main difference between real sound and repro sound

[tony ky ma]

Tim-I mostly agree with everything you said and Frank is driving us all together as Jack pointed out. I do believe the system can change from day to day and for a number of reasons. Thankfully for you, I don't think your system (a digital based system) will change as much as those that involve turntables and R2R decks. First of all, if you don't warm up your gear for the same amount of time before you sit down to listen, cold gear will sound different. Back in the days when I had all SS preamps and poweramps, I never turned them off. I didn't care how much extra it ran up the electric bill. I am firmly convinced that SS sounds better if left on all the time. Obviously if you have a pure Class A amp, you can't do that. Even my Denon AVR receiver which has been in my upstairs home theater system for over 8 years has never been turned off except for when a really bad thunderstorm strikes. Temperature and humidity can also have an effect on phono cartridges.

My point to all of this is that if you just flip your system on from a dead-cold state and start to listen, it won't sound like it will after it has been on for awhile and everything has reached thermal equalibrium/temperature stability.

Mep- silicon device's current will change by temperature, so SS OCL amp's out put voltage will shift by the change of the temperature, stable temperature is needed, and my all tube system's sound always getting better after one side of a LP done, if a guy can't hear the difference in this area, can he notice the different between a brand new amp and after break in ?
tony ma

 

[mep]

Fair enough, Mep. There is also the widely-held belief that power can change the sound of a system and that sensitive systems often sound better late at night when the grid is less busy. My system often sounds better late at night, though I suspect it is the wine. But we're picking nits. Frank is placing his hear inches from the tweeter and is unable to locate the driver. He is making his worst recordings sound good and making tweaks in electronics that render the limitations of speakers a moot point. Different stuff, I think.

Tim

Tim-You and I both know no one is hearing what Frank is hearing including Frank.

 

[DonH50]

Mep- silicon device's current will change by temperature, so SS OCL amp's out put voltage will shift by the change of the temperature, stable temperature is needed, and my all tube system's sound always getting better after one side of a LP done, if a guy can't hear the difference in this area, can he notice the different between a brand new amp and after break in ?
tony ma

Actually, the characteristics of tubes and transistors both change with temperature. There are a myriad of temperature- and supply-independent bias circuits around so that is rarely an issue. Plus, a little feedback will also help.

 

[fas42]

Tim, rather than respond directly to the comments just made, which is largely just going round in circles, I will again quote yourself from early in this thread

Yes, you can get a system to play the sudden hard attack of a trumpet, or the clanging of a cow bell as loudly, louder even, than live. But to get that attack, that percussive strike to jump out of the background with as much impact relative to the other instruments is quite a hat trick. I've heard some really good systems, and none delivered the most dramatic transients life-like. Some of the "best" playback systems are actually not very good at this at all.

Yes, it is quite a hat trick to get to that dynamic response. Simple question: have you, or has anyone else, experienced a system that was able to consistently perform that trick with a variety of recordings, and if so, in what ways was this system not up to scratch in other areas?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, rather than respond directly to the comments just made, which is largely just going round in circles, I will again quote yourself from early in this thread



Yes, it is quite a hat trick to get to that dynamic response. Simple question: have you, or has anyone else, experienced a system that was able to consistently perform that trick with a variety of recordings, and if so, in what ways was this system not up to scratch in other areas?

Frank

The short answer is no, I haven't heard a system that can perfectly reproduce the dynamics of live music. The system I have now comes as close as any I've had. Its weaknesses? It lacks deep bass. It lacks the sheer girth to fill very large rooms.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I, and others here, feel 2 channels aren't enough to get close enough. Where is that thread? To get that level of intensity the sound has to be very direct. A phantom image is anything but.

 

[fas42]

Okay, now a thought experiment:

Set up an excellent drum kit in an acoustically dead space. Position the best mic you've got for the job at a suitable distance in front of the kit (in other words, mono). Bring in Buddy Rich, tell him to have a good time for 5 minutes (no booze, no swearing!) and record the results.

Can you tell me if and why there is an intrinsic reason why the dynamics and impact of that performance can't be reproduced by a decent playback system?

Frank

 

[mep]

Yes, because microphones and the rest of the gear can't capture the true intensity/sound density of a live drum kit. Properly done, drums can be recorded very, very well and jazz recordings do this routinely. However, no one would mistake the sound of a live drum kit heard from a few feet away for any recording that I'm aware of. They are not close. But maybe if you are an Imaganeer you could convince yourself you can't hear any difference. You just won't convince me.

 

[DonH50]

Why always the digs at engineers? Who has claimed a live drum set and recorded one sound the same?

And why do I allow myself to get sucked into these threads?

Out - Don

 

[mep]

Don-Who is digging at engineers? Frank was asking why couldn't they sound the same and I answered that for the here and now, they can't. If you haven't followed any of Frank's posts, Frank imagines all types of things that aren't possible so he is an imagineer.

 

[fas42]

because microphones and the rest of the gear can't capture the true intensity/sound density of a live drum kit.

Okay, now the question is, how do you know the mic, etc, can't capture the sound? The sound not being captured = distortion, by definition.

Some might say it's easy to tell, I just listen to top notch monitors, or through my pro headphones, straight from the desk, the mic feed, so to speak.

We accept that what you are hearing is distorted, by definition. So now there are 3 options:

1. The mic and capture gear is adding 100% of the total distortion, the monitors or headphones 0%
2. The mic and capture gear is adding 0% of the total distortion, the monitors or headphones 100%
3. The mic and capture gear is adding 1%-99% of the total distortion, the monitors or headphones 99%-1%

Which is correct? If you say 3, would you be able to give some reasonable numbers?

Frank

 

[DonH50]

Don-Who is digging at engineers? Frank was asking why couldn't they sound the same and I answered that for the here and now, they can't. If you haven't followed any of Frank's posts, Frank imagines all types of things that aren't possible so he is an imagineer.

Sorry mep, I misunderstood. I admit I have not been following this thread closely. Just crashed it at the wrong time, obviously. - Don

 

[mep]

No problem Don. I didn't want you to be mad at me for the wrong reason. I have great respect for good engineers.

 

[JackD201]

Given all your assumptions Frank, here's as intrinsic I can get.

The drum kit produces sound with a person hitting brass discs and skins that resonate shells of diferent sizes with wood, wire, or kick pedals. He hits it with varying intensity each time. Every piece radiates sound omnidirectionaly. The loudspeaker is producing sound by vibrating diaphragms using electromotive force. The diaphragms are smaller and made of different materials than the brass, skin and shells. They also radiate the sound with varying levels of directionality.

The biological equivalent is a parrot imitating a human. It can be convincing but a parrot doesn't have a humans vocal structure so it can never mimic one consistently. That can even be said of the best impersonator. If one knows the subject well enough, the person will always be more difficult to fool.

 

[tony ky ma]

Okay, now the question is, how do you know the mic, etc, can't capture the sound? The sound not being captured = distortion, by definition.

Some might say it's easy to tell, I just listen to top notch monitors, or through my pro headphones, straight from the desk, the mic feed, so to speak.

We accept that what you are hearing is distorted, by definition. So now there are 3 options:

1. The mic and capture gear is adding 100% of the total distortion, the monitors or headphones 0%
2. The mic and capture gear is adding 0% of the total distortion, the monitors or headphones 100%
3. The mic and capture gear is adding 1%-99% of the total distortion, the monitors or headphones 99%-1%

Which is correct? If you say 3, would you be able to give some reasonable numbers?

Frank

Frank, I started this thread because I had so many time in operating a Studer A80 in mini concert , all the equipments included the monitor system almost the highest quality level, still the repro quite different to the real one, density is different, density is not = loud, just by feeling, I really don't know your definition of distortion, how you measure it out and how you can get rid of it, if the % of distortion from a single tone in measurement, I really don't care of it, 100% perfect tone of 60hz doesn't mean good sound to me
tony ma

 

[fas42]

Okay, Jack, let's say one day the industry produced a microphone with zero distortion, recording gear with zero distortion and monitors with zero distortion. You're saying even in that case the recorded event wouldn't sound "real"?

Frank

 

[fas42]

still the repro quite different to the real one, density is different, density is not = loud, just by feeling,

tony, you've just perfectly defined the distortion I'm talking about. There IS distortion BECAUSE it doesn't sound the same! The measuring instrument is the perfect one , your own ears, they are telling you the sound is different, and therefore the LEVEL of distortion is too great ...

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Okay, Jack, let's say one day the industry produced a microphone with zero distortion, recording gear with zero distortion and monitors with zero distortion. You're saying even in that case the recorded event wouldn't sound "real"?

Frank

It won't change the fact that the origin of the sounds are intrinsically different. It will never sound real because it will never be real. It's asymptotic.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Where are you going with this, Frank? I'm failing to see the point in speculating about perfect systems of recording and playback.

Tim

 

[tony ky ma]

tony, you've just perfectly defined the distortion I'm talking about. There IS distortion BECAUSE it doesn't sound the same! The measuring instrument is the perfect one , your own ears, they are telling you the sound is different, and therefore the LEVEL of distortion is too great ...

Frank

Frank, That fact is simple no need to argue, , We all know the repro never can be same as the real sound , only best system can go closer, you said in your modification can get rid of those distortions improve to close to the real sound, but no one knows how close it is, the level can be detected by yourself only or few of your close friends, may be my modification will better than yours, because in my experience tube amp DHT SE always beat SS amp, tube rectifier beat silicon diode, choke in put in power supply always the best, transformer coupling beat cap coupling, silver beat copper, multi power supply beat single one, multi amps beat single amp, etc, with this mods ( still have more ) can make the repro quite close to the real thing, but how close until you come to hear otherwise you never know, or you can try my way to see is it better or not
tony ma