not an attempt at reproduction.
Most current recordings are in fact an impressionist version of the original performance rather than a realist painting or photograph.
But now we have new technology - the tech developed for home theatre, technology that allows speakers to be "virtually repositioned" (trinnov) or take a sound field and position items precisely within it... or for us Stereo afficionados - correct for the faulty speaker positioning by adjusting for the speakers being too close together, and extract the center channel out of a stereo recording....
Excellent and fascinating article on experiments in that direction by Magnepan.... http://www.avguide.com/blog/magnepan-s-tri-center-concept-does-stereo-sound-better-three-channels
They are calling it Tri-Center stereo.
This of course does not resolve the lack of blumlein stereo recordings - but it does resolve the issue of properly reproducing them (at least theoretically) - on our standard setups (which are not optimal for Blumlein reproduction!).
QED: Stereo (ie 3d Audio Holography) can be achieved. - but we are not quite there yet.
Which brings us back to the question of a gauge, a standard so we can talk and compare with some possibility of believing that what we are saying will indeed be understood.
Raul's proposal of a standard benchmark set of recordings, that we all own and use as our standards makes a heap of sense. - The problem is it requires that we all purchase the same set of records, some of which may be quite rare / hard to find.
An alternative would be to find a relatively common and readily available compilation of very well recorded tracks, preferably on a single album, that everyone can purchase easily - then reference can be made to specific tracks/details on the one record for minimal effort on the part of all concerned.
The sort of thing I have in mind is some of the sampler ("test") LP's from Opus in sweden.
Or - alternatively - if the august members of this audio fraternity are sufficiently keen (and there are suffient people interested) - it might be possible to select a collection of tracks from a single well known recording house (MF, Opus, etc...) and have our own selection pressed.
Cutting costs for a single LP can be as low as $100... quite a lot of DJ's use this type of facility. (this is not "pressed" but custom cut on a lathe to order)
If it was projected to do a limited run ... increased volume would take the project into a press run and then I have no idea what the costs would be, or what the required volume is...
Would it be possible to identify a dozen tracks, totaling no more than 30minutes all from a single audiophile studio that most people could agree on as a valid basis for comparison.
The goal would be the accurate reproduction in ones home of a live audio event - or the best facsimile thereof that can be achieved.
So where electronic instruments are used, they would need to be recorded via Blumlein methods in a live acoustic environment - eg: Electric guitar through guitar amp and speakers then recorded - not electric guitar straight to recording input... same for synths, etc...
Is this a pipe dream?
Dunno - but it certainly seems to me to be possible
bye for now
David
p.s. I am waiting for them to add Tri-Centre processing to the higher end AV processors.... |
Another Tri-Center article:
http://www.theaudiobeat.com/blog/magnepan_37_tricenter_system.htm |
Dear Halcro: Maybe you miss this post where I willl test all alternatives about the P77:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&7109&4#7109
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
No question that when a particular LP gives a sense of depth and stage location with a particular cartridge in a particular system, there is a lot of serendipity involved. And it certainly has a lot to do with microphone placement and the original recording process. I find in general that older recordings made with only a few microphones and without elaborate mixers and digital processing are more likely to provide that illusion than are modern 24-track electronic wonders. Case in point: I was listening to Duke Ellington/Johnny Hodges, "Back to Back" on Verve last night. Great stuff.
I am trying to remember the particular recording that we were listening to which provoked me to assert that the Grace Ruby can create that the illusion of depth. It may have been Dave Brubeck with Gerry Mulligan on MoFi; I will double check. |
Dover this is what I was getting at live unamped music reproduced by any home stereo impossible. I have a few true live recored lps one haydn music for england that sounds absolutely beautiful. But since I never heard the ensemble live can't comment between home and being there.
For me when it comes to my favorite music classic rock I like my 3d wall of sound. And glad to hear that wonderfuly performed/engineered music for hours on end.
Long live rock and roll
Mike |
Dover this is what I was getting at live unamped music reproduced by any home stereo impossible. I have a few true live recored lps one haydn music for england that sounds absolutely beautiful. But since I never heard the ensemble live can't comment between home and being there.
This is exactly what I have been talking about Musical IQ regardless of you being there or not if the recording and the instruments in that recording have real musical merit that's what counts it takes training yourself with live unamplified music either being opera, orchestral, big band etc...to know and judge
no offense but rock music has no place in this discussion 3d... really!? that's all done at the studio my friend!
please keep this discussion on track
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Musical arts you must missed my performance/engineered quote.
Don't know why you want to include that rock music does not belong when it has just as much revelience here on a thread about cartridges when discussing sonics. Maybe you should start your discussion under the music category classical my friend.
Mike |
Dang Larry, You write just fine. You are able to get your points across better than most people, including myself.
The problem is that you cannot talk down to grown men. We all have had differences of opinion and some times very passionate disagreements but rarely have we talked down to one another. Please read your post and before hitting send, ask yourself, am I being a jerk?
I hope you will choose to continue to post on this thread,as I do believe you have
some points of interest.
|
acman3...let me first say that I have apologized for me not being able to communicate online that good
second I am sorry that if someone got there feelings hurt.. I try to speak/write in positive forward way...being online you need thick skin because someone takes something a certain way ....like you just called me a jerk...LOL...
Its ok I will let you guys carry on the internet bantering
I will bow out for now... need to get recording equipment ready for tomorrow going to record some very interesting percussion music at elmhurst collage in IL
p.s. I would like to be part of these discussions but...
Lawrence
Musical Arts |
Hello Lawrence, good luck tomorrow with your recording.
I was lucky enough to see a Shostakovich Symphony and remember how the viiolin solo had a pinpoint image.
Another agoner has mentioned that he only uses mono cartridges because they sound like live musc to him. Mono.
Could it be we all perceive music differently? When I was young I heard colors in music that I know longer here. Do our musical perceptions change over time? |
Dear Raul, I am sorry to add one more 'floor' to your Babel's tower but the talk about 'words' needs some instruction. The 'terms' or 'notions' we want are not
about languge. The so called 'defined terms' are shorthand expressions on the other side of '=' sign.
On the left side is the 'whole theory' (aka 'description') of the phenomena we are interested in. Those phenomena are not linquistic but we need languge to explain them. But to avoid repetition of the 'whole description' we use some term which is supposed to 'stand for' the description. The reason is, uh, economical. I hope that my 'floor' will not
put to much weight on 'your' tower.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: You are welcomed.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
On the subject of dimensionality (3D) in live music. There is no question that there is a great deal of it in live music; far more than in even the best recordings. Live music also has a great deal of very precise pin-point imaging. In my opinion, those who argue the opposite are looking at (hearing) this issue from a mistaken standpoint. It is not live music that is lacking dimensionality nor precise localization. Nor is it that recorded music adds artifice to create pinpoint imaging and a 3D quality that does not exist in live music. The reason that recorded music is perceived by some as possessing these qualities is that a great deal of very subtle low-level information is not captured by the recording/playback process.
When an instrument or voice makes sound in a real space it radiates energy in every direction. True, more energy is radiated in one particular direction, but there is still a great deal radiated in a 360 degree sound envelope. Additionally, the decay of this energy lingers far longer in real life than is usually captured by most recording equipment. The absence of all this low level information can create the (distorted) illusion of pin-point imaging and "dimensionality", as it is primarily the initial sound that is recorded; not the more subtle harmonic information that fills the spaces
between instruments. Audiophiles have long sought the illusive "deep,
black space between instruments" even though this doesn't occur in live performances of acoustic instruments. Those spaces are filled instead by a great deal of subtle harmonic information that lingers after each note sounds. This is part of what gives live music it's fantastic richness. Composers have long understood this, and took advantage of this as an important consideration in their composition and orchestration. This is the reason that simply-miked recordings oftentimes capture the feeling of a composition better than multi-miked ones. In recordings where individual instruments, or sections of instruments are miked, the sonic richness of many instruments' harmonic envelope blending is lost. |
3D/Stereo
Frogman, I do not disagree with your comments about subtle harmonics - but I think the phenomena that you are talking about is to do primarily with the overall tone/timbre - and can be hugely different between differing concert halls. In fact it is one of the reasons certain halls suit certain types of (periods of!) music better than others.
But these tones are mostly ambient information that comes as much from reflected sound (sometimes almost exclusively from reflected sound) as from direct sound - and direct sound is exclusively what builds the solid auditory image - precise location is from direct sound only.
So we need to differentiate between tonal "real"ness and spatially localised "real"ness - which are two different aspects.
Good article on tone and concert halls:
http://www.regonaudio.com/Records%20and%20Reality.html
And with regards to stereo imaging & recording techniques:
http://www.regonaudio.com/MICROPHONE%20THEORY%20word.htm
http://www.regonaudio.com/Directional%20Hearing%20How%20To%20Listen%20to%20Stereo.htm
bye for now
David |
Dlaloum, tonal realness and spatial realness are, of course, two different aspects. But tonal realness is not the issue; although tonal quality does play a role. I agree that the tonal qualities of a hall can be better suited to certain music, but I find it improbable that when Ravel (for instance) orchestrated Daphnis et Chloe, he believed that the impact of his masterful use of the orchestra and voices, and how individual instruments wold blend would be completely negated if the piece were performed in a less than ideal, but at least appropriately sized hall. I assume that this is the phenomenon that you refer to.
The phenomenon that I alluded to, and one that concerns the issue of 3D in recorded music can be described via analogy. I like food analogies. Think of a group of instruments playing in a hall as the ingredients in a pot of soup. If you cook all the ingredients together, their individual flavors blend together. Not only is the resulting broth (space between the instruments) a blend of all the individual flavors, but the flavor of each individual ingredient now has some of the flavor of all the others. Now, cook each individual ingredient in a separate pot, and simply put all the cooked ingredients in a pot of fresh water. The flavors remain separate and distinct (pinpoint, 3D), and the water is missing the blend of all those flavors (harmonic information/decay). |
Dear Frogman, No wonder the analogy is the most successful
method in education . One need the old ,known ingredients,
in order to grasp some new concept. Something like 'iron
horse' as description of the first seen locomotief.
I can 'see' how our records are 'cook' : two mics blend
all the ingredients together in the 'soup', multimics make
every single instrument keep its own flavor. The musicians
are not playing together but we assume that they do.
If I grasped the analogy correct then you are a very good teacher.
Regards, |
Dear Nandric, you did grasp the analogy correctly; and thank you. You correctly mention that two mics "blend all the instruments together". Two mics (two ears) is precisely what we each have; not multiple ears. |
Sometimes we manage to speak right past each other - apologies for misunderstanding...
Thank you Nandric for translating!
We are of course in violent agreement. |
Dear David, You of course know that there are no authorities any more like Aristoteles. With the capacity that each and every statement made by him was a priori true. I also learned that this was not the case with Marx.
Good analogy examples need an inventive mind : even a student can invent some sometimes. It is not the priviledge of the teachers only.
Regards, |
My pet theory is that the harmonics produced in real time in a live performance are typically not well reproduced in the home, possibly because of microphone placement within the recording venue or possibly for many other reasons. What I mean by this is suppose the primary tone is reproduced with exactly the same intensity in live vs recorded. Lets give that a score of 1.0. Suppose that pure tone is 1000Hz. Then suppose that the amplitude of the respective first harmonics (500Hz and 2000Hz) are present in the live venue at a relative amplitude of 0.8 at the listener position but are recorded only at a level of 0.6. Right there we will lose some of the reality which one might perceive of as "richness" to the musical signal (choose your own favorite noun). However, electronics with benign first order harmonic distortion will artificially restore some of the amplitude that was lost. This will actually sound more real to us. It's not an ideal way to reach Nirvana, but to some degree it works. So, I don't worry about a little THD. |
Frogman: very helpful posts.
I find myself in agreement with your premises but don't quite understand how they go towards showing that, as you put it, "There is no question that there is a great deal of it [3-d] in live music; far more than in even the best recordings. Live music also has a great deal of very precise pin-point imaging."
Your great analogy seems to establish the opposite--that when a curry, for example, is correctly made no particular component stands out and calls attention to itself, that is, can be easily pinpointed.
I suspect there's an equivocation here on the terms '3-d' and 'pinpoint imaging'. If I follow you, the pin-point imaging found in multi-miked recordings are a consequence of an absence of low level information, specifically, harmonic information. This omission makes the recording and subsequent playback poor because it doesn't accurately represent live music. It would seem to follow that the presence of this harmonic richness (in live music) would obstruct the capacity to identify with pin-point precision the relative location of instruments playing in unison (no one denies, by the way, that one can identify the location of solos or gross spatial differences like 'being in front of me' vs 'being behind me'). So, if there's a sense in which "live music also has a great deal of very precise pin-point imaging" it must be a different sense of pin-point imaging. What is that sense? You seem to be using '3-d' to refer to sonic richness and texture; I was and am using it merely to refer to relative spatial location. In your sense, I take it no one would deny that there's 3-d in live music.
Above when I referred to the 'sonic density' (what you better describe as harmonic richness) of live music, I took that to be a reason to believe that the imaging of live events is primarily visual and at any rate different from what audiophiles seem to want from their system. I didn't think of it in terms of an absence of information, as you argue. If you're right, then a 'properly' miked recording played back on a highly resolving system would give one less pin point imaging and be more like live music. But isn't that what Laharism was saying when he acerbically wrote: "there is NO 3d sound like audiophiles portray and I agree that there is some location of where a group or an instruments location is but nothing like how audiophiles portray like to point out pinpoint and 3d imaging its audiophile BS." |
Phase linearity as in phase vs amplitude, is the biggest factor in imaging capability in a phono cart. Generally, the higher the primary high frequency resonance, the better phase linearity and imaging. This obviously isn't about the recording. It's damping the motions of the cantilever that causes phase non-linearity. MM/MI carts tend to be more heavily damped and often have a lower high frequency resonance. Of course there are notable exceptions.
Regards, |
Banquo363 - I couldn't disagree with you more on multimiking. Most of my classical music section is from the 50's/60's. My view is multimiking destroyed sense of reality, imaging and resolution because
- firstly in the real world we only have 2 ears
- a good system will lay bare the discombobulated sound of multimiking techniques, you can hear the localised volume adjustments on individual instruments. The classic outcome is for example on a violin solo where suddenly the violin shoots forward into your face, and when it is finished recedes back into the mix.
- in the old days conductors would listen to what was recorded in a soundroom at the back of the hall and do reruns and advise on spectral balance. My suspicion is that with the advent of multimiking, the mixing was left to the engineers, and that is what you get - an engineered sound.
I think Lewm makes a salient point about the preservation harmonic structure and overtones.
The other key for me is resolution. I had an interesting experience when I imported the 1st Martin Logans into the country, one died, and eager to listen I proceeded to listen for a few hours in mono. What fascinated me was that out of 1 speaker in mono I was still getting a layering of depth and sense of hall acoustics.
|
Fleib has it!
Our hearing identifies location based on the time arrival of the sounds relative to each other.
Multimiking completely destroys this time relationship - you can only record this time relationship at a point in space, so your mikes need to be at the same location (or pretty close!), so that they can pick up the amplitude/phase relationship that our hearing requires to then interpret the physical locations.
This is not to say that an engineer cannot through good editting of a multimike feed, create an impressionist rendition of space and location.
But our ability to resolve spatial information aurally is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any mixing technologies I have heard of to date - so the multimike method never sounds "Real"/"Live".
A Binaural recording listened to through headphones can be incredibly "real"/"live" - which tells us that the problem is the reproduction technique/principles rather than the core recording technology. Even very basic microphones set up in a dummy head, can provide astoundingly good binaural recordings.... the inaccuracies in amplitude/frequency response of the basic mic, are more than made up for by the phase/frequency precision provided by that method of recording and replay.
Related recording methods that work well for spatial information include Blumlein, ORTF, Jecklin Disk.
Once we have that purist recording, we then need to reproduce it without messing up the phase relationships.
Any resonance in the replay system will alter phase... and damping will often exacerbate it.
Some well know cartridge have resonance well within the audio range eg: Grado Gold... 8kHz - the phase and amplitude effects of a resonance can extend an octave (or more) both up and down.
Which is why the "perfect" setup needs to have no resonances within the audio range, or within an octave of the audio range.... and the cartridge loading is critical too, as in many high inductance designs, a controlled resonance is generated to flatten out the frequency/amplitude... - that makes for a nice flat frequency respons, neutral tonality - but I question what it does to phase relationships!
And then we need speakers that don't mess with phase either. - Which is where multi-driver speakers often get into strife, and minimal or single driver designs frequently do a much better job!
Makes one truly wonder at how after all that, so many recordings manage to sound so good...
But they certainly don't sound "live".
Deceiving our hearing would require getting all the above parameters right, and that very very rarely happens. (if at all)
bye for now
David |
Dover: my long post probably reads like an obscure passage out of Duns Scotus, but the bit about multimiking was my interpretation of Frogman's view and not an expression of my own view. Moreover, on this interpretation, multimiking can lead to unnatural staging (pin-point but not in a good way) and so in that sense is not like live music. That is, it is the same as your view.
Incidentally, I somewhat agree with your assessment of recordings that have the violin solo shooting its way to the forefront and then receding: the Bernstein Mahler recording I referenced has a fair bit of that. It's definitely unnatural and undesirable in the overall presentation of a symphony, but I sometimes rather like it because it renders palpable the sound of the bow sliding across the strings. That can be exciting if one is occasionally after 'audiophile sound effects'. |
