You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing


Quote:
Too damped is lousy for listening.

How do you define "too damped?"

In my experience, too damped is what occurs when typical sound treatments are used. These typically absorb more higher frequencies than bass and are unequal in their effects throughout the spectrum.

An over abundance of such treatment results in a room that is exceedingly unbalanced in its response. This isn't overly damped, but rather selectively damped - in a bad way.

Back to the subjective physical sensation: Interesting that your ears feel stuffy. I don't get this sensation.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing


Quote:

Quote:
Too damped is lousy for listening.

How do you define "too damped?"

In my experience, too damped is what occurs when typical sound treatments are used. These typically absorb more higher frequencies than bass and are unequal in their effects throughout the spectrum.

An over abundance of such treatment results in a room that is exceedingly unbalanced in its response. This isn't overly damped, but rather selectively damped - in a bad way.

Back to the subjective physical sensation: Interesting that your ears feel stuffy. I don't get this sensation.

In my experience equally damped across frequency, and very, very dead, (as well as very, very quiet) is the best listening room. You wind up listening to what is actually there, not what your room does.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing

So, anechoic chambers offer the best quality sound reproduction?

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing


Quote:
In my experience equally damped across frequency, and very, very dead, (as well as very, very quiet) is the best listening room. You wind up listening to what is actually there, not what your room does.

Exactly.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing


Quote:
So, anechoic chambers offer the best quality sound reproduction?

I haven't had the experience. I was just allowed to go in one for a little bit.

It was amusing to talk and yell. Weird experience. It makes the great outdoors seem closed in.

I would love to play my trumpet in such a room. You would hear only the sound as produced and as conducted through your head. I imagine it would tell me things about my playing I would not otherwise realize.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 33 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing


Quote:
So, anechoic chambers offer the best quality sound reproduction?

Hopefully the anecholic chamber is covered entirely with Sonex.

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing

Elk, maybe claustrophobic is better? Overdamped makes me feel like I should be hearing more...more of the original acoustic environment I guess:O) The term "closed in" comes to mind or "artificially contained".

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing

I understand what you mean. Without sound cues to tell us how big the space is it could feel like it has no dimension.

Glotz
Glotz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 min ago
Joined: Nov 20 2008 - 9:30am
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing


Quote:

Quote:

This makes some sense, but I am having trouble accepting separating this from the effects of the room itself as these room effects are so large.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Since almost all speakers we listen to have poor polar response, rooms only serve to exacerbate the problem. I think we are in agreement on the problem that must be solved. You fix the room, you fix the speaker, or maybe you fix both. Depends on your opinion of the problem. My feeling is that I want to listen to music in my living room, not a chamber. So I think we might as well buy speakers with proper polar response.


Quote:

I'm also not convinced that we need our speakers to do this. Planers/electrostatics do not sound, as a whole, any more real then cone speakers - just different and better at certain things - even thought they are vastly better at providing an even polar response. Similarly cone speakers with back and side firing woofers and tweeters don't sound "better" overall.

Planar speakers only have proper polar response at low frequencies, where they are limited in SPL. At higher frequencies they are directional just like standard speakers. Their dynamic range as a whole is also problematic.

There are a lot of variables to how a speaker will sound in the end, but a true bipolar speaker with an acoustical short circuit arguably has better polar response than a standard speaker. Just because you have a rear firing tweeter or side woofers doesn't mean the speaker has proper polar response.

The point I was making was that the delivery method of planar, or more importantly omnis, like the MBL's seem to get to the quick regarding a few of the most important aspects of attaining a more live sound.

I am well aware of the mulitple issues with planars, though much of what you assert here I feel doesn't apply to very large and expensive planars like MG-20's or Sound Lab's or Rad's from MBL...

I have only heard a few of the megabucks planars out there, so I'm not making an assertion. Rather it's the ideal in which the planars try to attain, that captures one important area of 'live' performance, where many other areas may be lacking. Please make no confusion about my assertion- it is one element of many.

Where Omni's succeed where planars might fail, and vice-versa, is perhaps a more pragmatic question. But ideally, having a three dimensional cube or trapezoid, involving rear speakers in some way to create more of the 'cube' with their help is what I see is important in recreation of music in a room.

Simply, the assistance of some time delay seems important in-room like from ARC for great example with their offering I listened to over a decade ago. This ambience retrieval process, though a very simple unit (and in operation), was what seemed to take this top notch ARC and Alon system (front to back and side to side excellence BEHIND general plane of the speakers). With the ARC surround sound in place and a simple ARC SS amp and small Along mini to complete the picture, the system now simply extended the soundfield forward by roughly the same dimensions of width, height, length, etc. as prior, not only behind the plane as a typical high-end 'soundstage', but now including everything up to my lap with far greater depth, width, and greater scale, power, and many other things that were quite illuminating that day. It did not seem to be a coloration of the sort, but really more like live music, even with out a center channel.

I believe this was a month or so before the JGH review in Stereophile, as my dealer and close friend at the time was in very nicely with WZJ, from ARC. That was a special week indeed.

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Recorded Sound vs. the Real Thing

Hey Glotz, I can add a little regarding real world cone vs planar experiences. Over the last few decades I have been fortunate enough to own many systems/speakers in various environments. For reference (not all inclusive), Dalquist DQ-10's, Bozak Concert grands, Wilson w/p 6's, Dunlavy sc-5's, B&W 801N's, ML Odysseys, Totem Forest/hawk/Wind, Krell 2's and 1's, Dynaudio C4's, MG 1's etc...and now MG 3.6R's. Electronics have been primarly reference level from Levinson, Krell, ARC, BAT, CJ, Wadia, Meridian etc...I honestly have a hard time remembering some stuff. Anyway, more so than any other speaker I've owned, the 3.6's command my attention like no other and for several reasons. First off, they speak the same voice throughout their entire range....cohesively! They reproduce midrange thru the lower treble with none of the glare or compression so evident on most cone speakers...in other words violins sound naturally smooth yet retain their silken shimmer and clarity. One of the biggest kicks in my pants came after I broke them in and started playing heavy orchestral material...Man O Man can they express power, texture and bloom!! In fact, even on jazz, I am getting extremely dynamic and well defined bass which competes with my former W/P 6's:O) Concert level spl's and beyond are effortless and pose not a problem for the 3.6's in my 24'x18'x8' room. No protest from the panels and no blown fuses, just a huge, focused, layered, deep and dynamic envelope of acoustic bliss. They seem to have no limits dynamicaly with my Krell 400 driving them. Jim Winey did say that the most important thing you can do to get the best sound out of the maggies is to use a SS amp (damping factor critical)that doubles it's power rating as it drops from 8ohms to 4ohms etc... I have found that most of the reservations people have voiced concerning the Maggies have been more to do with repeating stories told by others, without real first hand experience, and or using them improperly. My reference is Boston Symphony Hall and the Kimmel Center in Philly. I also frequent my daughters live concerts and occassional jazz venues. OK, I try to see Peter Gabriel and Yes when I can:O) Maybe I'm just exceptionaly lucky with the way my 3.6's couple to the room, but man can they play loud and clear without compressing or getting confused...my Dynaudio C4's sounded veiled and lacking in transparency in comparison. FYI, I prefer an acoustic that minimizes reflections but retains a certain amount of ambience.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading