Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Ron Resnick]

So, simply you have not listened to Momentum's on Wilson. Nothing to add.

I doubt I will prefer it to darTZeel or Gryphon.

 

[hopkins]

There are so many factors that effect the "airiness" and I am not sure we can say that a single factor is most critical.

For example, in addition to what has been noted above, the resolution of the speakers (ability to transform small membrane movements into audible air pressure changes at lowest possible SPL) is certainly important, and not all speakers are created equal in this domain.

The tendency of a lot of modern speaker drivers is to require a large amount of power to achieve high levels of resolution, but distortion may rise (as membrane movements increase) and at loud volumes our hearing is less sensitive.

There's a reason why vintage speaker drivers like the Altec 755 or Zenith 49cz, for example, are so sought after - they were made differently !

They can offer high resolution and "airiness" even within a limited frequency range. But they have their limitations also.

There are plenty of other issues in our systems that reduce resolution, increase distortion,etc...

Faced with imperfect systems, we prioritize different aspects (some may value a flat frequency response, as noted above). If we could have it all, we would not be arguing over preferences and tastes.

 

[mtemur]

IMHO the air and realism of live music is lost by recording and mastering process. When a cd (or any other source) is played during the brake of the band in a jazz club it becomes more obvious. All the realism, impact, liveliness, dynamics and effortlessness vanish, you left with dry and uninvolved sound of recorded music. It’s the same amps and speakers but totally different sound. It’s almost always the same difference even if all the instruments are not heard directly but through mikes, amps and speakers.

IMHO the main struggle of home audio is fighting against degradation of lifelike nature by recording and production process of music.

 

[hopkins]

Yes, recording is the ultimate limiting factor, but hopefully we have some ways until we reach that frontier...

 

[microstrip]

IMHO the air and realism of live music is lost by recording and mastering process. When a cd (or any other source) is played during the brake of the band in a jazz club it becomes more obvious. All the realism, impact, liveliness, dynamics and effortlessness vanish, you left with dry and uninvolved sound of recorded music. It’s the same amps and speakers but totally different sound. It’s almost always the same difference even if all the instruments are not heard directly but through mikes, amps and speakers.

IMHO the main struggle of home audio is fighting against degradation of lifelike nature by recording and production process of music.

Are you suggesting that a stereo microphone feed keeps the air and realism? Or simply that the stereo process, reducing a sound field to tow channels kills them?

Although I prefer listening to it in top stereo, IMHO in classical music multichannel has more air and realism than stereo.

 

[mtemur]

Are you suggesting that a stereo microphone feed keeps the air and realism? Or simply that the stereo process, reducing a sound field to tow channels kills them?

Although I prefer listening to it in top stereo, IMHO in classical music multichannel has more air and realism than stereo.

True stereo recordings like Ken Christianson does with a pair of AKG microphones (ORTF) and a Nagra IVS or Decca three or RCA all sound great to my ears. Most multi miked recordings also sound great even though they're not stereo but two channel mono. After all they're just recordings. I'm not arguing which technique sounds best I'm just saying any process such as recording, mixing, mastering, pressing etc washes away realism. More process means farther away from reality.

The real music may sound close or far, airy or dry and the recording should reflect that same image. I don't mean more impact, air, presence by using the word "lifelike". If it's soft the recording should sound soft. But when you compare mike feed of a real instrument to a line output of cd player (or any other source) feeding same equipment it fells like you're trying to eat plastic fruit made for display. That's how I feel about direct comparison of live and recorded. I tried to explain it in my prior post by referring to jazz club experience. Even when the only difference is the source (mike feed of a real instrument or a pre recorded release) same amp and speakers sound totally different. Of course when an instrument plays in front of you without a mike, amp and speakers it sounds best.

 

[mtemur]

Are you suggesting that a stereo microphone feed keeps the air and realism? Or simply that the stereo process, reducing a sound field to tow channels kills them?

Two good albums recorded in stereo

 

[Rexp]

As I was editing the video clips on my iMac last night of the videos I recorded at AXPONA 2023, listening to many of the video recordings of show audio system playbacks over and over, I was struck by how misleading was the sound of some (but by no means all) of the video clips versus the sound I heard in person, in real life, just hours earlier.

One system which garnered rave reviews in person sounded weirdly boomy on the videos in each of five different recordings with five different tracks. Conversely, a large and elaborate and expensive system which most people I discussed it with reported that it sounded inexplicably underwhelming in person actually sounded quite good on the videos.

For me, personally, this is more evidence of the folly of believing that you can understand from a video recording of the audio playback of a system you have never heard in person in an unfamiliar room and especially with an unfamiliar recording the sound of that system.

Please give specific room examples and maybe post some videos. This is a video thread after all.

 

[Rexp]

IMHO the air and realism of live music is lost by recording and mastering process. When a cd (or any other source) is played during the brake of the band in a jazz club it becomes more obvious. All the realism, impact, liveliness, dynamics and effortlessness vanish, you left with dry and uninvolved sound of recorded music. It’s the same amps and speakers but totally different sound. It’s almost always the same difference even if all the instruments are not heard directly but through mikes, amps and speakers.

IMHO the main struggle of home audio is fighting against degradation of lifelike nature by recording and production process of music.

Very few recordings capture the air in the recording venue and not many systems are good enough to reproduce that air. When demoing speakers/systems, 'air' is the first thing I look out for.

 

[rob]

Very good. My Supravox fieldcoil full range drivers have a similar response curve but do not sound as extended.

You are focusing in my comments to much a full-range drivers. My comments here and on Peter’s thread were general comments.

If you want to hear an example of ear-piercing high-frequencies reproduction that is passed off as HIgh-End Audio today please visit Jay’s Audio Lab and you will hear what I mean instantly.

I agree with your comment on Jay's videos, all that zing and sizzle to give the impression of detailed sound.
Mind you i thought his video of the Tannoy's sounded decent. (though i am biased)

 

[Rexp]

I agree with your comment on Jay's videos, all that zing and sizzle to give the impression of detailed sound.
Mind you i thought his video of the Tannoy's sounded decent. (though i am biased)

Indeed, as in:

 

[Al M.]

Indeed, as in:

Yeah, that's pretty good as far as videos go (not that far). The video does raise my interest in hearing those speakers in person. I'm wondering though how they would handle complex material.

 

[bonzo75]

As I was editing the video clips on my iMac last night of the videos I recorded at AXPONA 2023, listening to many of the video recordings of show audio system playbacks over and over, I was struck by how misleading was the sound of some (but by no means all) of the video clips versus the sound I heard in person, in real life, just hours earlier.

quite strange because I was a non believer in videos till I recorded the Munich show in 2019, and was surprised how well the in room was played back, and how, when I WhatsApped the videos to friends who were not there, they assessed accurately what I was hearing.

also, when I visited you and played back on your iMac, I myself said the playback is so poor even the videos I am very familiar with I cannot tell anything from them

 

[tima]

The real music may sound close or far, airy or dry and the recording should reflect that same image. I don't mean more impact, air, presence by using the word "lifelike". If it's soft the recording should sound soft. But when you compare mike feed of a real instrument to a line output of cd player (or any other source) feeding same equipment it fells like you're trying to eat plastic fruit made for display. That's how I feel about direct comparison of live and recorded. I tried to explain it in my prior post by referring to jazz club experience. Even when the only difference is the source (mike feed of a real instrument or a pre recorded release) same amp and speakers sound totally different. Of course when an instrument plays in front of you without a mike, amp and speakers it sounds best.

I agree - it is easy to tell the difference between live music and recorded music straightaway - or - when both are amplified.

Your point I think is that (somehow) making a direct comparison between live and reproduced through amplification - not unlike an A/B component comparison - is, uh, fruitless. (loved the "like you're trying to eat plastic fruit made for display.")

That does not off-put me from using live acoustic music as a reference for gauging the sound of my stereo playing records, or using the notion of natural sound to guide me. If the reference is not that I don't know what it would be.

 

[tima]

"Air" is an interesting sonic concept and please let me reserve the right to think more fully in the future on a proposed definition than I have time for right now. There is not going to be a satisfying one to one identity between a sense of "air" I hear from stereo systems versus the sense of openness and wideband audio frequency transmission capability I here at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

At Walt Disney Concert Hall, I don't hear "air" per se, but I hear a wide and broad conduit, a sonic gateway, through which any frequency may be transmitted and received (heard by listeners in the hall). If there is a high frequency sound, or an overtone of a high frequency sound, or a high frequency harmonic of a lower frequency sound, generated by an instrument the hall allows the listener to hear it.

In stereo systems I perceive a sense of "air" to be kind of a proxy for this sense of wideband sonic conduit or gateway I hear live. In stereo systems the "air" manifests as a sense of openness and unrestricted treble frequency reproduction capability.

(Is it possible this sense of "air" concept is more related to phase information than to audio frequency information? I think Flemming thought so, because he added to the Pendragons four AMTs per side that start at 18kHz!)



I think David's Bionors are missing some of this sense of higher frequency "air" and openness.

Whatever is this sonic concept of "air" I am discussing here, I believe it is why some people add supertweeters to their loudspeaker systems. As usual in this hobby, totally subjective preference.

I think the Pendragons are in the contemporary sound/extended frequency response category, and the sonic center of gravity is higher, presently, than I would like it to be. In my system I hear the "air" I am talking about (despite the measured, objective frequency response rolling off significantly at around 8kHz (very puzzling!)).

As I mentioned in my system thread I am trying to nudge downward the sonic center of gravity of my system. I would like to rein in some of the upper midrange and treble range energy, without losing the sense of "air" and "openness."

"There's something in the air besides the atmosphere."
-- Lene Lovich, Lucky Number

I don't think we should make the audiophile vocabulary more complex by using new words for known concepts. Nor do I think we should encourage or see some advantage in audiophile attributes that lead away from, rather than toward, natural sound.

I have no clue about what is meant by "sonic center of gravity" other than what for a long time we've called frequency balance. Unless a composer writes or a conductor conducts intentionally to emphasize a certain part of the frequency spectrum (meaning real notes) I understand natural sound as balanced sound. Yes, various systems and their setup can produce uneven frequency balance. Why don't we simply call what is desired "frequency balance"?

With regard to talk about "air" -- I see that as an homgenized artifact that does not exist outside of audio rooms. I've heard it described as halo of white noise present in many recordings. Some ascribe it to the use of various audiophile interconnects with the ability to add it or emphasize it through cable choice. To me the challenge is not to add or manipulate this artifact.

At a live performance in the concert hall we hear music at different distances from its origin -- sound travels through the air to various seats, some near, some far. What you hear 10 feet near stage from a violin is not what you hear in the balcony. We distinquish between direct and reflected sound. Sound travels upward from its source into the air above the orchestra -- it is literally in the air and it will be heard differently depending on where it is and with a time differential from its initiation. Sound is directly influenced by its venue context -- some refer to this as ambience. In her thread Space: The Final Frontier Karen talked about space. Ideally, imo, playback should reveal differences in performance ambience unique to each space.

 

[PeterA]

Tim, I am also confused by the phrase "sonic center of gravity". Ron does mention Karen Sumner's esseys when talking about this, so I reviewed some of her threads. I found this:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/music-is-fundamental-to-almost-everyone.33831/

In this excellent essay, Karen describes a rectangle outlining the 100Hz - 1000Hz range on a chart she posts as the "range where a sound system needs to be the most musically dense to be convincing.

@Ron Resnick , are you simply substituting Karen's notion of where a system's sound should be musically dense with your goal of a lower "sonic center of gravity" and noting that it is lower on the chart than your perception of your system's frequency balance would indicate? Is the red line on the chart your "center of gravity" frequency goal for your system?

Here is the chart:

 

[Ron Resnick]

are you simply substituting Karen's notion of where a system's sound should be musically dense with your goal of a lower "sonic center of gravity" and noting that it is lower on the chart than your perception of your system's frequency balance would indicate? Is the red line on the chart your "center of gravity" frequency goal for your system?

I don't have that chart in mind, so I am not noting anything relating to the chart.

My subjectively preferred sonic center of gravity is within the 100Hz to 1,000Hz range Karen discusses.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have no clue about what is meant by "sonic center of gravity"

Feel free not to adopt my terminology. To each his own on the terminology.

I understand natural sound as balanced sound.

I don't use your term "balanced" because it makes no sense to me. "Balanced" suggests a pivot point in the middle. Between 20Hz and 8kHz the balance point would be about 4kHz.

You and Peter seem to prefer a sound that emphasizes the upper bass/lower midrange (I appreciate that you may not agree with this characterization). But there is nothing "balanced" about that sound in the sense that it represents the middle of the relevant audio frequency spectrum. If you don't mean the middle, then I think "balanced" is the wrong word

Peter's definition of "balanced" includes the requirement that no part of the frequency range sticks out or makes itself noticed or draws attention to itself. I agree with this objective (what audiophile wants a part of the frequency range to draw attention to itself and break his/her concentration from enjoying the music?). It is something I agree with, but I do not think this concept is properly described as "balanced."

When I think of "balanced" I think of a see-saw. A see-saw is balanced only when the pivot point is in the middle of an equally-bisected, equally-weighted board. If the board balances outside of the middle then each end is of a different weight. If you want to balance a sonic see-saw in the upper bass/lower midrange then that means the lower frequencies are much more pronounced (heavier) than are the higher (lighter) frequencies.

If you don't like the see-saw analogy, I understand that -- ignore it. Then I will retrench to the suggestion that strong and heavy in the lower frequencies and light and weak in the higher frequencies is not properly thought of as "balanced." I just wouldn't use the word "balanced" to describe the sonic attributes you and Peter are talking about.

Again, to each his own on the terminology.

 

[PeterA]

Feel free not to adopt my terminology. To each his own on the terminology.



I don't use your term "balanced" because it makes no sense to me. "Balanced" suggests a pivot point in the middle. Between 20Hz and 8kHz the balance point would be about 4kHz.

You and Peter seem to prefer a sound that emphasizes the upper bass/lower midrange (I appreciate that you may not agree with this characterization). But there is nothing "balanced" about that sound in the sense that it represents the middle of the relevant audio frequency spectrum. If you don't mean the middle, then I think "balanced" is the wrong word

Peter's definition of "balanced" includes the requirement that no part of the frequency range sticks out or makes itself noticed or draws attention to itself. I agree with this objective (what audiophile wants a part of the frequency range to draw attention to itself and break his/her concentration from enjoying the music?). It is something I agree with, but I do not think this concept is properly described as "balanced."

When I think of "balanced" I think of a see-saw. A see-saw is balanced only when the pivot point is in the middle of an equally-bisected, equally-weighted board. If the board balances outside of the middle then each end is of a different weight. If you want to balance a sonic see-saw in the upper bass/lower midrange then that means the lower frequencies are much more pronounced (heavier) than are the higher (lighter) frequencies.

If you don't like the see-saw analogy, I understand that -- ignore it. Then I will retrench to the suggestion that strong and heavy in the lower frequencies and light and weak in the higher frequencies is not properly thought of as "balanced." I just wouldn't use the word "balanced" to describe the sonic attributes you and Peter are talking about.

Again, to each his own on the terminology.

I have no idea what any of that means. You spent a week visiting ddk in Utah recently. Would you describe the sound of his system as "balanced"? Do you think any frequency range in his system was emphasized? Was any sonic attribute spotlit or did any stick out to you sonically? Did his system sound natural to you?

I appreciate the fact that if you do not recognize that terminology that you will not be able to answer those questions.

 

[tima]

To each his own on the terminology.

Droneseye view of WBF -- The Audio Tower of Babel.