Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Assessing Baseline for good/accurate sound reproduction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Assessing Baseline for good/accurate sound reproduction

post #1 of 5
6/26/11 at 7:02pm
Thread Starter 

Very often when I read posts here pertaining to evaluating how good a piece of equipment is at reproducing natural/accurate sound people will say I know what sounds good because I know what live music sounds like. I don't want to challenge that, but I did want to discuss this and get others input just for fun.

 

Hearing music live would almost always involve some colouration of the sound would it not? If the instruments were amplified you have source issues, different stadiums/venues/rooms etc may have vastly different accoustic characteristics. Where you sit in any given live setting influences the sound you perceive. A degree of personal preference might be at play. If you think you like live music better or at least a great deal, then the expectation might influence the experience.

 

Anyway, I'm sure none of those thoughts are new, but I just had them floating around recently. When thinking about this I began to think that perhaps the most accurate sound is the sound produced closest to the instrument once the waveform is mature for lack of a better word. Any thoughts?

 

gs1000.gif

Reply
post #2 of 5
6/26/11 at 7:47pm
Yes, you get coloration in live settings, but live performances are still valuable. And fun. Go see as many as you can and you'll get a better idea of how things sound.

You might also want to learn an instrument. There's no more intimate connection. When headphones or speakers are inaccurate, you'll pick up on it.

Also, try recording some performances. Audiophiles used to make their own recordings - this is why most reel-to-reel decks are (somewhat) portable and have recording heads. Too bad this went out of favor. High-quality recording has never been less expensive or convenient, while audiophilia has turned into a fashion show for status symbols.

I haven't recorded yet, but I'd sure like to make some nice 24/96 recordings of local orchestras and other groups.
Reply
post #3 of 5
6/26/11 at 8:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post

Yes, you get coloration in live settings, but live performances are still valuable. And fun. Go see as many as you can and you'll get a better idea of how things sound.

You might also want to learn an instrument. There's no more intimate connection. When headphones or speakers are inaccurate, you'll pick up on it.

What do you think of this? (I think it was an interview from Stereophile)

It's a conductor who's asked about how he feels about recording music and what he would do if asked to add his touch to his own recordings, something he should be intimately familiar with. He answers that the records would be overly bright, too "in your face", because it's the sound he's most familiar with, the sound he hears in his conducting position, not the one a person sitting in a concert hall would hear.

Wouldn't any instrument player face the same problem?
Quote:
Also, try recording some performances. Audiophiles used to make their own recordings - this is why most reel-to-reel decks are (somewhat) portable and have recording heads. Too bad this went out of favor. High-quality recording has never been less expensive or convenient, while audiophilia has turned into a fashion show for status symbols.

I haven't recorded yet, but I'd sure like to make some nice 24/96 recordings of local orchestras and other groups.

I disagree, a RME BabyFace and a laptop makes recording high rez on the field pretty easy.
Reply
post #4 of 5
6/26/11 at 9:06pm
Thread Starter 

Thanks for chimming in! Totally hear you Uncle Erik and couldn't agree with you more. I have been to many concerts, primarily rock (Rush 7 times, Tool, Pink Floyd, Stevie Ray Von, Robert Plant, Def Leppard etc.. Recently I have been going to Jazz perfomances. Here in Ottawa we have a really wonderful Jazz Fest and last summer I saw Dave Brubeck perform and Herbie Hancock the year before.

 

I have played the drums for over 25 years (just not wellbiggrin.gif) and my wife is a classicaly trained violin player. When I first met her she was singing in a choir, and as an atheist I had an aversion to being in a church (but I do love the architecture and atmosphere of a church). I however took the plunge and attended a performance where they performed John Rutters Requiem. Brought tears to my eyes I can tell you that! Voices soaring throughout the wooden hall. Impossible to fully describe how the music affected me. Since then I have attended several such performances and a few classical performances at the Ottawa National Arts Centre.

 

I hope you don't take me as being defensive and trying to show you how much I have experienced, not that at all. I have been reading in these forums for months now as a lurker and member so I guess I just wanted to flesh out my musical side. I have been a member on several excellent enthusists sites and really enjoy head-fi.

 

Due to my time hear I sold my Grado 225s and purchased a pristine set of HF2s with maybe 50 hours on them. Just last week I ordered a Valhalla but because Canada Post has been on strike I haven't received it yet. Can't wait for my first tube sessions and from what I can tell the Valhalla should be a nice entry into the tube sound for a life long solid state guy!

 

Truthfully I doubt the amp will give me sq gain over my Creek Evo integrated amp. It is a fantastic amp with 85 quality watts and the headphone section is driven directly from the main amplification section feeding some beefy transistors according to an engineer over at Creek. Despite this, I will enjoy the Valhalla for it's own merits. I had considered the Asgard with the HF2 and Jason even indicated that if pressed by me to advise my purchase he would say the Asgard. However, in the same e-mail he told me that he had several customers who were sound engineers and swore by the Valhalla for Grado so I decided to go that route.

 

I figure if I find the combination uninspiring, I can return the Valhalla and try the Lyr which by design I take it should like the low impedence of the Grado better. Sorry for the long reply, just been waiting for a chance to blather on a bit I guess. Cheers.

 

smile.gif

Reply
post #5 of 5
6/27/11 at 2:01pm
Comparison to live performance doesn't help, but using unamplified acoustic instruments does. String quartets are great to use for balancing EQ. We all have heard cellos and violins and know what they sound like. Its easier to arrive at a ballpark EQ using acoustic instruments than it is to use synths or electric guitars that can be adjusted to sounda million different ways.

My theory on equalization is that you choose a main listening point and balance for that. It's ok if different places in the room deviate from that because that is the natural characteristic of the room. If a real live quartet was sitting in the room performing, the response would vary in exactly the same way. The goal isn't to turn your listening room into a perfectly dead recording booth, it's to make the speakers sound like a natural part of the room.

Sonic Defender, it's much more efficient to use an equalizer or VST plugin to create a tube amp sound than to use a tube amp. You can create the exact same sound signature, with the added benefit that the sound won't crawl around as the tubes warm up or wear down. Also, you can equalize to correct for imbalances in your speakers and room. I have yet to hear a speaker system installation that wouldn't benefit from a little judicious EQ.
Edited by bigshot - 6/27/11 at 2:06pm
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Assessing Baseline for good/accurate sound reproduction