Bruno Putzeys ‘Life on the edge’

[Chr1]

I have always interpreted the term "revealing" to be transparent, high fidelity/resolution. Accuracy to the source. Be that good or bad. Otherwise, revealing of what exactly? It'd have to be something that is not actually there surely. Similarly vague, like "musicality"? Nah... My 2c

 

[krabapple]

When people say 'poor recordings' I wonder if they mean, the recording/prodcution technique was poor, or that the actual original audio was poor. Music doesn't always sound great 'live'. So a 'poor recording' can simply be an accurate record of a poor-sounding event. Could be crummy acoustics, could be a crummy performance.

 

[Chr1]

I guess, like "musicality", we are trying to nail down the meaning of vague audio terminology, as yet not properly defined! Seems to be a lot of variation...

 

[pma]

When people say 'poor recordings' I wonder if they mean, the recording/prodcution technique was poor, or that the actual original audio was poor. Music doesn't always sound great 'live'. So a 'poor recording' can simply be an accurate record of a poor-sounding event. Could be crummy acoustics, could be a crummy performance.

Yes, a lot of variation.

1. Technically poor - excessive hiss, distortion, limited bandwidth. Applies to everything before 1950 and also to many rock recordings taken in the fifties and sixties.

2. Excessive dynamic range compression, starting in popular music recordings since nineties and getting worse with time. Dynamic range compression brings distortion and unnatural sound coloration. Get anything from contemporary pop music production and it is unlistenable other way than in a car or noisy subway. Rolling Stones Blue and Lonesome album just to name one. Horrible sound.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Some other variations of poor:

• Poorly mixed so you get a "wall" of sound, each instrument doesn't have appropriate space in the mix (sometimes intentional in harder genres)
  • There's a fair amount of tracks like that out there
• Harsh / difficult to listen to, due to excessive energy in some frequencies, often somewhere around 1-4khz.
  • In my opinion quite rare, often it's actually the speakers
• Tonally wrong (too much/little of some frequency band(s)).
  • This is to some extent present in some genres, and/or some periods of time.
  • Sometimes an artistic choice, and sometimes just poor craftmanship from the engineer.
  • This is also often as much the speakers as the recording, or can at least be made worse by the speakers.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Get anything from contemporary pop music production and it is unlistenable other way than in a car or noisy subway.

Not true at all. Perhaps you just don't like contemporary pop music? That's an honest opinion. Lots of contemporary music has great production, sounds great, and sound better on better equipment.

 

[krabapple]

General statements tend to be too general.

This too is a general statement.

 

[Soniclife]

Not true at all. Perhaps you just don't like contemporary pop music?

In my limited experience modern pop sounds great, so much so that even if you don't like the music it should be obvious they have achieved what they wanted to.

 

[Multicore]

In my limited experience modern pop sounds great, so much so that even if you don't like the music it should be obvious they have achieved what they wanted to.

I want to ask for examples but I won't because this thread is way off in the weeds already.

 

[Soniclife]

I want to ask for examples but I won't because this thread is way off in the weeds already.

You would be better getting examples from someone who knows something about modern pop, but I'll start by suggesting Billie Eilish.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Pop is such a wide label, but here are some pretty commercial examples produced the last 10 years or so. These are not cherry picked to be especially pristine recordings, and the DR is probably mostly pretty low. But they all still pass the test of sounding better on better systems with flying colors.

 

[dshreter]

There is credibility to the idea that recording studios have more revealing setups. This can be an attribute of both the speakers and the room.

Listening with a higher proportion of direct vs reflected energy has a specific quality to it and is beneficial to be able to pick out everything in the mix. If you want to analyze reverb, you don't want your room to have much of its own reverb. For example, Genelec specifies their speakers based on room size because of SPL requirements AND to ensure "Direct Sound Dominance." Bigger speakers have more controlled directivity, so they can be listened to from farther away while maintaining direct sound dominance.

But apparently maximizing direct vs reflected sound isn't what "we" prefer to listen to in a non-professional context. Quoting Amir who is referencing Toole and Olive:

First let’s dispense with a myth. In home listening spaces, a reflection is not an echo. Yes, the sound is bouncing and then arriving at our ear. But due to a phenomenon known as the “Haas” effect, what we hear is that the reflection “fuses” with the direct sound and will be heard as a “single event.” For an echo to occur you need to have reflection paths that are longer than 30 feet typically which likely is not going to be the case in even large listening spaces at home. So don’t think there is an issue here due to what you may hear in much larger public spaces where distinct echoes can be indeed be a problem. It is not here.

So if we don’t hear reflections as echoes how do we hear them? The answer to that depends on direction of the reflection. Let’s focus for now on the so called first reflection points on the side walls where “common wisdom” says should be eliminated. Experiments conducted by Dr. Toole and Olive show that such reflections, when perceptible, serve to widen the apparent source of the sound (i.e. no longer just coming out of a small speaker). Turns out this is a preferred outcome and one that human listeners in controlled settings indicate as being a good thing! There simply is more realism to an image of sound that extends past the speakers and better mimics our everyday experiences in reflection-rich environments. You probably are still scratching your head wondering how what I just said can be true.

Speakers can be designed with a higher or lower proportion of direct vs reflected energy. Narrow directivity leads to more direct sound energy. Where does the rubber meet the road? Well, let's look at the beamwidth of a well-regarded hifi speaker and a well-regarded studio monitor. 70 degrees vs 55 degrees beam width. I would suggest the Revel F328Be "sounds better" and the KH420 is "more revealing."

TLDR: I do believe recording studios strive for a more analytical vs euphonic setup by ensuring a higher degree of direct vs reflected energy. This can be accomplished with speakers with a narrower beam width in addition to treating the room itself to reduce reflected energy.

 

[mhardy6647]

Perhaps not the sine qua non, but this has been my default poor recording for a long, long time. I.e., when I think of a bad sounding (commercial) recording, this one - still, after decades -- leaps to mind.

Here's an "HQ" variant, straight from Youtube to you!

 

[DSJR]

Not adding to the misery is not the same as improving.

I didn't say 'improve' but I always felt it better to remove added stodge by the room and speakers (back in the vinyl and passive-speaker-only days). I still feel the misery can be far less if the system doesn't screw things up more. Even with good recordings, a decent system seems to help the listener delve into the mixes being played more easily - at least that's what I used to find in the past.

 

[Sal1950]

He is completely wrong about this. Class D had and continues to have a terrible reputation for "sound" quality. I constantly see pushback against them. I would say 99% of the high-end subjectivists consider it non-starter. Class D's technical achievements are great, but its marketing stinks.

Oh course your right here boss,
But all the marketing in the world isn't going to change the attitude and reasoning of the High End media and customer base.
The Benchmark ABH2 is a "nice little amp", but no where in the running with D'Agostino Relentless Epic 1600 at 570lb and $350,000,
or a $275,000 darTZeel NBH-468. Just Ask Mikey.

Excessive dynamic range compression, starting in popular music recordings since nineties and getting worse with time. Dynamic range compression brings distortion and unnatural sound coloration. Get anything from contemporary pop music production and it is unlistenable other way than in a car or noisy subway. Rolling Stones Blue and Lonesome album just to name one. Horrible sound.

A bit of a overstated generalization. We're supposed to be audiophiles here and do our homework on the music we purchase.
There's some poor masterings of the album you just named and good ones.
To top it off the serious recording engineers in the industry today doing all the multich-2ch work detest that type of mastering.
Steven Wilson or Alan Parsons just to name a few.

 

[Hear Here]

When people say 'poor recordings' I wonder if they mean, the recording/prodcution technique was poor, or that the actual original audio was poor. Music doesn't always sound great 'live'. So a 'poor recording' can simply be an accurate record of a poor-sounding event. Could be crummy acoustics, could be a crummy performance.

You are right - a performance may be great, but the auditorium engineers may not make a great job of recording it. In this case the studio engineer can hopefully improve matters - they are very clever guys. Or the performance is not great, but the local recording engineers do a great job. The studio engineer then has a rather different job but he may be able to salvage things to an extent that it finishes off sounding rather better than was initially feared - they are very clever guys. In both cases, it's what's wrong with the recording that they are trying to improve and speakers need to emphasise (that's not the best word, but you know what I mean) the areas that need sorting.

 

[Sokel]

What the consensus amongst audiophiles is about "revealing" speakers is to a greater extend the shorts of new B&W,enormous highs at the point we are sensitive and to a lesser extend the shorts of new Genelecs with the subtle but existing pronunciation at the same point (always in comparison with the older 80xx ones,or the mains monitors or the KH,etc)

Thin mid-bass helps too.

(I would rather listen to a nice foghorn up close,really close )

 

[Sokel]

Excuse my real world landing here but there's more that's around to fuel arguments and that's not only the recordings themselves but piracy and bad copies.
If we have our eyes open it's more than evident.
On another forum I have compared th same classical work spectrum (a pretty extended one at highs,not the usual very sloped stuff) with another member who claimed to have another version which I knew it did not exist (it's an obsession to me,don't mind me)

It was so funny to see this sudden drop,as brick wall filter at 16kHz to the point I didn't argue any more,I thought he maybe didn't have the means to buy,so...
So,we may be absolutely sure that our copy is legit if downloaded (yes,even at formal online shops,not all check for integrity)

 

[tmtomh]

What the consensus amongst audiophiles is about "revealing" speakers is to a greater extend the shorts of new B&W,enormous highs at the point we are sensitive and to a lesser extend the shorts of new Genelecs with the subtle but existing pronunciation at the same point (always in comparison with the older 80xx ones,or the mains monitors or the KH,etc)

Thin mid-bass helps too.

(I would rather listen to a nice foghorn up close,really close )

I've seen this written once before - maybe by you, I can't recall at the moment - about the Genelecs. I've just reviewed Amir's measurements of the 8361, 51, and 41, along with measurements shared here from Erin's review of the 8331. I don't see a 1-5kHz boost, however subtle, with any of those Genelecs - not to mention that in my experience the "B&W showroom-sound boost" is only at the very top of the range we're most sensitive to, around 5kHz.

The Genelec 8361 and 51 on-axis and estimated in-room responses both look quite flat through the sensitive range. The 8341 on-axis appears to have a 1dB bump up in a very limited range from about 1200-1800Hz; and Erin's measurements of the 8331 seem to show a similarly small 1dB bump from around 1500-2500Hz.

 

[Sokel]

I've seen this written once before - maybe by you, I can't recall at the moment - about the Genelecs. I've just reviewed Amir's measurements of the 8361, 51, and 41, along with measurements shared here from Erin's review of the 8331. I don't see a 1-5kHz boost, however subtle, with any of those Genelecs - not to mention that in my experience the "B&W showroom-sound boost" is only at the very top of the range we're most sensitive to, around 5kHz.

The Genelec 8361 and 51 on-axis and estimated in-room responses both look quite flat through the sensitive range. The 8341 on-axis appears to have a 1dB bump up in a very limited range from about 1200-1800Hz; and Erin's measurements of the 8331 seem to show a similarly small 1dB bump from around 1500-2500Hz.

Look at 8361A,all 4-10kHz range in comparison to the rest of the range down low,It's subtle but it's there.
Compare it with older models and you'll see,I have done it 100 times before to see what's bothering me sometimes (I'm very sensitive there,not an ear condition,that's checked yearly,probably a brain one,I have it since my teens,I'm a walking RTA for pronounced highs with the round headache I get if they are there)

Ruling out the class AB amplification and analog el. x-overs vs class D and DSP for the new as I have tested it myself all what's left was the FR.
So...