Is there "special" sound, or isn't there?

[fas42]

Just goes to show how different our expectations of audio systems are!

I was curious as to what you posted on the "Are you satisfied with your system" thread, and noted you said this,

Stereo isn't meant to sound real at the listening position and everywhere else! There may be the occasional fluke that maps onto your room's dimensions and furnishings and gives you a moment of "Is that real?" while you're elsewhere in the house, but it's most likely not a direct impression of the sound of the recording anyway.

You see, I want it to sound "real" for every recording, in the right position and elsewhere, all the time! I managed to get it unexpectedly, I pursued understanding how to make it happen more often, and I find it a challenge to keep getting a better handle on what's going on.

I could decide to be happy with a crappy car which can't go faster than 40 mph, and breaks down every other journey. Then again, knowing that one can do better, it makes life more interesting, aiming for a bit more ...

 

[fas42]

Actually, I might turn this around ... can either of you point to a YouTube clip which is a recording of an audio system in operation, which has what you consider to be exemplary sound?

 

[RayDunzl]

I can!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Actually, I might turn this around ... can either of you point to a YouTube clip which is a recording of an audio system in operation, which has what you consider to be exemplary sound?

That isn't turning it around really. I would answer no. Maybe there is one I have missed, but lots of the problem is how to record such things. Trying to do so or hearing others attempts actually points out the fact stereo does have limitations. Some that can't be gotten around. Recording stereo playback in stereo makes that clear.

Those recordings that do get close to the sound of something I have heard are done with the mics at the closest point where the sound integrates from each speaker. One example in the thread where I posted three recordings. The one with omni mics 2 meters out were reasonably close. I have noticed that when others attempt this also. It works because you are getting the inherent tonal balance of the speaker and eliminating as much as possible the effects of the room, and effects of space in regards to the speaker position.

When you record a real soundfield with stereo mics with good playback you can get a certain level of fidelity and imaging. When you record stereo playback there is no complete soundfield. You have a minimal sound with two small sources and effects of room reflections.

Now I would say the recording Ray did of his speakers is among the better I have heard. He has the advantage that his panels interact less with the room at distance than cone and box speakers.

 

[fas42]

That isn't turning it around really. I would answer no. Maybe there is one I have missed, but lots of the problem is how to record such things. .

Hmmm ... it's trivially easy to record live music playing with a primitive recording device, and for it to be obviously clear that one is listening to the real thing - yet an audio system is a highly perverse sound producing device, which is almost impossible to make sound good in a recording ...

I'm wondering whether I'm missing something here, perhaps?

 

[Blumlein 88]

You see, I want it to sound "real" for every recording, in the right position and elsewhere, all the time! I managed to get it unexpectedly, I pursued understanding how to make it happen more often, and I find it a challenge to keep getting a better handle on what's going on.

I could decide to be happy with a crappy car which can't go faster than 40 mph, and breaks down every other journey. Then again, knowing that one can do better, it makes life more interesting, aiming for a bit more ...

I don't know. Using the car analogy. If you had a car that would only do 40 mph (let us say a model T), and you told me by not settling for 40 mph and you unexpectedly got it to do 200 mph (which is possible) I would want to know what you did. The original engine only had something like 15-20 hp, and other aspects aren't capable of working at those speeds. If you then show me a basically stock model T with some tuneup tweaks, and say different tires, a new steering wheel, and new paint well sorry what is left has limitations you can't overcome. I would expect your speedo was out of calibration or you have a very good imagination once you convinced me you really believe it.


Oh, just saw Ray's post. You got a laugh out of me on that one Ray.

 

[RayDunzl]

Now I would say the recording Ray did of his speakers is among the better I have heard.

It may have the following advantages over a camcorder:

1. A corrected measurement mic was used, and it was a mono recording (of stereo, I suppose, though it could have been two-speaker mono)
2. The mic was still positioned at the same spot AcourateDRC used to tune things up.

Was it this one?

https://soundcloud.com/ray-880875693/organ

 

[fas42]

And another question I will ask - who has achieved totally invisible speakers, in the sense that I describe?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hmmm ... it's trivially easy to record live music playing with a primitive recording device, and for it to be obviously clear that one is listening to the real thing - yet an audio system is a highly perverse sound producing device, which is almost impossible to make sound good in a recording ...

I'm wondering whether I'm missing something here, perhaps?

Yes, I am pointing the reason out to you. Recording a live soundfield with stereo and recording stereo sound with stereo is the reason.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It may have the following advantages over a camcorder:

1. A corrected measurement mic was used, and it was a mono recording (of stereo, I suppose, though it could have been two-speaker mono)
2. The mic was still positioned at the same spot AcourateDRC used to tune things up.

Was it this one?

https://soundcloud.com/ray-880875693/organ

Yes I think you are onto something. I actually had this in my previous post and decided to take it out for clarity.
In my experience you do much better at giving a taste of how a stereo sounds by recording the playback in mono (and of course a quality mic always help). You can do even better recording a mono playback in mono.

 

[fas42]

I don't know. Using the car analogy. If you had a car that would only do 40 mph (let us say a model T), and you told me by not settling for 40 mph and you unexpectedly got it to do 200 mph (which is possible) I would want to know what you did.

Obviously the higher the quality of the starting bits the better your chances. If I had got "special" sound the first time with very expensive gear I probably would have trapped myself into thinking I would always need the high performance raw bits. To this day. But that wasn't the way it happened - the speakers were reasonable bottom of the range items, and I have detailed the minimum I did to get them to perform, in that other thread.

Hmmm ... I said. This tells me something SIGNIFICANT! - I thought ... I don't need humongously expensive or fastidiously designed audio equipment to produce a high quality subjective experience ... in fact, let's see how low I can go! And that's been the really fascinating part of the journey - that very unpretentious equipment can get crucial parts of "special" sound happening, if the right details are taken care of.

 

[fas42]

Yes, I am pointing the reason out to you. Recording a live soundfield with stereo and recording stereo sound with stereo is the reason.

Yes, I agree with recording in mono. But an exceedingly simple technique to overcome any listening problem with a stereo take is to mute one channel on playback. If it still sounds awful, what's the excuse now?

 

[fas42]

I think the recent video has effected your opinion because of what you see and the bank of large M-L amps in the video connected to these huge speakers with horns.

Oh dear!! .. Don't you people get sick of trotting out this smelly old one, as if it explains everything else. I could have pointed out oodles of Kenrick videos, which use the same basic driving setup on other speakers, with "great" reputations - but which just happen to sound decidedly off in the video; if the quality is really obviously flawed all the glitz in the world won't counteract that. Or I could find videos of systems costing 10 times as much, and looking fabulously glam - with crap sound.

Strange thing. Audiophiles go to hifi shows, and manage to "get" that some systems sound good and other don't, in spite of the price tags being displayed. The glib assertion by "scientists" that appearance is so terribly important strikes me as being incredibly thick headed at times ...

 

[Cosmik]

Strange thing. Audiophiles go to hifi shows, and manage to "get" that some systems sound good and other don't, in spite of the price tags being displayed. The glib assertion by "scientists" that appearance is so terribly important strikes me as being incredibly thick headed at times ...

I agree that audiophiles listening to hifi at shows isn't scientific, and they will be influenced by what they see and expect to hear. However, at least they are there in the room!

The idea that a recording of a hifi system played back on cruddy laptop speakers or even headphones can tell you how good it is strikes me as a ridiculous idea. Sadly, I suspect that the meme has arisen from the revelation that you can record a hifi system with a modern phone or a camcorder and it sounds a hell of a lot better than when you tried it with a cassette recorder when you were a kid. I daresay that it *can* let you distinguish between something that is totally rubbish (e.g. distorted) and something that is better than rubbish. But can it tell you how good the imaging is? The dynamics etc.? I don't think so.

Recordings of hifi systems can only convey the sound at a fixed position, including the 'hollowness' that you don't hear when you have access to the entire 'sound field'.

I have noticed a phenomenon when watching films and TV drama: in a scene that makes a feature of someone putting a record on, it often sounds amazing - better than if you were to put the record on yourself. I think it is a result of 'context'. If the theme of the drama is grim, the colour in the scene washed out (a video of a hifi show...) then when some genuine 'colour' hits the character (and you), the contrast is overwhelming. Or if the theme and visuals are the opposite, the music combines with the visuals and story to give you a boost that is better than the music itself. There may also be an element of hearing the record with that 'ambient' 'double tracked' sound that a single mic recording can give you that sounds interesting for a little while. They may even add a DSP 'ambient' effect to achieve the same thing.

 

[fas42]

The idea that a recording of a hifi system played back on cruddy laptop speakers or even headphones can tell you how good it is strikes me as a ridiculous idea. Sadly, I suspect that the meme has arisen from the revelation that you can record a hifi system with a modern phone or a camcorder and it sounds a hell of a lot better than when you tried it with a cassette recorder when you were a kid. I daresay that it *can* let you distinguish between something that is totally rubbish (e.g. distorted) and something that is better than rubbish. But can it tell you how good the imaging is? The dynamics etc.? I don't think so.

I agree, it won't tell how good it is. But, it will reveal if there is a significant flaw in the sound; in particular, if the tonality of some part of the musical content is poorly rendered. A good one is some piano - the quality of that keyboard sound is quite obviously deeply 'wrong' in many instances; also, vocals - the voice comes across as quite artificial, as if it has been processed by some defective studio circuitry.

Obviously the best approach is to hear the gear in person. And especially for things like how it behaves when one hits the "Louder!" knob.

Playback of audio equipment in a video production will usually be faked: either it is the actual audio signal dubbed onto the soundtrack, with processing to enhance the impact; or it is deliberately dumbed down in quality, given a "kitchen radio" tone because it suits the context.

 

[fas42]

And another question I will ask - who has achieved totally invisible speakers, in the sense that I describe?

OK, no-one ... which would make sense, the percentage of people reporting this is very low, in general. I mention this because the invisible speaker thing is a by-product of "special" sound - there could be instances where a system performs at a very high level and the speakers are still aurally distinguishable, but I haven't come across such yet. The nature of the sound field is subjectively completely different with "invisible" speakers, courtesy of the behaviour of our hearing systems, as described by ASA. Systems close to the necessary competence demonstrate various qualities, and the videos I posted show setups with the necessaries - someone who is familiar with this sort of subjective acoustic behaviour would recognise the traits.

 

[Cosmik]

OK, no-one ... which would make sense, the percentage of people reporting this is very low, in general. I mention this because the invisible speaker thing is a by-product of "special" sound - there could be instances where a system performs at a very high level and the speakers are still aurally distinguishable, but I haven't come across such yet. The nature of the sound field is subjectively completely different with "invisible" speakers, courtesy of the behaviour of our hearing systems, as described by ASA. Systems close to the necessary competence demonstrate various qualities, and the videos I posted show setups with the necessaries - someone who is familiar with this sort of subjective acoustic behaviour would recognise the traits.

A Beolab 90 on its 'highest quality' setting becomes directional. It is not intended to be 'invisible' as you move around the room. Presumably you think it is therefore not as special as your kitchen radio.

As I said a few posts back, if you arrange things so that your speakers rattle and vibrate in sympathy with the recording, and you select a recording of an instrument that resembles your speaker in its construction (violin played back on a flimsy kitchen radio) you might achieve an illusion of a violinist in the room with you.

 

[fas42]

The speaker doesn't become invisible because it throws sound, deliberately, in all directions. Like a Bose, or at the other end, the Beolab at an appropriate setting. Rather, it occurs because the acoustic information of the recording, as heard by the ears, always makes sense - the very nature of the normal sweet spot is a perfect example of that. That spot could be microscopically small, with a supremely beaming speaker setup - or it can be significantly larger; "special" sound just moves that aspect further along the scale, so that it becomes impossible to localise the speaker drivers, using one's ears. And it also means that a particular instrument or sound element appears, as far as your brain is concerned, to be locked in space - just like hearing something "real".

It's obvious it's an illusion that one's brain concocts, because once the right quality level is achieved one can dial back the quality in some deliberate way and "watch" the mirage evaporate as the sound deteriorates - the apparent sound source collapses back into the speaker drivers on each side. Poof! ... your violinist is no more ...

 

[Cosmik]

... the acoustic information of the recording, as heard by the ears, always makes sense

You have great faith in the people who create recordings.

 

[fas42]

You have great faith in the people who create recordings.

Don't need to ... the microphones do the work required, and in the case of completely artificial sound elements the effects processing from mixing, etc, adds space cues which are good enough. I've heard so many recordings, at huge ends of the spectrum of how they were recorded, and they are "adventures in space", nearly all of them! The "worst" performers I've heard are audiophile recordings, those specifically designed to sound good on typical audio rigs!! Why? Because they have very barren spaces, like a house with every skerrick of furniture removed - they become tiresome and boring to listen to, the very few I have are the least played of all the recordings I have ...