 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: RE: More Testing Of Tubes (Mastersound) Vs Transistors (Jungson) posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 29, 2007 at 14:05:44
Since you don't specify what speakers you are using, I will assume that you are still using your Aliante Pininfarina Ones rather than the speakers you are building.
You speculate that the slight harshness and congestion at louder levels with the 200 watt JungSon amplifier has something to do with amplifier clipping. But in fact, there are a number of things it could be. It is quite likely it is simply the result of driving a small two way speaker to loud levels. I won't bore you with other possible explanations except to point out that many tube amps do not have a very flat frequency response into most speaker loads.
That might also explain the perceived difference in soundstaging and air.
TG54
"With the Jungson the backround singers sounded as if they were standing directly behind behind the lead singer, but with the Mastersound you can hear these same singers are actually some 5 or 6 feet behind Steve Moo."
A difference in FR could account for that. I should point out that unless you were present at the recording or have access to a detailed description of the placement of the performers, you have no way of knowing where the background singers were "actually" placed. If they used the same microphones, such placement is unlikely (too far away), and if they used different microphones, their actual placement is moot. With multi-track recording equipment, they needn't even have been recording at the same time.
At the end of your post, you ask a question "why that particular expectation bias on my part didn't keep me from liking the Jungson?" The trouble is, you want an answer solely in terms of expectation bias, as if it would override everything else that could affect your perception. In other words, you eliminate a correct answer in advance, that other things are at work besides expectation. For example, the excitement over trying out a new piece of equipment might be enough, or maybe your mood was particularly good when you tried it out.
But indeed, you evidently like some things about the JungSon amp and other things about your Mastersound 845 tube amp, so it's really hard to see how your example proves expectation bias is not at work.
We have been over that before, that there are many possible sources of bias, not simply expectations, and that simply knowing which piece of equipment you are listening (even if just identified by a light or of different appearance) is enough to bias the audition. Human beings are built to overdetect differences, as jj has pointed out:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=16777&highlight=wetware&r=&session=
And you have had jj's remarks pointed out to you in the past:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=17248&highlight=real_jj,+thetubeguy1954&r=&session=
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Follow Ups:
PD - You speculate that the slight harshness and congestion at louder levels with the 200 watt JungSon amplifier has something to do with amplifier clipping. But in fact, there are a number of things it could be. It is quite likely it is simply the result of driving a small two way speaker to loud levels. I won't bore you with other possible explanations
You got it Pat. So far, the usual suspects here all look to what they want see, some form of fault in the amplification. The BJH case was laughably easy to diagnose, but this one has the required lack of data...gulp..measurements. However, we do have something to work with.
The link below shows all the data required by an audiophile. Unfortunately, it only told me that they have no clue about crossovers (gotta love the 1st order 6db - applied to a 2nd order bandpass. Gee I wonder what acoustic slope we have there? No compensation?) and what drivers we may be dealing with. The tweeter appears to be a SS2905/9500.
They have most likely just put a cap on it for an electrical 6db roll off. XO frequency is by law not mentioned, but IIRC from a "review" it is somewhere in the 3k range. Which of course means that at high drive levels (as can be obtained form a 200w rms amp) we have high levels of IMD & THD from the tweeters low end creating hash at HF (look at the rising 3rd, 4th and 5th order at mild drive levels). Add this on top of the breakup hash from the insufficiently suppressed woofer top end and we have a delicious audiophile recipe of distortion.
Yeah, that ought to lead to some harshness.
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Above 2khz the F3 of this tweeter is lower than -60db. At 90db this is likely inaudible. The F4 and F5 are also quite low at this level. What is your point? There is nothing unusual about this tweeter's distortion and in fact it is better than most but you don't bother to point this out in your dubious attempt to discredit this speaker. For sure the crossover point is above 2Khz so as you can see the distortion is overall lower above this frequency. Also, this driver has excellent settling times, meaning extremely clean waterfall plots.
Ah yes! One can't reduce speculations to reality without good information.
Your technical knowledge far exceeds mine. I'm not really sure what that graph is saying as it's not labeled.
I haven't seen anything to suggest what the crossover regions might be. With a 6 dB per octave slope, I would guess fairly high due to power handling considerations. My impression is that Tom doesn't listen much at really high levels--I don't either, but I know how loud I listen within the limits of my RS 33-2050. I once had some two-way + passive radiator speakers (Kef 104, later modded to 104aB) which crossed over to the tweeter at 3 kHz (but at 18 dB per octave). The response was quite even in the listening window but the off axis dispersion from 1-2.5 kHz wasn't very even. They had a great impulse response, too. (Richard C. Heyser reviewed them for Audio magazine). With careful set up, given a lot of room well away from the walls, and at a reasonable distance, they could sound very good. Even Paul Barton said that they could sound good in an LEDE room. In a big room in the far field, they could sound rather bassy due to the depressed power response in the presence region.
Now, a speaker with a highish crossover relative to the mid-woofer will have what John Atkinson calls an off axis "flare" around the crossover because the tweeter's dispersion is so much wider than that of the woofer in that region. That could cause harshness. Nothing to do with amplifier clipping. Now, if the Mastersound 845 has a dip in the FR around there with the Aliante PF Ones (which would not occur with an amp with a low output impedance), that might improve the sound--maybe his speakers do sound better with his tube amp.
I wasn't in the mood at the time for a long explanation to Tom, but that's how a tube amp *might* work better in one respect with those speakers.
I was amused that the Aliante site waxes eloquent about the expensive copper used for the phase plug! I found a couple of subjective reviews of the Aliante PF One, one by the late Lars Fredell (who seemed like a very nice guy--he emailed me once about absolute polarity) who went on at some length about by the way the speaker handled sibilants, the other by Stephen R. Rochlin, who also seems like a very nice guy--judging from his posts here. I didn't note anything about the crossover point, though, and nothing technical beyond the Aliante literature. Neither of them seemed bothered by anything the speaker did with SS amps.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
I recently bought a used Jungson D-200IA for a secondary system, and I have to say, so far I am very impressed. It appears to be built like an absolute tank, and the sound has much more authority and resolution than the NAD it replaces. I switched my primary setup over to an NHT Xd system, so I no longer have (or need) the exotic amps I used to own for that system. Too bad, as I would have liked to have heard this thing up against the Threshold and Pass amps I used to own...
J
Pat,
I agree that Lars Fredell & Stephen R. Rochlin seem to be very nice gentlemen indeed. One time at TAKE 5 Audio in Connecticut I spoke with a couple of fellow audiophiles in the store. After they left the saleperson told me that was Sam Tellig & Lars Fredell! But I digress...
I think it's joke that someone (not you) would try to account for the harshness I heard by based on info for a stock SCANSPEAK D2905 driver. Stephen R. Rochlin states in his review of the Aliante Pinafarina One "ScanSpeak and Seas, long considered two of the best European specialists, produce the drivers for the Aliante line to their specifications." Seems to me that a stock driver and one made to Aliante's specifications could, would & should measure/sound differently, no?
Also in regards to the comments about a 6dB/octave crossover some others here are making, Stephen R. Rochlin also said in the same review: "The ScanSpeak-produced 28mm silk soft dome tweeter is carefully hand made and manually coated in different steps to achieve proper damping to ensure fast response while also reducing possible distortion. When a manufacturer can ensure such high quality, they can also take advantage of using a more gentle, 6dB/octave (1st order) crossover. While the pros and cons of using such a crossover can be debated, it most certainly means that very few parts are needed, thereby less in the signal's path."
Both quotes were taken from this review:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0903/aliante1.htm
I have to admit I love it when people comment on components they've never heard! Sort of like judging what kind of lover Halle Berry is from her picture, no? I wonder how many people who commented negatively about the Aliantes or Mastersound have heard either of these components? I know specs are impossible to get on either.
Of course you were 100% correct Pat when you said Neither Lars Fredell nor Stephen R. Rochlin seemed bothered by anything the Aliante did with SS amps. Truth be told after a weeks continued usage of the JungSon D-200IA I am no longer hearing the harshness & congestion on loud musical peaks! So it seems all previous suggestions by solid state proponents were in error. Of course I leave the JungSon powered up with volume set at 0 all the time, so perhaps it just needed to warm up? I honestly don't know. I'll be listening to the JungSon exclusively for one more week before comparing it to the Mastersound again. But the reality is this amp is sounding better now that it remains powered up and it's starting to really grow on me. I like this amp... A LOT!
Thetubeguy1954
PD - Your technical knowledge far exceeds mine
Doubtful. Of course, *zero* technical knowledge doesn't seem to hinder posts and "tests" in these parts, does it? ;-)
PD - I'm not really sure what that graph is saying as it's not labeled.
Sorry, posted in haste this a.m.
That's a Scan Speak 2905/9500 tweeter like the one used in the amplifier "test", distortion at 90db/1m drive level. Raw driver.
F3 is 3rd harmonic, F5 fifth, etc. Site link below if you ever get the urge to build your own and need some driver data - or just feel the need to stare at graphs like "objectivists" like to do, while others listen to music and perform "tests".
The speakers being used will have massive levels of intermodulation distortion at anywhere near 200W input, way before the amp is clipping, so the "test" is useless for this purpose.
PD - Now, a speaker with a highish crossover relative to the mid-woofer will have what John Atkinson calls an off axis "flare" around the crossover because the tweeter's dispersion is so much wider than that of the woofer in that region. That could cause harshness.
Yes, the DI (directivity index) of this little box with uncorrelated drivers vertically stacked on a flat baffle will be a nightmare. But this "flare" would result in more "forwardness" than harshness. An imbalance in tone, etc rather than "harsh". Again, the "harsh" comes from the HF "hash" as the woofer cones breakup is woefully unsuppressed by the 6db electrical filter added to the drivers natural roll off, piled on top of the large amounts of HF hash from IM generated at the bottom end of both woofer and tweeter drivers.
The eq curve being generated by the Aliantes impedance roller coaster and the tube amps high impedance output is anyone's guess, since measurements will never be applied. Plus, measurements don't matter, lest we forget ;-).
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
"I won't bore you with other possible explanations except to point out that many tube amps do not have a very flat frequency response into most speaker loads"
Is that the best explanation you can give for why the Jungson amp would sound harsh and congested at higher levels? These kinds of sounds have nothing to FR!
"It is quite likely it is simply the result of driving a small two way speaker to loud levels"
If this were the case wouldn't it sound harsh and congested with BOTH amps at the same level? A small FR variation would not prevent this.
"A difference in FR could account for that"
Only if it could be shown to occur in the presence region of the speaker. A dip in the presence region CAN give a sensation of greater depth.
However; try this one on for size. I was reviewing a number of preamps a couple of years ago, some tube, some hybrid, some passive. The input impedance of my amp was a comfortable 50K ohms so no FR related anamolies occured. One of the preamps I tried COMPLETELY eliminated any sense of soundstage depth. Put in another preamp, almost any other preamp, and the soundstage returned to one degree or another. I had already noticed that this preamp had a somewhat bright sound, not painfully so, but much mroe so than the others...including the passive stage. One possible conclusion that I reached with this preamp was that there was some high frequency hash coming from it that was destroying spatial cues in the recording (HF content is an important indicator of distance as these frequencies are more easily lost). So instead of natural depth cues of instruments everything sounded like it came from the same plane right between the speakers.
I have experienced this also with amplifiers (between two different SS amplifiers even) and to a lesser degree sources as well.
It could therefore simply be that the Jungson's HF response, while flat, is not so clean whereas the Mastersound, while rolling the highs off a bit (probably above Tom's hearing range though), is quite cleanly amplifying those signals thus making the soundstage cleaner and with better sensation of the actual space.
morricab
"Is that the best explanation you can give for why the Jungson amp would sound harsh and congested at higher levels? These kinds of sounds have nothing to FR!"
Who says? Harshness certainly does have to do with FR and level. Some recordings will sound harsh at higher levels: the solution is to turn down the volume (after all, if it's really worth listening to, it should be worth listening to at lower levels). Not the amp's fault. It's hard to be sure just what Tom meant by congestion but one can certainly get a harsh and congested sound with an EQ.
Me
""A difference in FR could account for that"
morricab
"Only if it could be shown to occur in the presence region of the speaker. A dip in the presence region CAN give a sensation of greater depth."
Well, that IS a difference in FR, isn't it?
As for that preamp you reviewed, the one with no soundstage depth and "a somewhat bright sound," you'll never know why without measuring it. The first thing that comes to my mind is a difference in the FR compared to the others. But we'll never know without measurements.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
"Harshness certainly does have to do with FR and level. Some recordings will sound harsh at higher levels: the solution is to turn down the volume (after all, if it's really worth listening to, it should be worth listening to at lower levels). Not the amp's fault. It's hard to be sure just what Tom meant by congestion but one can certainly get a harsh and congested sound with an EQ."
With the same recordings at about the same level? Come on PatD you are just being obtuse. If one amp sounds harsh and congested and the other one not then it is unlikely due to FR variations, which are likely relatively small.
"you'll never know why without measuring it."
I didn't have to. It was measured in a dutch magazine some 15 years ago. It measures characteristically flat.
"The first thing that comes to my mind is a difference in the FR compared to the others. But we'll never know without measurements."
I have seen measurements for most of the others as well and they are also flat. PatD, these are preamps! Shall I put up a bunch of Stereophile links on preamps of all types to show you how many of them are simply FLAT in FR over the audible range? There is no major deviation in FR with 99% of preamps on the market. So the sound is NOT due to FR under most circumstances.
morricab
"With the same recordings at about the same level? Come on PatD you are just being obtuse. If one amp sounds harsh and congested and the other one not then it is unlikely due to FR variations, which are likely relatively small."
First of all, we do not know the levels were the same. Tom does not indicate he measured this at all. I don't know how fast he can disconnect one amp and connect the the other, but it's probably a matter of minutes, at least, so he could have been playing the JungSon amp several dB louder. Second, we don't know that either amp was clipping. Third, FR variations between atypical tube amp and a typical SS amp may not be all that small. Fourthly, it may simply be that the recording sounds a bit harsh at high levels and the tube amp has a dip into that speaker load in the presence region.
Neither you nor Tom seem to realize that I have not eliminated the reasons he put forth, it's just that there seem to be more likely ones.
As for the preamp, well, were you getting the same flat response as measured by the Dutch reviewer? For example, does the preamp have tone controls? A reviewer who measures the performance would adjust any tone controls to give the flattest response--or should. What is the FR in actual use?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
"As for the preamp, well, were you getting the same flat response as measured by the Dutch reviewer? For example, does the preamp have tone controls? A reviewer who measures the performance would adjust any tone controls to give the flattest response--or should. What is the FR in actual use? "
Just stop it Pat. If you have nothing useful to contribute then just shut up. The preamp measures flat both from the review and from the manufacturer. I don't need to check their QC. No tone controls exist on these preamps. My amp had a 47K ohm input impedance, high enough to never be a problem. Full stop. Just accept it.
Did you do a controlled DBT?
_
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
No, level matched sighted and single blind tests (with another listener). Get over it.
PD - Human beings are built to overdetect differences
Right. They are all affected by psychology.
But what about Audiophiles?
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Naw! Audiophiles aren't affected by psychology. That would be insulting.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
PD - Naw! Audiophiles aren't affected by psychology. That would be insulting.
Be careful with your insults here.
cheers,
AJ
Absolute Perfect hearing and audio memory 24/7
Pat,
I just wanted to tell you I think it was in very poor taste for you to respond to my posts when you knew I wasn't able to respond back as per The Bored's specific posted instructions here on PHP. IMO what you did was no different than hitting a person whose hands were tied. But I've since asked Stephaen if I could respond back and defend myself and my audio POV. Stephaen has given me the OK, provided I was not obnoxious. So I'll now respond to your post politely as possible.
1) Yes I used the Aliantes. In fact I simply replaced the Mastersound with the Jungson in my system which is listed in Inmate's Systems.
2) Pat you're also are speculating that the slight harshness and congestion at louder levels with the 200 watt JungSon amplifier has something to do other than amplifier clipping. As you weren't there and didn't hear how it sounded can you really determine the cause of the harshness and congestion? I don't think so. Granted it could have been other things, I even suggested a possible mismatch between the Nordost Blue Heavens and the Jungson as being the cause. But I believe it was clipping.
3) I highly doubt the Jungson's sounding harsh and/or congested on loud musical peaks is quite likely the result of driving a small two way speaker to loud levels. Loud is relative, no? I didn't say extremely loud, just loud. The Mastersound is played as loud and I don't hear the harshness and congestion I heard with the Jungson. I'll readily admit you're correct and SOME tube amps do not have a very flat frequency response into SOME speaker loads, but until you can show me that the Mastersound was guilty of that it will remain a non-issue. Besides even if the Mastersound didn't have flat frequency response into the Aliante's speaker load, how would that account for the Jungson's sounding harsh and congested on musical peaks?
4) When I've said one amp makes the backround singers sound further back than another amp did. I've had other naysayers make the same claim you're making about a difference in FR being accountable for that. But strangely enough not one of these naysayers could ever replicate the FR difference they insist is the cause with an equalizer. Not one could make the backround singers sound further back (or closer to the front for that matter) with either of the amps! So I'll add this to one of those objectivist statements spoken as a fact but is actually an opinion until someone proves differently to me. In addition I stated I wished I could compare the Jungson vs a a 200W/ch Krell, Mark Levinson, Musical Fidelity or Rowland Research integrated solid state amp to do a more apples vs apples (transistors vs transistors) as opposed to an apples vs oranges (tubes vs transistors) test like I did. Testing the soundstaging was one of the specific reasons I wanted to compare these different solid state amps.
5) I should also point out Pat that unless you were present at the recording or have access to a detailed description of the placement of the performers, you have no way of knowing where the background singers were "actually" placed either. I NEVER stated the Mastersound was correct and the Jungson was incorrect in their placement of the background singers did I? But to appease you and your pickiness I'll restate my comment as this: With the Jungson the backround singers sounded as if they were standing directly behind behind the lead singer, but with the Mastersound these same singers sounded like they were some 5 or 6 feet behind Steve Moo. Plus I'll now add with the Jungson the soundstage was replicated like an extremely fine photograph, whereas with the Mastersound the soundstage was replicated like an extremely fine holograph! I honestly don't see how you can disagree with my SUBJECTIVE OPINION of what I heard!!??
6) I stated outright that I thought the Mastersound vs Jungson apples vs oranges (tubes vs transistors) test and was an wished I had access to a 200W/ch Krell, Mark Levinson, Musical Fidelity or Rowland Research integrated solid state amp to do a more apples vs apples (transistors vs transistors) as opposed to an apples vs oranges (tubes vs transistors) test like I did. I think that would be a very interesting test indeed. So I admitted I didn't consider this to be a fair test to assess the Jungson's capabilities.
7) Pat it appears that once again you feel the need to put in your 2 cents and somehow reveal faults in a statement I made, which is actually nothing more than my subjective opinion. I really don't understand why you're attempting to somehow "prove" my subjective opinion wasn't correct or why you feel my subjective opinion needs your clarification. With all your comments the only brief postive statement you made was this: But indeed, you evidently like some things about the Jungson amp When the truth is although I don't find the Jungson to be the Mastersound's sonic equal I said a few quite postive statements about the Jungson:
a) All-in-all I really like the Jungson. It's dynamic, transparent and does many things quite well.
b) The Jungson with it's chromed face-plate is absolutely beautiful to look at and sounds quite nice indeed.
c) After extended listening IMO the Jungson is simply not as musically refined as the Mastersound is when replicating music, but at 1/10th the price that's hardly surprising and I find the Jungson is very nice indeed.
d) I wished I had access to a 200W/ch Krell, Mark Levinson, Musical Fidelity or Rowland Research integrated solid state amp to do a more apples vs apples (transistors vs transistors) as opposed to an apples vs oranges (tubes vs transistors) test like I did. I think that would be a very interesting test indeed.
My post was hardly this transistor amp sucks and the tubed amp was an amp from GOD. For a $1500 amp the Jungson is very nice indeed. I believe if I compared a $1500 tubed amp to the Mastersound the results might have been very similar. In all honesty I think you need to get less defensive everytime someone states they prefered a tubed amp. Maybe you're correct and most tubed amps are euphonically colored. I don't happen to agree but even if that's true it wouldn't change my opinion. If indeed the Mastersound is euphonically colored then somehow that translates to the most realistic replication of music I've ever heard ---so far.
Thetubeguy1954
It's not my fault the Bored told you not to respond to my posts or even mention my name. That was your problem, not mine. While I have not since then responded directly to many of your posts, I fail to see why I should avoid commenting on various points you raise simply because you were not permitted to reply. I point out that even though I responded 7 hours and 48 minutes later, mine was the first response to your thread.1) I wanted to know what speakers you are doing because that is certainly a relevant question when considering whether it might be overdriven by a large amp or whether the amp might be clipping.
2) We were both speculating (I made that quite clear) as to the reasons for the differences in the sound of the two amps--which I am taking for granted even though you did uncontrolled sighted auditioning as it is quite likely that a tube and a SS amp will sound different. We were considering possible explanations, and I simply suggested some that I think are more likely than the ones you discussed.
When something happens that one wants to explain, it is often useful to list the things that could have caused it in order of probability from the most to the least possible (this is the speculative part). It is usually better to test the most likely things first to determine which one(s) are real.
3)You have not proved that either amp was clipping. And since you give no indication of level matching when auditioning the two amps, so it is quite possible that you played the speakers louder with the larger amp. You haven't eliminated that possibility that the congestion and harshness was due to playing your monitor speakers too loudly.
Most tube amps do not have a flat frequency response into speakers whose impedance varies considerably with frequency, because most tube amps have a high output impedance (and that usually varies some with frequency, too). So, you have not eliminated differences in FR as accounting for the differences in sound of the two amplifiers, both the bit of harshness and congestion (especially as you evidently did not level match) and the soundstaging.
4) You are to be commended for attempting to test whether frequency response could affect the image and soundstaging. However, the way to EQ two amps to sound the same is to measure the FR at the speaker terminals and EQ them so that they match very closely (within 0.1 dB if possible) in the frequency ranges where hearing is most sensitive and reasonably close outside that. As I explain in a reply to a subsequent post, the 3 dealers you mention evidently didn't do that.
5) In your original post, you said the following: "With the Jungson the backround singers sounded as if they were standing directly behind behind the lead singer, but with the Mastersound you can hear these same singers are actually some 5 or 6 feet behind Steve Moo." You later say you agree that you do not know where the backup singers were actually located.
I made no comment on your "subjective opinion" of what you heard. Indeed, I assume that is how it appeared to you.
6) No comment.
7) Here's the whole sentence from which you snipped a clause: "But indeed, you evidently like some things about the JungSon amp and other things about your Mastersound 845 tube amp, so it's really hard to see how your example proves expectation bias is not at work." Since you had not stated what your overall evaluation of the merits of the two amps was, I am not sure what you would expect me to say. But now, since you have stated you still like the your Mastersound 845 tube amp better, which I suspected, it still reinforces the point I was making: you can hardly use this to show that expectation bias was not at work!
But I also reiterate: expectation bias is only one possible influence. The chief thing is that human beings are built to perceive differences, and will perceive differences even when they don't exist, as jj pointed out.
TG54
"Maybe you're correct and most tubed amps are euphonically colored. I don't happen to agree but even if that's true it wouldn't change my opinion. If indeed the Mastersound is euphonically colored then somehow that translates to the most realistic replication of music I've ever heard ---so far."Many tube amps do not have a flat FR into many speaker loads. That is simply a fact, nothing defensive about it, easily verifiable by looking at the technical reviews of amplifiers on the Stereophile site, the Soundstage site, and in the old Audio magazine. It is virtually impossible for most consumers to accurately predict just what a tube amp is going to sound like with many speakers. Whether the result is "euphonic" or not depends on the speaker and your taste. Your amp evidently works for you very well.
__
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,
No one said it's your fault the Bored told me not to respond to your posts or mention you by name did they? I'm trying to keep this as polite as possible. All I said was it was in poor taste for you to respond either directly or indirectly to various points I raised when you knew full well I could not respond back to things you said about me or my audio POV. You for some reason fail to see why you should have avoided commenting on various points I raised simply because I was not permitted to reply.
I guess your mindset is not my problem why should I care? That's the difference in our characters Pat. I would never hit a man whose arms are tied or ask questions of or about someone in front of them, if they cannot or are unable respond. You apparently have no problems with doing that. I just wanted you to know I how I felt about what you did and it was precisely for that reason I asked Stephaen for persmission to respond back to you. I'll just have to be careful and avoid your attempts to provoke me in the future.
Thetubeguy1954
TG54
"I'll just have to be careful and avoid your attempts to provoke me in the future."
I suggest in the future you not get yourself "provoked."
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,
I guess you're now claiming I am responsible for YOUR behavior? But if I am NOT responsible for YOUR behavior, which I'm not, then how can I prevent you from purposely trying to provoke me like you're suggesting when you say: "I suggest in the future you not get yourself "provoked."
As I'm unable to prevent you from acting that way, I'll just have to be careful and avoid your attempts to provoke me in the future, like I originally said!
With that I informed you of how I viewed your actions when I was unable to defend myself or POV. Now I have nothing further to say on this topic. Now go ahead and have the last word like you always must do...
Thetubeguy1954
I'll leave the Dhammapada with the last word on this.
"I have been insulted! I have been hurt! I have been beaten! I have been robbed! Anger does not cease in those who harbour this sort of thought.
I have been insulted! I have been hurt! I have been beaten! I have been robbed! Anger ceases in those who do not harbour this sort of thought.
Occasions of hatred are certainly never settled by hatred. They are settled by freedom from hatred. This is the eternal law."
--------------Dhammapada, I,3-5, translated by John Richards.
http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/sutras/dhammapada/Pairs.html
Thomas Byrom's version, linked below, is beautifully written but apparently not particularly accurate.
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
> When I've said one amp makes the backround singers sound further back than another amp did. I've had other naysayers make the same claim you're making about a difference in FR being accountable for that. But strangely enough not one of these naysayers could ever replicate the FR difference they insist is the cause with an equalizer. <
Did you actually try this experiment? This is interesting to me. JJ once posted that the imaging/soundstaging characteristics I heard with certain components might be due to FR but I've not tried to dupe these attributes with an equalizer. Might be a PITA but might be interesting to try it out.
> If indeed the Mastersound is euphonically colored then somehow that translates to the most realistic replication of music I've ever heard ---so far. <
There lies the rub. Audio can be a science fair project or a desire to replicate the sound of live music. The choice is up to the individual and I see you've made yours.
Hello Kerr,You asked me if I ever actually tried this experiment? In regards to my statement of when I've said one amp makes the backround singers sound further back than another amp did. I've had other naysayers make the same claim Pat D is now making, i.e. a difference in FR being accountable for that effect. I don't understand why people would think I'd lie when I say things like this (I know you're not one of them) I'm not an audio manufacturer or dealer so I have absolutely no vested interest in the outcome of these things one way or another. As I stated strangely enough not one of these naysayers could ever replicate the FR difference they insist is the cause of these soundstaging effect with an equalizer. I've been present 3 different times when people attempted to replicate this FR difference.
1) The first time was back in the mid 70's with an Audio Control Equalizer & Real Time Analyzer. Admittedly this audio system was IMO mid-fi at best. IIRC in addition the the Audio Control gear the other components were typical japanese types, Pioneer receiver & turntable, along with Technics "supposedly" top-of-the-line speaker. Personally I thought the system sucked with at best a soundstage the went from one speaker to another. Not beyond either speaker at all and no depth whatsoever. I believe this guy was simply parroting something he read from Stereo Review, because everything was Julian Hirsch this Julian Hirsch that etc. Needless to say no matter what he did the rear singers didn't move forward or backward with this setup and his constant tweaking of the Audio Control units. I left unconvinced and unimpressed.
2) The second time was in an audio salon. I was actually quite surprised with this place because I called to get directions from E. Hartford to Waterbury Connecticut (about 35-40mins away) and as soon as I sat down I got a lecture about all wires being snake oil. When I mentioned to the salesperson how important soundstaging was to me I was told that unless I was listening through dipole speakers, soundstaging depth was just a result audiophilia nervousa or a FR anomaly caused by poor quality "audiophile" amps. That's why we always use pro-audio components here he said. I scoffed at those statement. I had never visited or even heard of an objectivist audio salon before, but here it was. So I requested that the salesman prove this statement he made was true. This time the setup consisted of Crown DL-2 preamp, Crown PS2 poweramp, Crown EQ2 equalizer with a technics turntable and Klipsch La Scala speakers! Once again I thought the system sucked with a soundstage the went bearly from one speaker to another. Not beyond either speaker at all and no depth whatsoever. When this salesman couldn't make the singers come forward or backward with his Crown EQ2 equalizer he made some derogatory remark about audiophile crap and how I'm imagining things. Needless to say I left, not convinced that this is a FR issue or that this salesman knew what he was talking about.
3) The third time was an honest to goodness audiophile system. I met this man in Stereo Shop in Hartford, Connecticut. We talked audio and eventually he mentioned owning a Cello Audio Suite preamp, Cello Audio Palette equalizer, Cello Audio Duet 350 Amplifier & Cello Stradivari Grand Master speakers. This was without a doubt the most expensive audio system I had ever seen and it sounded wonderful. I mentioned to this man how I've told other people that with some amps the backround singers sound further back than with other amps. He agreed with me that this was a trait of soundstage depth. I then mentioned that some said this was strictly a FR issue. Well the man said, few is any equalizers are better than the Palette equalizer so lets play around and see what happens. After playing with the FR for over an hour via the Palette (and he had an RTA too) all he could accomplish was to make the rear singers get softer or louder! They never moved forward or back. IMHO if that man with that EQ and RTA couldn't move the singers I doubt many, if any others could with simply adjusting FR!
So no Kerr I do NOT believe this is a FR issue. Neither I, nor anyone else can tell you which amp is replicating the performance most correctly, whether it's the amp that makes the singers sound further back or whether it's the amp that makes the singers sound closer to the front. To know this would require someone who was actually present when the original event was recorded by the recording engineer. Personally I don't believe it's a FR issue and I prefer a deeper soundstage if all else is equal.
You're 100% correct though when you say the choice is up to the individual and you're also correct in believing I've made my choice.Thetubeguy1954
Well, you are to be commended for trying to test the effects of FR differences.
If you really want to equalize two amplifiers to the same frequency response into the speaker load, you would have to measure the FR at the speaker terminals and then EQ them so as to get the response within 0.1 dB within ranges where hearing is most sensitive. But that's not what you say those dealers were doing. So you don't really know whether the differences in the sound of the various amps could be accounted for by FR differences.
I doubt very much that most equalizers would be able to duplicate the the FR of a tube amp into many speaker loads, anyway, not even with the Cello EQ--but from your description, that wasn't tried. It might be close enough or it might not. A parametric might work. A digital EQ should be able to do so, though.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
What I meant was, did you actually make the EQ adjustments, do the measuring, etc etc prior to listening? It's not that I thought you were lying - was just wondering what level of participation you had.
Soundstaging and imaging are, IMHO, two of the most critical pieces of the "live" sound. Most components get the basics pretty close such as tonality and it's pretty easy to recreate the volume with a hornspeaker and about 6 watts of amp power. Back to soundstaging and imaging - without a doubt, that is where cables most deviate from one another in my experience. I really don't hear FR anomalies in cables for the most part, although occasionally one pops up that seems to shine a spotlight on the treble or muddies up the mids. The Cardas Neutral Reference was a soundstaging and imaging champ in my system. It's why I bought it. If I could create that effect with EQ, I'd be all over it. Might be interesting to try. But as you said, it's unlikely. But if those effects aren't FR issues, what are they?
All you need to do is get a preamp/receiver sporting a "soundstage feature" and simply dial in whatever you wish! Very simple concept as explained by theaudiohobby. ;)
Soundstaging for Idiots
rw
> > All you need to do is get a preamp/receiver sporting a "soundstage feature" and simply dial in whatever you wish! Very simple concept as explained by theaudiohobby. ;)
Soundstaging for Idiots < <
"Soundstaging for Idiots" is a good way to describe that feature. From what I read, it's comparable to the front/rear control on a 4 spkr car stereo, but that has nothing to do with the soundstage inherent in recordings, when audiophiles talk of the size of the soundstage. No knob can change the true soundstage, only a change in resolution.
Objective Audiophile 2007
rw
See my reply to Morricab, you are letting your idiotic presumptousness get the better of you.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I can always rely upon you for levity! :)
rw
ES: "Wherein you state that diddling with FR constitutes "soundstaging"?"
TAH: And where did I say that?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Sheesh. Might want to have that looked into.
Well, in chronological order, there's this post where in response to my observation "An equalizer is utterly incapable of deepening the soundstage", you opine:
Ignorant and wrong, a quick demo of a modest receiver will prove otherwise, some of the preset equalisation setting accomplish that easily and that has been the case for many years.
Then you said Your point about the Lexicon processor feature is conceded, however the original points remains, my old boom box has preset equalization settings that improved the soundstage of flat recordings here
More recently in this post, you said: Nope, I tweak the FR to get the desired effect.
Finally, you provided the unsupported "details" in this post where we learn your "secret" to soundstaging. tweak the frequency response in upper midrange & lower treble specifically between 900Hz-5kHz. A good place to start is to look at the frequency response of the speakers famed to have deep soundstages and copy their FR in the region.
You improved the soundstage of your boombox? Dude, we're not talking about the same thing at all.
rw
Rather, it is your comprehension that is so poor. And this nonsense suggests that you do not understand the basic relationship between FR and the presentation of the soundstage, sure there are other facts, but the FR is a key factor. I suggest you look at Stereophile's audiophile glossary of audio terms and look up forward, laidback, there is basic primer that will help you and if you are up to it read about loudness compensation curves.
If you cannot tell the deference between "Wherein you state that diddling with FR constitutes "soundstaging"? " and " tweak the frequency response in upper midrange & lower treble specifically between 900Hz-5kHz (to depend the soundstage)", then we really should not be having this discussion at all, since it means lack basic prerequsite knowledge and/or comprehesion to discuss the topic in the first place.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
FR is not the only factor at issue with regard to soundstaging...its not that simple. High frequency distortion and retrieval of low level ambient cues are just as important to a convincing recreation of soundstage.
The FR manipulation you speak if a cheap parlor trick to give a SEMBLANCE of soundstage but it also affects intelligibility of lyrics or movie dialogue and creates an artificial sense of depth that is there whether it is on the recording or not. It can serve to "tame" overly hot recordings or extremely close miked recordings but it is not correct. Recordings with real soundstage information don't need this manipulation and will benefit most from a very clean HF (no Class D amps need apply) and excellent low level resolution (again noisy Class D is left out in the cold).
For "diddling", substitute any equivalent term. Adjusting the FR. Modifying the FR. Shaping the FR. Altering the FR. Setting the FR. Assigning the FR. Whichever term you use, the concept is the same. You believe that soundstaging is a function of frequency response. The characteristic to which I refer is not.
I suggest you look at Stereophile's audiophile glossary of audio terms and look up forward, laidback, there is basic primer that will help you and if you are up to it read about loudness compensation curves.
Soundstaging and perspective are two separate concepts. Indeed, there are some components where the image is "up front" or conversely, "laid back", but that in no way describes the acoustic space described by the image. Since you reference SP, perhaps you will find this description helpful to understand the difference.
About Soundstaging
Perspective and soundstaging (called depth-of-field in this case) both exist in the photographic world as well. You can take a picture of a tree where the tree lies close in the foreground and or you may take it from further back for a more distant approach. Neither choice implies any notion of depth-of-field of the space around the tree. That is determined by the aperture chosen. One may use a faster, wide open aperture of say 1.4 or 1.8 and end up with a very shallow depth-of-field. Objects nearer to the observer or further away from the focal point are out of focus. On the other hand, one could choose a stopped down aperture of say f16 or f22 and achieve a very deep depth-of-field.
Different concepts. To suggest, however, that alterations of any sort to FR alone are capable of creating real depth enhancement, however, is silly. To quote JGH from the above referenced page, "There will be an awareness of the reflective boundary walls of the acoustic space behind and to the sides of the performers, and the spatiality of the hall itself will extend a considerable distance beyond the distance between the loudspeakers. " I am speaking of this quality that Mr. Holt is discussing.
rw
E-Stat:"Soundstaging and perspective are two separate concepts"
TAH: They are not or at more correctly very closely related in audio, it is perspective that gives the illusion of depth of a given soundstage, whether it is deep or shallow is entirely down to the observer's perception of the sounstage. To claim that soundstape depth perception is different from perpective is an excercise in self-contradiction. A forward soundstage is by definition more shallow than a laid back one, there are factors but as previously stated, frequency response is a key factor. In audio terms at least, the issue of perception is central to the definition of the soundstage, as the listener has no other means of determining the soundstage beyond perception. And this where your photographic example breaks down, The observer has at their more information at their disposal but even then the perception of depth can be manipulated up to a point.
E-Stat: Different concepts. To suggest, however, that alterations of any sort to FR alone are capable of creating real depth enhancement, however, is silly.
TAH: What is silly is your continued attempts to twist my comments to suit your purpose, I said " And this nonsense suggests that you do not understand the basic relationship between FR and the presentation of the soundstage, sure there are other facts , but the FR is a key factor " In other words, you are building a strawman.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
To claim that soundstape depth perception is different from perpective is an excercise in self-contradiction.My perpective of the soundstape is governed by the hall (and whether or not that was captured in the recording), not my seating position. Whether I sit in row C or row S, the apparent depth of the source is the same. All the folks on the stage remain in their same seats playing the same instruments creating the same sonic space. Unless, of course you suggest they excercise moving around during the performance. :)
What is silly is your continued attempts to twist my comments to suit your purpose.
Nonsense. I quoted two sets of your pearls of wisdom verbatim. As usual, this is getting tedious. Signing out.
rw
E-Stat: My perpective of the soundstape is governed by the hall (and whether or not that was captured in the recording), not my seating position. Whether I sit in row C or row S, the apparent depth of the source is the same.
TAH: The depth of soundstage is not the same, the distance from row C to the end of the stage is different from that of row S, and you have your visuals to confirm it. The depth of the soundstage is much shallower for an individual in Row A than individual in Row M cos everything in front of the observer is effectively the soundstage. So while the actual stage remains the same, the 'soundstage' is different.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
E-Stat:Still didn't fix the misspelled words with the edit
TAH: So what!
E-Stat: My perpective of the soundstape is governed by the hall (and whether or not that was captured in the recording), not my seating position. Whether I sit in row C or row S, the apparent depth of the source is the same
TAH: Still trying, your perspective of depth is governed by your VISION i.e. you have visual information which helps define your perception of depth. On a AUDIO recording, there are no visuals.
In other words, keep trying because so far you simply come up silly.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Well, you have to admit, it does *shift* the soundstage! LOL
Now just need a knob to widen it and another to deepen it.
"Now just need a knob to widen it and another to deepen it. "Deepening a soundstage is ridiculously easy, provided you know what you are doing, and yes it is at the turn of a knob.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
a
Are you using this feature on the Behringer by any chance?? I noticed you can also steer it all over the place as well. Haven't tried it yet because the left and right channels need to be linked and I had them equalized separately.
MC: Are you using this feature on the Behringer by any chance??
TAH: Nope, I tweak the FR to get the desired effect.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Well then that is totally an inaccurate recreation! I thought accuracy was your game and now I find you adjust the FR in the presence region?? Incredible. Why not just buy some B&Ws that have that dip built in to make a fake sense of space, which by the way doesn't replace the real reason that soundstage can occur, namely 1) its on the recording, 2) The HF response of the electronics are extremely clean allowing certain spacial cues to come through and 3) low level resolution in general. The fact that you don't get good soundstaging without manipulating the FR, especially with superb soundstagers like audiostatics, tells me you have a serious HF problem or low level resolution or both. The FR dip is a typical trip of midfi speakers to enhance "depth" also known as the "Gundry" dip. Bob Carver also used it to good effect but it is ultimately a gimick and can be heard as such.
My system measures flat and the soundstaging is fantastic. My friend's Apogee Grand system in Germany measures very flat and has the best soundstaging I have ever heard. No FR manipulation required, Period.
MC:Well then that is totally an inaccurate recreation! I thought accuracy was your game and now I find you adjust the FR in the presence region?? Incredible. Why not just buy some B&Ws that have that dip built in to make a fake sense of space, which by the way doesn't replace the real reason that soundstage can occur, namely 1) its on the recording, 2) The HF response of the electronics are extremely clean allowing certain spacial cues to come through and 3) low level resolution in general.
TAH: On the other hand, all this tells me is that you are bigot and a fool. The same effect was recreated through a pair AKG-701 headphones attached to WAD Headphone amplifier. Did the headphone amplifier also have HF problems?
MC:The fact that you don't get good soundstaging without manipulating the FR, especially with superb soundstagers like audiostatics, tells me you have a serious HF problem or low level resolution or both.
TAH: On the other hand, your comments tell me you are presumptuous and stupid. Talking missing the forest for the trees, sometimes you simply you surpass yourself.
MC:The FR dip is a typical trip of midfi speakers to enhance "depth" also known as the "Gundry" dip. Bob Carver also used it to good effect but it is ultimately a gimick and can be heard as such
TAH: Oh, Why did you not inform BBC and John Dunlavy of that, fool?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> Deepening a soundstage is ridiculously easy, provided you know what you are doing, and yes it is at the turn of a knob. <
Do tell.
I told 'ya it was easy. All you need to do is put an active EQ in the circuit, diddle with the FR and voila !! Flat-as-a-corn-field-in-Iowa multi-tracked DG recordings will instantly reveal the deep and wide soundstaging found in well engineered minimally miked recordings such as from RCA Living Stereo, Telarc, and Reference Recordings!
rw
"Flat-as-a-corn-field-in-Iowa multi-tracked DG recordings will instantly reveal the deep and wide soundstaging found in well engineered minimally miked recordings such as from RCA Living Stereo, Telarc, and Reference Recordings!"
Yep, that is the kind of obtuse comment I have to expect from you.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
May you enjoy your slider based soundstaging!
Hehe. :)
rw
tweak the frequency response in upper midrange & lower treble specifically between 900Hz-5kHz. A good place to start is to look at the frequency response of the speakers famed to have deep soundstages and copy their FR in the region.Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
with which "famed to have deep soundstages" speaker did you model your experiments? Was that in your system or someone else's? What do the EQ curves look like?
rw
Since it is just for grins I wouldn't bother, I have no time to waste on your idiocy.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You are merely speculating. Thought so.
rw
ES: You are merely speculating
TAH: I wasn't.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
That's how you "deepened" the soundstage on your boombox, right? :)
rw
that's the other knob. :)
rw
I've heard that there's a correlation between "knob gymnastics" and blindness. Might that be the reason for all the hollering for blind testing around here?
Must be a lot more to live sound than soundstaging and imaging
Live amplified sound is mono.
No soundstage.
The image is a single point (mono).
Hall reflections would be roughly ten times later than reflections in a normal home listening room), but reflections are not part of any stereo effect.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Live ACOUSTIC sound is mono near the back of an auditorium.
Probably mono or near mono in the middle of the auditorium.
There may be a stereo effect in the front rows, depending on the physical separation between the sound sources and their distances from your ears.
If there was a solo acoustic guitar player singing at a club, for one example, there would be no soundstage and the image would be a single point (mono).
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
I regularly attend classical concerts, mostly at the Disney Hall and I have sat in the back, in the middle and behind the orchestra. The real life imaging from the best seats is surprisingly close to what I get with my best LPs on my system The sound is far from mono even from the back of the hall.
I don't listen to live classical music much
... and when I do I'm usually snoring in twenty minutes.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Probably mono or near mono in the middle of the auditorium.
Perhaps you might actually attend an orchestra, sit in the middle and see if you believe that your theory holds. My experience mirrors morricab's that it does not. In fact, the last concert I attended two weeks ago provided an interesting lesson in what NOT to do regarding localization. The program was devoted to the works of John Williams and included a large chorus. For some stupid reason, they felt the need for sound reinforcement. During a violin solo with the performer located center stage, one could clearly localize the source of the sound - twenty feet up and five feet away from the side walls !(location of in-wall PA system).
rw
I wasn't thinking of classical orchestras which can create a soundstage pretty far back in the auditorium, unlike popular musicians/groups I hear live.
The seats I can afford, in the back of the balcony, assuming I stay awake during classical music, are so far back the sound is near-mono.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
And I will certainly agree with your observation that "live" amplified concerts are simply massive mono mixes (at earbleeding levels, no less). Which is why I don't regularly attend them any more or make sure I bring earplugs when I do! I enjoy being able to actually hear individual characteristics of the instruments - which I find virtually absent in the massive goulash of "reinforced" sound.
I'm convinced that many differences in the way we approach our systems has to do with our musical preferences. I could not relate, for example, with bjh's post regarding high (95 - 97 db) levels. I never do that. My RS meter reports momentary peaks in the high 80s when I power listen. Average levels are always in the 70s range. Indeed, my system can never approach anything resembling a live rock concert. Don't want it to!
rw
I also sit only four feet from my speakers when I'm listening from the sweet spot.
My EPOS ES11 speakers are too small for an average SPL of 85dBA, IMHO, even when using a 24dB/octave 70Hz. high pass filter to keep most of the bass away from them.
The preferred SPL and distance from the speakers are very important factors when choosing components.
Much more important than room size (except for the fact that larger rooms tend to sound better than smaller rooms, and a better sounding room would justify buying more expensive audio equipment).
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
No, I don't want my system to play back at rock concert levels, either! I value my hearing too much for that. I suggested to bjh that he keep his listening levels within safe limits but he didn't respond to that point. My RS meter will very seldom read above the low 80s, which can sound quite loud. A lot of popular material actually sounds quite loud at 75 dBa.
Not long ago, our community orchestra and chorus did Beethoven's 9th Symphony and from the chorus, while there was a sonic image of a sort, it was not possible to localize most of the instrumental sections. I've heard concerts in the same church with the semi-pro orchestra and did not get a localized sound image either--most of the sound seemed to come from above the orchestra. Even in large halls, I have not heard a pinpoint imaging kind of thing.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
the best systems I've heard provide all the resolution one could ask for at lower levels than other gear. I'm not into having my body resonate with the music as one finds at some bars and rock concerts. Over at vintage, poster Bold Eagle calls this phenomena "non-loud, non-bright".
As for imaging, my position lies in middle ground. I don't experience "pinpoint" imaging at concerts either. On the other hand, with eyes closed (my usual listening choice), one can clearly locate the lower strings vs. the upper strings, the location of the various brass instruments, etc.
Some percussion, however, like the triangle and bell trees do seem to "float" above the orchestra. Precious few systems in my experience can replicate that sensation to me.
rw
What you have posted is not really true bass nut. For example, even at the back of a hall you can tell that the violins come from one section, the violas another, the woodwinds yet another etc. Also, you can tell that the Tympanis and horns are towards the back and the basses are often back and to the right side. If that is not soundstaging and imaging then I am not sure what is.
Now if you take a pair of microphones arranged in a blumlein configuration and put them in the middle of that hall, record the concert and then play it back on your stereo at home you SHOULD get about the same degree of imaging and soundstaging that you would have had if you had sat in that location. I know this works because I have made such recordings. Sure you also get your own room acoustics in the playback but that doesn't mean you don't get a good sensation of the acoustic space, which is what soundstage and imaging are all about, from the recording.
I have just such an orchestral recording as well, the microphones were placed 6 meters from the front of the stage. It is the most natural and closest to what I hear live of any recording I own...it is also the ultimate system breaker (not literally, figuratively) because of its ultra realistic tonality and realistic dynamic swings. Makes most systems sound like they were dragged through the mud. On world class systems it simply sounds like you are there in concert (This has only occurred on about 3 or 4 systems, the last an Apogee Grand system of a friend's). I know more or less what it should sound like as well because I have heard a performance of the same piece sitting about 7 meters from the stage. The resemblance was striking.
"If there was a solo acoustic guitar player singing at a club, for one example, there would be no soundstage and the image would be a single point "
Maybe but it would not be a pin point so a rather large point in fact. Also the reflections in the club will create an acoustic space within which that musician is situated and thus a soundstage.
I was not thinking of classical orchestras since I rarely listen to them live.
There is a huge distance between the musicians on left and right sides of the orchestra, so a soundstage could be audible even in the cheap seats.
.
.
.
I WROTE:
"If there was a solo acoustic guitar player singing at a club, for one example, there would be no soundstage and the image would be a single point "
YOU WROTE:
Maybe but it would not be a pin point so a rather large point in fact. Also the reflections in the club will create an acoustic space within which that musician is situated and thus a soundstage.
RG responds:
The late reflections within a club or auditorium are almost impossible to recreate at home with two-channel audio.
A surround sound system at home could reproduce a different acoustic space with the side speakers, assuming a good recording.
But a live solo guitar will still be a point source -- whether the point is small or large makes no difference.
Hall ambience (late reflections) is an important factor in live music.
The soundstage is important for large orchestras, which I didn't think of in my first post.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
"The late reflections within a club or auditorium are almost impossible to recreate at home with two-channel audio."
Not so Bass Nut. Those are on the recording and can be heard as such. Do to superposition of the room acoustics it is not exactly the same sensation but it can be quite similar.
"But a live solo guitar will still be a point source -- whether the point is small or large makes no difference."
So what? The source may be mono but you hear in binaural. This gives a distinct sense of the space and this, Bass nut, is soundstage.
"Hall ambience (late reflections) is an important factor in live music. "
It is also an important factor in recorded music. When one listens to a live recording if it is well done and well reproduced (the big if) then it WILL sound quite close to what one hears live because the information of the space IS ON THE RECORDING.
"The soundstage is important for large orchestras, which I didn't think of in my first post.
"
As I listen to a lot of classical and attend concerts it is a big point for me and why it is a valid reference for a system doing the job correctly.
Any hall ambience in a two-channel recording, lets say 100-200 millisecond reverberation, must come from front speakers in two-channel audio system, meaning that ambience will be partially or completely masked by:
(1) All the other music coming from those front speakers and/or
(2) Additional early reflections, lets say 5-20 milliseconds, in the home listening room.
It's nearly impossible to "transport" a listener into a large venue, such as an auditorium, with only two speakers in typical stereo locations in a small home listening room (meaning the speakers can't be located far from side walls/ceiling.
Processors I've heard that create a "hall" effect with two speakers tend to sound artificial.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
"that ambience will be partially or completely masked by:"
The operative word there is partially. I agree the illusion is not perfect but it is there and noticeable and the better the system the easier these cues are to hear, thus the greater sense of realism.
At least not impossible with the best systems/recordings I've heard. You're not gonna replicate a full concert hall, but many of the cues that suggest the size and depth of the content, if captured on the recording, can be reproduced.
Processors I've heard that create a "hall" effect with two speakers tend to sound artificial.
Amen to that. Artificial processing is - well artificial processing. I'm still curious to hear about theaudiohobby's knobs to instantly control depth and width. :)
rw
Kerr,
I knew you didn't think I was lying. I was refering to others who deny I play guitar or attend live symphonies at the Bob Carr etc. when I talk about my ability to judge sound quality.
I didn't do any of the actual EQ adjustments or measuring as it wasn't my equipment nor were these people actual friends in all 3 cases. Like you for me soundstaging and imaging are very critical pieces of attempting to replicate "live" sound. I also agree that most components get the basics pretty close with regards soundstaging and imaging. But it's the precisely these subtleties that makes the exceptional audio components stand out from the crowd. To get soundstaging beyond the R of the right speaker and the L of the left speaker as well as height & depth is not an easy task.
I agree that is where cables most deviate from one another. I also don't hear any gross or even very noticable FR anomalies in cables for the most part, although like you said, occasionally one pops up that seems to shine a spotlight on the treble or muddies up the mids.
If I could recreate the effect of great soundstaging with EQ (provided I didn't lose out in other areas like transparency) I'd be all over it too! But having seen it attempted 3X now I simply don't believe it's possiple. The effects DEFINITELY aren't FR issues. I believe when one amp in a particular system makes the singers sound further back (not quieter) and another amp in that same system makes the singers sound closer to the front (not louder) then one of those 2 amps is replicating the sonic effects of the music as recorded by the audio engineer more accurately than the other is, period. The rub lies in attempting discover which of the two amps is being more faithful to the music as recorded by the engineer in this case. In the long run I suppose we'll never know which amp is actually more accurate in this case, so for me all else being equal I'll go with the deeper, wider soundstage!
Thetubeguy1954
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
