Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Guys... resolution is a Digital thing ...can we replace resolution with Information?

Lawrence

Musical Arts
That last post is superfluous. Digital doesn't resolve anything. Digital is an approximation of a sine wave, nothing more. I think you are in the wrong post.
There's nothing more frustrating than hearing a great performance recorded with a microphone(s) out of absolute phase. It's not all that common, in my experience, and it's an extreme example of skewered phase relationships in our everyday fare. In the old days careful recording techniques minimized this. Never the less, recording became an art form unto itself and the goal wasn't always to mimic a live acoustic event. I think that multi-miking can provide more detail than would naturally be heard, while artificially placing instruments in time and space.

Rather than hearing recordings with mikes 180o out of phase, we normally hear varying degrees of phase discrepancy. A blanket condemnation might be akin to howling at the moon. Maybe digital recording has greater potential to more easily manipulate phase relationships. Trade off tonality for spatial clues? Then there's the question of the microphones themselves. Like any transducer they're imperfect devices. I don't know about microphone phase linearity - afraid to ask. Expecting to hear a good facsimile of a live acoustic event with a recording might seem like a reasonable goal, but it might be an unrealistic expectation. We're just as likely to get a more pleasing mix of coloration.
Regards,
Lew, re: harmonics.

My understanding is that harmonic tones are multiples ABOVE the fundamental tone, not below it. Thus your example of a pure tone 1K Hz would not have a harmonic at 500 Hz.

Am I wrong? Can someone clarify this point?
Dear Tim,
I believe you are incorrect. Simple harmonics are tones conventionally one octave apart, both above and below the fundamental tone frequency, by definition. However, for midrange fundamental tones, most of the harmonics will be higher in frequency, simply because one rapidly runs out of room when going downward and one also runs out of the ability to reproduce the extreme low harmonics. But, think about it, this is (one reason) why, for example, Frank Sinatra singing middle C will sound different from Johnny Hartman singing the same note; Sinatra's voice tends to contain more high frequency harmonics and less of the lower frequency harmonics, compared to Hartman's. Or to put it even more extremely, compare Ella Fitzgerald to Billy Eckstine, both singing middle C. You will hear a lot of bass harmonic frequencies in Eckstine's voice. It is my belief that the brain learns to identify well known vocalists by their harmonic signatures, along with other signatures of course. (This is something I conclude from thought experiment; I never read much about it. But I sing for an avocation, and I listen all the time to vocalists.)
Fleib ... no, not at all!

Try out a little binaural - with a set of headphones obviously!

It completely and compellingly demonstrates that the issue is NOT inadequate microphones, but rather inadequate miking technique and methods of reproduction.

Tests using the blumlein crossed matched mikes and speakers at 45degrees on either side of the listener - show fantastic ability at reproducing spatial cues.

Phase coherent speakers (eg: ESL's) can be quite stunningly good at this - WITH THE RIGHT RECORDING, AND THE RIGHT SPEAKER SETUP.

Things started going wrong when the mass market placed speakers the width of a turntable appart in the original consoles...
Then later, standard setups were a "Hifi" tower, with speakers on either side (same spacing!)

Audiophiles did better and moved the speakers appart to around 30 degrees either side - usually not much further as it frequently results in a hole in the center effect with most recordings.

Then engineers started trying to provide a more spacious sound with these compromised setups where the speakers were too close together... a flawed setup resulting in artificial enhancements achieving ever better impressionist renditions of the original performance.

The solution was worked out in the early 1930's - Left and Right speakers at 45 degrees, identical center speaker - the result an image that is stable from most positions in the room, and does not require keeping ones head clamped in the sweet spot.

Klipsches Klipschorn setup with the Scala/Belle in the middle did not come from thing air.... there was good science behind it!

Option 1 (old fashioned) Set the center channel as a mono feed (L+R) around 3db lower amplitude than the main channels.
Option 2 (Modern AV technique) Widen the main speaker positions on an AV setup, make sure center speaker is tonally matched and use Dolby PLII to "decode" the phantom center channel. Use "Dimension" parameter to lower or completely eliminate rear channels, Adjust center width parameter to best suit room/speaker setup. For purist setup turn panorama to minimum - if L/R speakers are too close together (eg: the standard 60 degrees appart setup) - a touch of "panorama" will help expand the image.
Downside of all this? - the processor needs to be really really good - otherwise it adds another veil.

What I really want is a good list of Blumlein, ORTF, Jecklin Disk (or related) recordings....
A directory of good material.

Anyone know where to find such a directory?

bye for now

David
Some confusion re the subject of harmonics in music. Harmonics, in the usual sense of the word, are naturally occurring frequencies ABOVE the fundamental frequency (first harmonic). The second harmonic occurs one octave above the fundamental (f); or twice the frequency of f. The third harmonic occurs one octave and a fifth above f. The fourth harmonic, two octaves above f. The fifth, two octaves and a third octave above f. They continue getting closer and closer together with higher frequencies. It can be confusing because "first harmonic" implies that it lies above the fundamental frequency. Not so, the fundamental is referred to as first harmonic.

The subject of subharmonics is controversial in that it is considered by most authorities to be a theoretical consideration. Subharmonics can be achieved by the manipulation of fundamental tones via playing technique (primarily the violin), and to call it a naturally occurring phenomenon is probably a stretch. The issue of subharmonics is sometimes confused with that of undertones or difference tones, which is a very real acoustical phenomenon by which two frequencies (two tones produced by two different instruments) can cause acoustical excitation and produce a third
"phantom" tone, as if a third instrument (player) were present. This is one of the many acoustical subtleties that give acoustic music it's richness and complexity, and one of the things that reminds us of how imperfect even the best record/playback gear still is; most of this information is completely lost by the electronic processing.
Banquo363, I understand how my comments may seem to be contradictory. I agree that "3D, as sometimes sought by audiophiles does not occur in live music". The point I tried to make was that although recorded music can have a strong sense of pin-point imaging, live acoustic music has an even stronger sense of it. Let's consider sitting in a hall listening to an orchestra from a center orchestra seat. When the principal trumpet plays a solo, I never have any doubt (wether my eyes are open or not) that the player is (usually) sitting towards the back of the orchestra and at about 2:00 o'clock. My ears are hearing the direct sound of the trumpet, the sound of the trumpet reflected off the rear wall, the sound reflected off every other wall in the hall, the same sound that was reflected off the back wall and then reflected off the right side wall, and then reflected off.... (you get the picture). Add to all that the incredible low-level sonic soup that is all the other instruments (and their reflected sounds) accompanying the trumpet solo. Now, if we agree that much of this information can correctly be called "low-level", when one considers how much low-level information is lost by the record/playback process, and that the recording microphones are most sensitive to direct sounds, it becomes easier to see how the direct sounds picked up by the microphones can be "laid bare" in the absence of a lot of all that other low-level information, and gain a highlighted or "pin-point" quality. Conversely, the presence of all that other information in live music does not necessarily mean less localization or dimensionality, although I concede it can be perceived as a kind of distraction by some, when the goal is sonic "candy".
Frogman, In the formal definition, you and Tim are correct. I stand corrected. I was thinking about it in a different way. Serves me right not to have Googled before I posted.
Frogman's post about harmonics is of course correct. For those of us like me who don't know that a fifth corresponds to a frequency ratio of 3:2, though, another way to express it is simply that the frequency of a harmonic is equal to the number of that harmonic multiplied by the fundamental frequency.

So the 2nd harmonic of 1 kHz is 2 kHz, the 3rd is 3 kHz, the 4th is 4 kHz, the 5th is 5 kHz, etc.

Best regards,
-- Al
Thank you Frogman, clarification is always appreciated.

Lew, I once wondered about more extreme examples considering a given note (middle C in your examples) than you offered with diverse singers. Why for example would a violin, trumpet, and piano all sound so different when playing the same single note? We agree it is the harmonics. The following from Wikipedia states it in terms my un-musically trained mind can understand addressing timbre -

The musical pitch of a note is usually perceived as the lowest partial present (the fundamental frequency), which may be the one created by vibration over the full length of the string or air column, or a higher harmonic chosen by the player. The musical timbre of a steady tone from such an instrument is determined by the relative strengths of each harmonic.
Please have a good read this is very important and what i have been trying to say

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=hug&m=161365

we need to get back to the music people enough with the audiophile BS

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Lawrence, thanks for the link particularly the one at the bottom of that post.
David, **It completely and compellingly demonstrates that the issue is NOT inadequate microphones, but rather inadequate miking technique and methods of reproduction.**

Although I don't think the perfect microphone exists, point well taken. I was talking about my record collection, not what's possible. I listen to music - go for the performance, regardless. Although there are some decent sounding recordings I think the potential is largely untapped. You know what they say about audiophile recordings. To a large extent, I agree.
Regards,
Lawrence, **Please have a good read this is very important and what i have been trying to say
www.audioasylum
we need to get back to the music people enough with the audiophile BS**

The argument makes two assumptions which are not a given.
1) The goal is to sound like acoustic instruments, as in a live performance.
2) What's on the recording actually sounds like live instruments and accurately reproducing that yields a live facsimile.

I'm not taking a position here one way or the other, merely saying that if the premise is not accepted, the argument is moot. The second point is, if the recording isn't completely accurate, do you strive to accurately reproduce the recording or go beyond by introducing colorations that sound more live?
Regards,
Is normal that a koetsu rosewood runs about 1 / 1.5 mm from the record? Looks to close to the surface to me but would like to be sure if this is normal or not. Thanks
Hello Lawrence you said
we need to get back to the music people enough with the audiophile BS

I really like your passion. If you are really serious about this I would take a few of your posts and

use them here ?

IMO you may get more traction ? IDK - I can't see the views. Just a thought anyways. But you have buddies here so I understand. This internet bantering can get fun can't it?

With that I want to be selfish for a moment and ask you for advice. My daughters piano is one floor above my sound room. I want to record here singing and playing. Can I get advice on what type of mikes to use. If you can help me I can be contacted at bcpguybell.net. The @ is missing.

Cheers

BTW Good for Jorsan for trying to bring this thread back with a $5000 cartridge. :^)

Reading through this thread brings up a lot of questions, and the one of 3 dimensionality has recently piqued my interest. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending 2 live, unamplified musical performances and I paid close attention to the spatial characteristics of each. With only 2 data points, I must say that the answer is, "It depends!"

The first performance was of a collection of percussion soloists in a ~1200 seat, sparsely populated, rather reflective (most surfaces worked wood) hall (Festival Hall, Round Top, TX.) I was in the 6th row, near center - so about 35-40 feet from the performers. 3D space was very apparent - sometime detrimentally so. As some performers played more than one instrument, it was easy to localize right/left/front/back with each percussive strike. The third perfomer played a combination of instruments, including a metallophone, which had the unpleasant effect of sympathetically energizing 2 notes/tubes from the still on-stage marimba which had been used earlier. After I had determined that I wasn't getting acute tinnitus, it was very apparent that the ringing was coming not from the performer at all, but from far to his left and farther away - from the undamped marimba.

The second performance was a spectacular one of Donizetti's "Maria Stuarta" by the Houston Grand Opera in Wortham Hall ( more sonically controlled/damped.) By coincidence, I was again in the 6th row, though much farther to the side. The orchestra was a bit farther away, but below in the pit. From my location, the pit had an interesting effect. I suppose that due to the early reflections within the pit, it acted as a poor wave-guide, delivering a massive front of acoustic energy - which was spatially confused at best. Although I could detect Right/Left placement easily, the Front/Back dimensionality was completely lacking - and in marked contrast to the vocalists, who were spatially defined with pin-point accuracy. I wonder if anyone has ever evaluated this effect of the pit -and I wonder if the effect is the same thoughout the hall (Based on other experiences, I imagine not.)

So, even before one gets to the recording process, the 3D aspects of a performance may be severely affected by the space itself, the placement of the performers and the specific location of the listeners.

I personally have almost given up on the idea of re-creating the performance from audio equipment. Too many uncontrollable variables from the start. With the best recordings, we get a pleasant facsimile and pleasurable listening experience - but it ain't anything like real. We spend a lot of time debating minutia in our systems, but a re-calibration with live music will help to set things straight. I bet that small venues with limited performers and near-field seating provide the greatest amount of live spatial information, while very large spaces with mass performers tend to lose spatial identification of individual performers and act more like a rock music "wall of sound." Even specific instruments will have different effects in space - some well-focused and pinpoint, but others - like piano with a very large sonic signature, should be less distinct from the start.
Funflyer good on you ...I can totally agree when I visit the lyric opera in chicago... wonderull hall 2nd row on the right..the orchestra is in a pit which does not give any good 3d effect will only give left right information and maybe sometimes depends on how many instruments are setup and where for a particular opera some depth but not that much...but who cares its the real thing..

when we listen/record college band not much 3d effect either so...that's why...but more important people... if our systems have real musical merit sounding more like the real thing has real Tone, color,dynamics IMMHO this is what matters...

I am very passionate about having a musical experience in my home ....

Lawrence
Musical Arts
Hello Ct0517 thank you for the link I had no idea that it was in progress...

email me with more specifics on room what kind of piano equipment that you have and i will help you...

Lawrence
Musical Arts
usedhifi@mail2lawrence.com
Lets face it home audio was made for miced, mixed, amplified, engineered and loud ass rock and roll

With all do respect to you primary classical music fans this is the facts and it must ne real frustrating to you all. You spend mega bucks on your gear and if its not one faction of the music/sound its another.

Maybe it would be best to just spend the money on live concerts maybe splurge and make the show a road trip.

Long live Rock and Roll the easy music to reproduce at home.

Beatles on Sundays
Mike
Dear friends: +++++ " 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. " +++

that is what I posted one or two thread's pages before.

along:

++++ " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect ( Dlaloum ). " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system? " +++++

I know that almost think 3D exist in live music and yes could exist if we are seated like funflyer at 40'-50 feets and even here depends on several factors as he pointed out.

Microphones are not at 40-50 feets but really near the sources, sometimes 1m-2m from there. Micros taakes the direct sound where exist no 3D and takes almost no reflected sound or at to low SPL that that reflected sound disappears with the higher SPL of the direct sound.
A classical music Director playing/performing a wide orchestral composition as any of the Mahler symphonies can't look for 3D at 2-3m from the source but more on pin point source on the sherzos/moderato stages but in the " tutties " he not only can't perceive that pinpoint image but certainly no 3D or any reflected sound as we can perceived 20-30 m from the Director main stage position.

If we hear or heard jazz music in a club/night jazz club it does not matters where we are seated ( normally all the seat positions are nearfield ) we can't detect the 3D phenomenon.

I read all the post here and after that I'm still with Dlaloum and Lharasim about: no real 3D in live events ( at least at the micro/Director position but only through audio systems.

Btw, two mics against multimics. I don't remember whom of you posted something like this: " at the end we heard with two ears not multimics ".
I agree in that we hear with twoo ears but we make all the functions that are similar of what the recording enginners makes but we make it in automatic version with no sound manipulations. Let me explain alittle what/which is my take here:

a musi's Director hear with two ears but he is hearing not from two sources , as can be what takes two mics, but from multi-sources ( each orchestral instrument: multimics. ) that inside his/our brain were blended in natural way with no single manipulation.
Problem with multimic recordings is that the blend is manipulated in the wrong way but not because is multimic recording.

I think that a good non-manipulated multimic is faraway a better one recording than a two mics one because these mics has no the habilities of: take the multisource sound and blend in natural way as our ears/brain do.

++++++ " , 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 " ++++++

I think in some way Lawrence posted something like what I posted too.

Now, if that 3D really you think exist maybe is time to ask our self: Ravel, Berlioz, Bethoven , etc, etc, took in count that reflected sound many of us are talking about? because that reflected sound is the main " culprit for that 3D image. My answer is NO no one of them took in count any single reflected sound in their compositions even in those old times several performances were in a free space.

I think that in some ways several of the 20+ last posts on the subjects are mixing apples with oranges, maybe I'm wrong or did not understanded those posts and the one mixing those apples with oranges is me but all these is what I think about.

I respect all opinions from you but I think we have to re-think about with out closing " eyes " when trying to evaluate something on the subject ( like Dover. ).

Btw, I almost always suppor and supported that in the very first moment we close our eyes when listening music in that same moment we are lsitening everything our imagination want to hear according how we are biased in that moment. Dear Dover, we hear and perceive sound from all our body including " open eyes " tha's the natural way not closed eyes.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Stltrains, you couldn't be further from the truth. I suspect that rather than showing your bias you are simply showing your age. Home audio and it's aficionados were around well before the term rock and roll was invented. Altec, Armstrong, HH Scott, Fisher, Williamson, Ampex, to name just a few of the brands that offered home-audio gear well before anyone had heard of rock and roll. And guess what? Lacking all the fancy and "sophisticated" test gear available today, the designers of such gear had the audacity to actually use their ears to determine if their gear approximated the sound of real music.

And for the record, a pair of Quads driven by good tube amps, playing a good classical LP on a well set-up TT (just one example) sounds more like what I hear live in a concert hall, than any audio gear I have heard playing high-energy rock and roll, when compared to what I hear at a live rock concert.
Raul, is possible you could answer my question about The koetsu rosewood signature? , I have read elsewere coments that you made about this cart. i know that this question does not belog here but ....
Thanks
Sltrains, I get where you're coming from, however I don't see well recorded R&R as less demanding than good classical. On a good system there's not so much difference between Bernie Grundman's Lp master of Foo Fighters Skin & Bones and Classic Records's 45RPM of Heifetz doing Sebelius Violin Concerto in D Minor, Op 47-- particularly on a Saturday night.
All you must know i was poking some Beatles Sunday fun. Right now playing the white lp uk first pressing and i do enjoy the dubed in orchestra with piggys.

Frogman im 60 years young and as posted i use vintage Fisher pre and mono blocks tubed of course vinyl only front end. Along with the rest of my system music is fun and special. Normally 4 or more lps daily to quench my musical fix.

Yep classic rock is my favorite and played most often. But as quoted in the movie The Blues Brothers i like all music practically. I have a assortment of classical and do enjoy it but not on a regular basis.

I have mentioned and truly believe theres no way to reproduce live at home. That fact does not affect my total enjoyment of my stereo. And of all the systems ive owned that enjoyment factor has held true.

I was turned on to music by my mom as a young boy waking on school mornings to that sweet sound of AM radio. Mom liked Sinatra Martin Como Williams yep pop music. The closest i was exposed to classical was the Mitch Miller show. We had a Fisher console it was tubed and i spent a lot of time between the speakers with Mitch Ryder Otis Reading James Brown and the Dave Clark 5. The rest is history convicted i am a music lover till the end.

Back to the White Album
Mike
Dear Jorsan: Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are low riders low/medium compliance ones, not all samples are low riders because quality control on this model is not even but normaly are low riders but 1mm seems to me to low and maybe in that cartridge exist a suspension problem.
Now, if the cartridge performs good then maybe you have not be worried about.
In the other side and as I said there is no even quality control in this Koetsu model and depends on its vintage production how it runs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Hi guys. I am currently trying out a pass labs xp-25 phono stage. Sounds pretty darm good with Atlas and xv-1s.

I decided to replace the xv-1s with the legend that is the Technics epc-p100cmk4 on the exclusive p3 to see how it sounds with mm. changed the gain on the pass to 47db, 100pf and 47k and played talk talk-the colour of spring album again.
Wtf, sounds amazing. The best I have heard the technics sound. I am not feeling any desire to go back to the Lyra Atlas atm.

More to follow
Dear Downunder: Great experiences. The Technics P100CMK4 with the right overall set up is just a fascinating performer hard very hard to beat and a real challenge for any cartridge out there.

Good that you own the stand alone version and good too to hear from you again.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul with regards to your comments re: the composers and direct/reflected sound - I totally disagree!

Taking a look at auditoria from the periods of the various composers, the auditoria acoustics were specifically designed for a particular type of music.
In other words, the music and the auditoriums went together... ie: the proportion of direct to reflected sound was taken into account and planned for in the composition of the music.

Music from the earlier Mozart/Haydn period was made for halls with a short reverb time (circa 1.2s) - the halls that then and now are known for excellence with this type of music have proportions that result in this type of reverb. This also results in a dry clean clear sound - and much more precise spatial positioning...

Romantic period halls tend towards reverb times of 2s, with reverb time being greatest in the lower frequencies and least in the higher ones, emphasizing the lower frequencies and depressing the highs... a very warm, full, romantic sound.

In a concert hall, reflections take around 15ms longer to arrive at the ear than direct sound... this hugely affects the sound - short sharp dynamics (percussion) are clearly located - but any lengthy section/notes, those that focus on tone, the direct sound will be completely swamped by the reflected sound, and due to the nature of the type of sound involved, localisation is likely to be difficult if not impossible. More than 50% of the sound amplitude reaching the listener is reflected! So the "frequency response" of the reflections completely alters the performance.

Good article on that topic here:http://www.regonaudio.com/HighRomanticism.html

We do not know what the composers did or did not intend, with the exception of the occasional letters/notes left by them.
But we do know what halls they performed in, and which halls were considered "good" as opposed to "bad".
Looking at the type of halls, you can clearly seperate venues designed for baroque music from those intended for romantic - and the composers who were no dumbo's wrote music to be played in a specific environment.

With Wagner (most opera really) - any localisation / imaging is in fact coincidental - the orchestra is (or should be) in a pit - all sound reaching the audience is (or should be) indirect! - and the hall by design boosts the lower frequencies, and by comparison, depresses the highs.
The effect is one of being engulfed by waves of sound.... it is all tone and timbre with no imaging/staging. (except the vocal performers on stage - they are not in the pit...)

It seems to me that the great romantic composers were well aware of the halls and the acoustics that they were playing with, and they used it as a part of their composition.
When the music is then played differently, in a different type of space, or recorded and played back using multimike methods, the result may be pleasant, but it is not the original composition.

The only effective way of capturing a reasonable facsimile of the original composition played in one of the halls it is intended for, is a two mike setup, positioned at the listener location/seat - where it can capture the mix of reflections and direct sound in the correct proportions.

This captured sonic information can then be used to provide a reasonable facsimile of the performance in the home.
Potentially with technologies like ambisonics, and specialised ambisonics microphones, the entire acoustic event can be recorded and recreated - but as long as the capture is done in a known controlled manner at the listener location - then it becomes a matter of intelligently decoding it at the replay end. This, depending on the recording system used could involve something as simple as speaker locations, or something as complex as digital decoding with spectrum variable timing delays, head related Transfer functions etc...

Timeltel - thanks for the link to the sound processing book by the way!

Is there software that can take a sound, and by digitally processing it, position it within a virtual space - yes there is. And it is getting better every day. (some of the stuff that is possible today with relatively economical software is truly astounding!)
But will that be a reproduction of a performance - no it won't be .... instead it is a creation of a performance.
In other words, any recording that does not make the "purist" attempt to record the event at the listener location, (which may involve more than two mikes, depending on the system) is in fact engaging the recording engineer as a secondary composer/conductor.
So really we are listening to Beethoven not by Bernstein or Stokowski - but by John Doe recording engineer.
(slightly unfair, at least in Stokowski's case, he got directly involved in the engineering of his recordings, and made sure they sounded the way he wanted... but I believe this to be the exception rather than the rule)

Does and can a multimiked performance sound good? - Sure!
Is what we hear through our systems on such a recording a reasonable approximation of what the composer had in mind? I doubt it.
Is it any less valid as music - probably not - just as valid - but it is not valid to attempt to claim that it is a reflection/recording of an audio event. That is the one thing it is NOT - it is an independent composition and the composer is the recording engineer.
Much like various artists make mash-ups of previously existing pieces of art thereby creating a new piece of art in the process, so the recording engineer takes the multimiked inputs (which themselves involve a lot of art, and are offcuts / windows onto the original piece of art which is the whole composition), and builds a collage - this collage is in reality a completely new piece of art.

If what the listener is seeking is a reasonable facsimile of the original piece of art, then this method is fundamentally flawed.
But if the listener is looking for a differing art form, based on but not the same as the original piece of art, then it may have a high value.

So I posit the theory that in actual fact, many audiophiles who prefer their system/recordings to the live events, are doing this because in reality they prefer the "collage" artform over the live performance artform.

Multimiked recordings with that type of pinpoint imaging of a full blown romantic period wagnerian orchestra are in no way a reflection of Wagners art.
But as a derivative artform some of them are in fact superb.

Hmm I'm starting to meander, and repeat myself... I might stop writing now.... (probably shouldn't write too much after midnight....)

bye for now

David
Dear Dlaloum: ++++ " We do not know what the composers did or did not intend, with the exception of the occasional letters/notes left by them. " +++++

I'm refering to this statement and agree with you. Of course that the halls are builded with the direct/reflected sound subject but I'm not refereing in specific to the halls.

I'm refering on what we can experience at the orchestral Director position or what we experienced in a jazz club where IMHO and trhough my experiences the direct sound SPL is so high that made that the reflected sound almost disappear. This happen at2m-3m from the sound source when in a hall we are seated 20-30m from there: way way differences on what we get and what the mics get with no manipulation.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Mike, Interesting you were listening to the Beatles. I had the same impulse. On Saturday, I was blowing my mind with the Abbey Road album, played at a high db level. That album came out in the same year that I purchased my very first pair of "high end" loudspeakers, IMF Studios, which I bought from Mike Kaye at Lyric Audio in NYC. Mike helped me to load them into my car. The Studios and Abbey Road will always be linked in my mind, because I used to fret whether the 8-inch KEF woofers in the transmission line were being overloaded on "Come Together". But the whole album is a masterpiece. "Come Together" on my Sound Labs, played with the Stanton 980LZS, is to die for. By the way, I am listening to the very same copy of the album (on Apple) that I purchased originally in 1970. Was singing "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" this morning whilst brushing my teeth. (Not easy, with toothpaste in your mouth.)
Lew, what loading do you using on 980LZS? I'm close to mounting mine.

BTW I recall purchasing Abbey Road in '70 in the tiny music dept. at Korvettes dept. store-- an isle or two from the toy dept. where plastic guns & ammo had my close attention a few years earlier.
David, fantastic post, and exactly on target.

While I take exception with comments made by some, such as referring to audiophile considerations as "audiophile BS", I believe it would be most productive for the audiophile/music lover to put more emphasis on understanding the depth and complexity of musical matters. Gaining a deeper understanding of technical audio matters is great and has obvious benefits, but it seems to me that if there isn't a corresponding depth of understanding re the music, all that technical knowledge leads to simply spinning our wheels since we don't really understand what it is that the
more and more "sophisticated" gear in our audio systems is supposed to be letting us hear. The amount of information available in a live performance is mind-boggling compared to what is actually present over even the best systems.

****So I posit the theory that in actual fact, many audiophiles who prefer their system/recordings to the live events, are doing this because in reality they prefer the "collage" artform over the live performance artform.**** -
Dlaloum

Returning to an earlier discussion: I confess I am mystified by the assertions of some of the posters on this thread that there is no 3D effect in live music. I agree that 3D as a audiophilic term, and as described by some does not exist in live music; not exactly, anyway. Let's first define what it is we are talking about. From wordIQ.com, 3D:

"Three dimensional objects have volume and may be measured and described using three orthogonal directions.
In animation, 3-D sometimes refers to shaded, modeled shapes that have an apearance of depth, as opposed to the "flat" rendering of conventional cell animation"

I think it is fair to apply this description to musical "images". I won't repeat what I posted earlier, but can only conclude that some are using a different definition of the term, as a musical instrument playing live exibits far more of these characteristics than any recorded one.
Lew for sometime Sundays when possible has been The Beatles day around here. Nothing like wraping yourself in there library of musical delights. And speaking of Abby Road quite possibly my favorite.

My earliest fond moment from back in the early 70s pulling into the family drive way with my 65 GTO early into a new day Abby Road pumped as loud as you can image through my 8 track tape player. Im into the final short melodies when I hear a pounding on the drivers window its my dad I woke him up while jamming O no. In the he was cool about it but it did not start that way. Dident know it at the time I was living the best days of my life.

Gotta love the Beatles
Mike
Mike, I had a Pontiac LeMans with the V8 and a floor shift. My dad thought the GTO was "too fast". I could not talk him into it. Later, in med school, I bought myself a used Alfa Duetto with my own money. Liked the LeMans but loved the Alfa. The Beatles seem even greater today than I thought they were then, because of the crappy music with which we are bombarded on a daily basis. Only the Stones and a very few others can compare. I remember now that my system in 1970 was AR XA turntable, CM SS preamp (a small now defunct company based in CT), an SAE SS amplifier, and those IMF Studios, all crammed into our apartment when I was an intern. Interestingly, I may have had a Stanton 681E cartridge at that time.

Dave, I first started at 100R load on the Stanton. I am sitting there thinking that the cartridge sure sounds "dark" and not much highs. Then I realized that I still had the MP1 set up for the Ortofon MC7500. (I installed switchable loading in the MP1, so I can now choose 100R, 1000R, and 47K via a single 4PDT switch on the rear.) So I switched over to 1000R. Big big improvement. I need to try 47K, but I was so taken by the music after that that I stopped worrying. It was interesting to me that even though the Stanton has a 3-ohm internal resistance, lower than many LOMCs, it just does not sound right into a 100R load (no treble). Perhaps this has to do with its 1mH inductance, as opposed to the ~50 microhenry inductance of an LOMC.
Re the classical vs rock discussion, Duke said it best. There are only two kinds of music, "good and bad". And of course, jazz is the only "good" music. Just kidding. Beatles, too. Dave G's remark made me want to drag out my copy of Heifetz playing the Sibelius Violin Concerto. That was the first classical LP that made me appreciate that classical music was subject to personal interpretation and creativity, almost to the same extent as jazz. What Heifetz does with that music is genius.
Dear Frogman: Yes, " musical images " could be better. Now, let me to ask you: which could be the musical image of a pair of horns/trumpets playing at 2m from you.? what musical image permit those trumpets natural agresiveness high SPL direct sound been percieved?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Also try Heifetz's Glazunov Concerto (RCA LS) for another great example of his unique combination of virtuosic perfection and passion. And talk about 3D violin sound! :-)
Dear Raul, I am not sure I understand your question correctly; but I will try to answer what I think you mean. Musical "image" is the aural equivalent of a visual image. We commonly use the term "imaging", no? I am not sure I understand what you mean by an image "permitting" high SPL's and aggressiveness. I experience precisely what you described (horns/trumpets playing 2m from me) on a regular basis, and I assure you that the resulting sound has dimensionality (yes, 3D), great specificity, and of course a great deal of power. As one moves further away from those sources, the "images" of those instruments (and all others, actually) gain dimensionality, as the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound will obviously
change.

If your question has to do with recorded sounds of those instruments, no recorded sound will capture the high SPL's and natural aggressiveness of real horns 2m from the listener. But then, I don't understand how that relates to the original discussion about 3D. Please clarify.

Regards.
Dear Frogman: You understand my meaning and appreciated your answer.

Now, there is a link of my questions on the 3D " imaging, let me explain:

here in México city we can find out persons that are playing single instrument to get some " coins " to survive. These persons goes on a street walking block after block: this is their daily work.
Yesterday when I go out ( walking. ) very near of my home I heard the sound of a trumpet/horn coming from somewhere ( I was at 80m. from the source ) in the street in free space, even I can't seen the player but as any one of us immediatly I was aware was a live and real sound. I follow walking approaching the player till I was at 10m. in the other side of the street and even at 10m that high SPL ( in free space and with a normal street surrounded noise. ) that impose the trumpet gives that natural agresiveness we are talking about.

With my eyes open I try to figure the imaging on 3D and was elusive for say the least. I cross the street till I was at 2-3m and then at less than 2m: I can't detect that 3D. Btw, I love this people and if for no other thing because they give us the opportunity to enjoy a live music performance.

Well, I let that he finished and started to talk with him and because we were so near my place I invite him to come with me and explain what I want to test.

My place is an apartment with not to high ceiling, I asked him to play inside my place and knowing what a trumpet can makes ( high SPL ) in a closed room ( like my apartment ) I took position 6m from the source trying to find out that 3D we are talking about that 3D that came on the recordings and I can't perceive in that way: yes exist an overall " imaging " as you say ( and I agree ) but this kind of dimensionality is something that several audiophiles are not aware as you and other persons including me are.

I approach 2m from the trumpet and as you say that dimensionality almost disappear against the very very high SPL of the trumpet direct sound.

After those tests now I have a new friend, a good one.

Btw, even at 2m. inside my place the SPL even with its agresiveness does not " hurt " my ears and had not the necessity to " lower the volume " because I can't been aware of no single distortions like the ones that always exist in our each one audio system: any system.

Every single day even that I'm not a player I listen to live music because in the apartment next flor ( a top ) of mine I have two boys that are learning music: one with the guitar and the other with a piano, both are very good and even that the sound came from other closed room it is marvelous. Three four days everyweek I'm at its place hearing their " training ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
David,
Thank you for taking the time to pen that wonderful post.
An intelligent, comprehensive and learned summation of sometimes forgotten 'history'.
The story of Wagner and his 'orchestra in the pit' of course is singularly pertinent is relation to '3D sound' and 'pinpoint imaging'? :^)
It also bears mentioning that Wagner designed his own hall and orchestra pit to project his Ring Cycle in the manner for which he composed it?
Regards
Henry
Well, I let that he finished and started to talk with him and because we were so near my place I invite him to come with me and explain what I want to test.

You are truly sui generis, Raul. I mean that in the best possible way.
I never thought about a single instrument having a "3D" aspect. I am satisfied if and when my audio system can give me a sense of the space around that instrument, rather than of its dimensions. For example, the differences among the sounds of that trumpet outside in free space, in a large auditorium, or in Raul's apartment with the low-ish ceilings. When I spoke of depth and 3D imaging, I was thinking of an ensemble of composed of a variety of dissimilar instruments.

I really like Raul's last point, and I noticed this too in a small jazz club when I was sitting about 6 feet away from a trumpet player and a trombone player standing side by side with the bells pointed right at me; the sound was very loud during crescendos but never "irritating". It was just, for want of a better word, "pure". So clean! Even the best audio system will eventually exhibit distortions at high volume levels, due to being overdriven.
Raul, thanks for sharing your experience; and I commend you for caring enough to conduct that experiment.

I think this subject is in many ways a classic case of "talking past each other", as I think there is actually a lot more agreement than disagreement.

Lewm wrote:

"I never thought about a single instrument having a "3D" aspect. I am satisfied if and when my audio system can give me a sense of the space around that instrument, rather than of its dimensions".

I consider that a contradictory statement. "sense of space around that
instrument" is precisely what I have been talking about; it is a classic definition of 3D, in my opinion.

Call it 3D, "sense of space around the instrument", dimensionality (which by the way does not imply giving a sense of the actual measurable dimensions, but rather, the existence of dimensions), whatever. The sound of a live instrument (or group of instruments) playing in space has a tremendous sense of volume (to use yet another possible definition), much more than a recorded one. Were it not the case, and were the recorded sound posess such a strong quality that does not occur in real life (3D), then the only logical conclusion is that our beloved audio gear is even worse than previously thought, as we would then be talking about a seriously gross distortion of sound.

As I said in my original post on this subject, what I believe happens is that the sense of 3D that most audiophiles talk about re recorded sound is a sin of omission. A great deal of lowlevel information that is present in real life is lost by the recording process, and actually creates a sense of a musical image starkly separated from what is, in real life, a much larger sound envelope which has a much less defined beginning and end; the result of much more harmonic information extending in all directions for a much longer period of time (decay).
Dear Froggie, OK. Semantics got in the way of our understanding each other. When you wrote "3D" and based on your subsequent language, I thought you were talking about the 3D image of a trumpet per se.