[unclejr]

Well, of course Kramer et al. you guys bring up a very good point. Violin played in a 10 ft³ tin room is certainly different than on stage at the Sydney Opera House. Yet in every situation there is the common factor of the violin. What the violin produces. Though there are always weird resonances for a given environment, there is always a direct pressure wave emanating from the body of the instrument (assuming that the air around the body is controlled to a reasonable approximation) directly to the human that's sitting there. Though each human is different, my suspicion is that their perception of the instrument is, actually, quite similar. That's how we are able to discern violins from violas and cellos, etc.

Anyway, "natural" does mean true to source, so a standard does exist, but the ridiculous number of variables that sometimes separate the instrument via the recording to the listener does make talking about "natural" more difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pearljam5000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif so i guess THE question is.... what are the most natural(but at the same time..not boring) heaphones out there? and btw i don't find my SR-80 colored at all, i feel they are preety natural(but have had little exprience with other headphones) is my hearing bad?

Your hearing isn't necessarily bad. But is it trained? If you compare the 80s to something else (Kramer's suggestion of A/B), you might find that one is more natural than the other.

For all, I would say to try and separate one's preferences from the judgment of this. Not necessarily a good idea when buying, but certainly a good idea when trying to make an objective statement regarding a system's ability to reproduce various elements of music. If you like some things colored (a bit more bass here, smoother treble there), then it's not the end of the world. Magic Etymotic Theorists (METs) won't come down (I hope) and take all your gear away from you and render you deaf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarnton /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ha! You just hang with the wrong people. The other day a player I was adjusting for drew me a little FFT chart on a piece of paper and pointed to one peak and said "The problem is right *here*." Which I did understand, because I already had the same image in my mind from the sound of his violin.

I gotta meet these cats ... that's pretty slick! I need to learn "how" to hear these things. By nature of evolution and memory I suppose I think we all have a pretty intuitive sense of what separates a violin's 440 Hz to that of a piano but I'd love to be able to do that.

 

[mdarnton]

Well, in the "is it a pig or a banana?" sense, yes, the violin does sound more like a violin than a cello, but the room has a huge effect on the sound perceived, because of a violin's radiation pattern. I'm always tempted to say something about stereo imaging in threads where it's mentioned, because really fine violins don't occupy a point in space--they're everywhere, because the sound is more effectively radiated efficiently in all directions. One way to judge the quality of a violin on stage is to see how difficult it is to locate it with your ears.

Did you know that with the transient attack removed from an instrument's sound, what instrument you're listening to becomes nearly impossible?

 

[holland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarnton /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you know that with the transient attack removed from an instrument's sound, what instrument you're listening to becomes nearly impossible?

Really? I would have thought there would be more, resonances from the body. I would think discerning from an electronic keyboard vs. a violin, with attack and decay removed, would still be discernable due to the resonances in other frequencies. No? I think I would be able (I've never heard so I can't say with certainty) to discern the difference between a clarinet and a viola. I probably wouldn't be able to discern like bodied instruments, like a violoncello vs. a viola.

 

[melomaniac]

this may seem counter-intuitive, given the rhetoric around music everywhere: but nothing about a violin is natural, and nothing about the sounds produced with a violin is natural. we're dealing in highly complex code systems here, techniques of building and tweaking instruments, playing them, writing music for them, and then interpreting the music and the appropriate techniques. given this phenomenon, which you can argue is something of an anthropological constant (not the violin, but music making in general) but not nature, there is also little to support a "neutral" view of it. that's like saying my use of english here is neutral or not, natural or not: there is no such thing. I know the definitions offered in this thread of "neutral" recording seem fine and accurate, until you consider that some recordings are understood by the recording artists and engineers not as an invitation to pretend that the listener participates in the act of recording, but as another instrumentation: hence a lot of records will offer things that were never possible without the recording apparatus. hence, "neutrality" is not to be expected. - I know, nonetheless people will feel with some records and gear that it sounds as if you are in the room with the musicians, whereas others distance you from that presence: and I would still, knowing this (and having been a performing classical musician for two decades), maintain that there is no such "presence" in any recording, any gear. even in the moment of performance, there are distances to be travelled by minds and ears and fingers that are irreducible to the simple phantasm of presence.

 

[mdarnton]

We need a psychoacoustics board here.
----------------

No,really, transients are mostly where it's at.

I'm drifting into the audio world in an attempt to better understand the sound part of violin making from the other side of the player/maker thing. You guys look at things entirely differently.

Now, back to your regularly-scheduled discussion....

 

[qazwsx]

Not enhanced. No extra bass, no extra highs, flat mids, studio-sounding soundstage. Just how it was recorded.

Unnatural doesn't necessarily mean bad however, depending on the listener. Many cans are unnatural, like Grados and how they enhance the mids to relate to electric guitars and extra highs, or how Sennheisers often add mid-bass to correlate with the warm sounds in an orchestra.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarnton /img/forum/go_quote.gif We need a psychoacoustics board here. ---------------- No,really, transients are mostly where it's at. I'm drifting into the audio world in an attempt to better understand the sound part of violin making from the other side of the player/maker thing. You guys look at things entirely differently. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled discussion....

That sounds very interesting, could you elaborate on what you mean by "you guys look at things very differently"?

Do you make violins or play?

 

[tbonner1]

To me...
Natural means the headphones (or whatever the gear is) sound like it would if you heard the same music live. Instruments and vocals breath in there own acoustic space. They are not too sharp, nor too muffled. Bass is tight and distinctive, not boomy. Cymbals have a nice clear ring and shimmer and do not sound like spitting on a hot radiator. There is no glare to the music.

Natural means it sounds like music, not hi-fi.

 

[cisforchooch]

My preferences when it comes to recorded violin.. the attack has to be audible, so for example, I want to hear the bite when a chord is broken across multiple strings, or when a passage requires spiccato, it should be sharp, focused and precise, again with a certain bite. And I want to hear the graininess of longer strokes that results from the "sticky" contact of the bow against string (I don't know any other way to describe this sound).

I know others seem to prefer a smoother sound, but I actually prefer a grittier sound.. I find smooth equates to sterile.

A lot of Milstein's solo recordings exhibit this sound... maybe it's a result of closer micing? They sound magnificent on my speaker setup and on my K601s, but on the UEs, they play too even. Perhaps this is a lack of detail?

 

[unclejr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cisforchooch /img/forum/go_quote.gif My preferences when it comes to recorded violin.. the attack has to be audible, so for example, I want to hear the bite when a chord is broken across multiple strings, or when a passage requires spiccato, it should be sharp, focused and precise, again with a certain bite. And I want to hear the graininess of longer strokes that results from the "sticky" contact of the bow against string (I don't know any other way to describe this sound). I know others seem to prefer a smoother sound, but I actually prefer a grittier sound.. I find smooth equates to sterile. A lot of Milstein's solo recordings exhibit this sound... maybe it's a result of closer micing? They sound magnificent on my speaker setup and on my K601s, but on the UEs, they play too even. Perhaps this is a lack of detail?

I was kinda with you until the smooth = sterile ... what you described to my ACx (etc) would be considered more sterile. I enjoy a healthy amount of detail as much as the next person, as I find great enjoyment hearing the bite at the beginning of a strong down bow, for instance, and even on my current hp rig I can discern when a bowing mistake on a long legato note if the bow is bouncing around a bit too much.

However, sterile to me actually be less air around the notes, no grace, no elegance (quantify that!). Like when I was a beginner playing Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars from Suzuki 1 on a rental violin. In a tin room.

My poor, poor parents. And brother.

 

[kukrisna]

hrmm - i do know if you play, you'll hear more grain and power in the sound than if you were out in the audience

story goes that heifetz loved to have the mic up close which is why many people who have heard his performances commented on the fact that the recordings sound totally different

from what i have learned through countless masterclasses and teachers and such is that the sound totally changes from the stage to the audience

this supports my theory that those who want more "body" and "grain" and literally guts in their violin sound are more likely to be ones who play or are in orchestras near violins while those who love smooth and glossed over violin sounds are those who are more listeners in the audience

both are natural, but have different environments, and thus headphones can be natural in that i gets the timbre of the violin right in all its overtone and harmonic glory but it can totally vary in presentation which should not be confused with naturalness, but often people do as seen in this thread

 

[cisforchooch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kukrisna /img/forum/go_quote.gif from what i have learned through countless masterclasses and teachers and such is that the sound totally changes from the stage to the audience this supports my theory that those who want more "body" and "grain" and literally guts in their violin sound are more likely to be ones who play or are in orchestras near violins while those who love smooth and glossed over violin sounds are those who are more listeners in the audience

I agree that the sound is different up close versus in the audience, as the grittiness and near-scratchy aspects of the sound dissipate into the acoustics of the room.

However, even in a hall setting, you can still distinguish one instrument from another. For example, some violins sound brighter than others, and still others have a fuller sound in the lower registers while others have a nasally tone. I would expect a good pair of headphones to differentiate these tonal variations, irrespective of how closely the instrument is recorded... does this make sense?

 

[kukrisna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cisforchooch /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that the sound is different up close versus in the audience, as the grittiness and near-scratchy aspects of the sound dissipate into the acoustics of the room. However, even in a hall setting, you can still distinguish one instrument from another. For example, some violins sound brighter than others, and still others have a fuller sound in the lower registers while others have a nasally tone. I would expect a good pair of headphones to differentiate these tonal variations, irrespective of how closely the instrument is recorded... does this make sense?

it does but also realize that in the studio things are tweaked - not so much with classical as with others but i would imagine there is some compression, EQ, and reverb that colors the sound, then there's also the fact that different microphones have different characteristics, as do the preamps for the mics - not to mention our playback gear

and yes absolutely in a live room you can totally 100% hear differences in different instruments tonally speaking (again going back to my thing on harmonics and overtones) - however a lot of people seem to want the grit and lower frequencies that i feel just arent present in an audience - and i feel this is true of all violins

my thing is i dont know how much of that is able to come across in a recording

i have yet to hear one person who can identify a particular bow, string brand, rosin brand, let alone violin make on a recording - which is where the player comes in, something we can all identify a bit more

i mean - going with rock - it's as silly as someone claiming to be able to hear the exact amp, the tube, the guitar, the cymbal brand, the microphone, the engineer, the compressor, the keyboard, etc.

different things affect the sound, sure - but we also have to understand that it's so difficult to retrieve every last little bit because there's just so much going into the production and playback in the first place

 

[Sovkiller]

Also don't forget that in order to listen something natural the recording has to be natural, you will never get a natural audition on an unnatural recorded instrument. And to what extend you will know how the instrument was recorded in a given recording, that is a total mystery...so my suggestion is try to enjoy what you have and period...

 

[Jahn]

sometimes you want "real" and sometimes you want "hyperreal." for me, the HP1000 is real, and the STAX is like taking a microscope to reality. diff moods!