How audible is distortion?

[DonH56]

Same here. The sound will vary wildly with close mic'ing, a blessing and a curse. For example, flutes and guitars are painful as you need multiple mics to capture the sound from the head joint and the end of the tube, or the sound hole and along the strings. Drum sets can absorb an almost infinite set of mics as you try to capture the different sounds using both mic placement and mic type to get the sound you want. You lose flexibility but may retain more hair just using a stereo (X-Y or M-S) pair to record the group. In the studio, fiddling with the mics after the players are positioned is generally a big deal though those who doing it for a living (not I) get much faster at it and know generally where to place the mics for the sound they want. The musicians who move around as they play can make life interesting...

A lot of audiophiles would be in for a real eye-opening (ear-opening?) experience if they went through the recording process from end to end and realized just how many variables and how much processing there is along the way.

 

[RayDunzl]

I try and avoid DI

What's DI?

 

[DonH56]

Direct Input -- e.g. a pickup on a guitar plumbed straight to the mixing board. Many sound engineers prefer to get the acoustic sound for its better "flavor" but it is harder to capture using (a) mic(s).

 

[sergeauckland]

Same here. The sound will vary wildly with close mic'ing, a blessing and a curse. For example, flutes and guitars are painful as you need multiple mics to capture the sound from the head joint and the end of the tube, or the sound hole and along the strings. Drum sets can absorb an almost infinite set of mics as you try to capture the different sounds using both mic placement and mic type to get the sound you want. You lose flexibility but may retain more hair just using a stereo (X-Y or M-S) pair to record the group. In the studio, fiddling with the mics after the players are positioned is generally a big deal though those who doing it for a living (not I) get much faster at it and know generally where to place the mics for the sound they want. The musicians who move around as they play can make life interesting...

A lot of audiophiles would be in for a real eye-opening (ear-opening?) experience if they went through the recording process from end to end and realized just how many variables and how much processing there is along the way.

For larger groups, I use either crossed cardioids or if there's no audience, then crossed figure of eight, or the Decca Tree if I have the room, but this does rely on the group being able to balance themselves properly, which is where a conductor is handy! I don't get the chance to record large groups often, but it's a lot of fun. Much more fun than close-miked musicians who move around a lot. Never give a guitarist a swivel chair.

I try and do minimal processing, no compression and minimal EQ, as all my output gets broadcast, so processed by the Optimod, which radically changes the sound. This is generally for the better if heard in a car or on a small portable radio, less so on a wide-range home system.

S.

 

[amirm]

If it mattered sounds would appear to vary widely in different rooms (and recordings made in different locations in a room do, in fact, showing that these peaks and troughs are real enough) however whilst I am aware that these peaks vary around the room I hear through this, since I am a human used to listening to things in (acoustically imperfect) rooms, I am not a microphone.

For low frequencies, you are a microphone. The wavelengths are so large that the distance between your ears/differential in what each one hears is negligible. As such, what you see in measurements is what you get. This is not theory. In that same room, I have applied correction to that peak and it absolutely improves the fidelity. It removes clear boominess and by removing its ringing in time domain, aids in clarity of higher frequencies.

And here is the music that shows it clearly:

Play this in your room and with a parametric EQ, knock of the peaks on and off and listen to the difference.

"Listening through the room" happens at higher frequencies. Wild low frequency variations don't go away perceptually. This is why correcting them is mandatory for good sound.

 

[RayDunzl]

This is the measurement in my theater:

Could you show before/after correction?

 

[amirm]

Could you show before/after correction?

I did not save that. But I just pulled down the one peak using the parametric EQ.

 

[Frank Dernie]

For low frequencies, you are a microphone. The wavelengths are so large that the distance between your ears/differential in what each one hears is negligible. As such, what you see in measurements is what you get. This is not theory. In that same room, I have applied correction to that peak and it absolutely improves the fidelity. It removes clear boominess and by removing its ringing in time domain, aids in clarity of higher frequencies.

And here is the music that shows it clearly:

Play this in your room and with a parametric EQ, knock of the peaks on and off and listen to the difference.

"Listening through the room" happens at higher frequencies. Wild low frequency variations don't go away perceptually. This is why correcting them is mandatory for good sound.

I have a room compensation device, a DSPeaker Anti-mode 2.0, I tried it on and off over a few months and could appreciate what it does, but haven't used it for a couple of years.
I will give this a go with this recording tomorrow if I get time.
Up to now I am far from convinced here at home, I have read loads and loads of stuff about this over the years and tried it. I have measured the peaks, I have removed the peaks, I haven't bothered to continue doing so.

 

[DonH56]

My room has a primary mode at 30 Hz with another around 60 Hz. The 30 Hz I essentially could not hear but chose to fix (using multiple subs, not EQ, room nulls are rarely amenable to EQ) as it was deep and fairly broad (probably due to my floating walls and ceiling). The 60 Hz null was rather audible -- I could sway back and forth and hear the bass change as I moved in and out of the null. Ultimately I added subs and moved the MLP to get a flatter response. For a while I had a narrow null around 80 Hz and it was essentially inaudible -- narrow enough that I seemed to hear through it. I could tell it was there with pink noise, but with music and movies it was essentially inaudible (to me).

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I don't listen to sustained low bass from a file.
I listen to music.
Some of it on our Steinway model "B" piano, though admittedly in that case not in this room. The sound board of the piano is 6' 11", substantially bigger even than the bass panel in my old Apogee Divas. Nevertheless I am sure the peaks and troughs are the inevitable consequence of physics and are there for both the piano and the speaker. I believe it is that we hear through.
I enjoy live concerts. In the Royal Albert Hall, which I used to go to a lot, the sound varies substantially depending on which seat you are in.
The Sheldonian and Holywell Rooms in Oxford, my local halls now, have vast sound differences depending where you sit. One quickly becomes accustomed to this and hear through it.
I am sure if I made a recording from the various locations (I have once only) it would (it did) sound nothing like how I remember it sounding, since the microphone can't hear through the room and I seem to be able to, without any effort.

Yes, the sound varies from seat to seat in the concert hall, all of them.

Here at Verizon Hall in Philly, a friend once gave me his tickets in the side of the 2nd Balcony, in boxes right at the rail about halfway back. The Philadelphia Orchestra was playing Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite and other works. Due to the unusual cello-like shape of those balcony seating areas, and the low, solid wall below the balcony rail, only the far half of the orchestra was visible sitting back - violins, horns and half the wodwinds and trumpets, but not violas, cellos, basses, trombones, etc. Leaning forward, elbows on the rail, I could see and, more importantly, hear the entire ensemble unubstructed. Needless to say, the sound was way, way more enjoyable leaning forward. Yes, I could hear everything with an entirely different emphasis and tonality leaning back, but it was absolutely no pleasure by comparison to leaning forward, believe me. My regular subscription seats, incidentally, after trying many other seating areas, some much more expensive, is on the Main Floor Orchestra area about 2/3's back with unobstructed views of all the performers and no balcony overhang. Not bad at all for about $60/seat, a great, great entertainment bargain if ever there was one.

But, good recordings avoid all this by recording from the perspective of one of the best unobstructed center seats, of course.

To my discerning ears, I CAN adapt to the sound available within reason. But, why should I want to when there is something obviously better, like just leaning forward in the above? Or, by just turning on bass EQ below Schroeder. Or, to my ears, discretely recorded Mch sound.

I would also cite a different example. John Atkinson of Stereophile made a presumably all out, high end stereo recording with Steven Silverman of all the Beethoven Piano Sonatas in someone's home on his Stereophile label. The recording space was larger than typical for a home, but still far smaller than a typical concert venue.

https://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/298/index.html

I have the boxed set. My opinions: generally undistinguished performances with mediocre sound. One hears an unpleasant room acoustic in all of them that one does not encounter live in a halfway decent concert venue or on most other piano recordings. I have no doubt JA tried hard to position the mics as best he could for the recording. But, it is not my favorite, by any means.

The point of all this is there is a substantial difference between large concert venue acoustics and also between those and typically smaller home listening room acoustics. God help us, we do not want to be subjected to recordings made in someone's home or private listening room. Live classical concert goers, like me, distinctly prefer recordings made without the obvious "small room" colorations. And, in playback of concert recordings recorded in live venues, some of us distinctly prefer minimizing, albeit imperfectly but as much as possible, the negative contribution of our typically small listening rooms in favor of hearing, as much as possible, the acoustic of the large, live recording space.

Believing that small room colorations simply disappear as a result of adaptation or familiarity is purely wishful thinking in my view.

 

[Cosmik]

Is it not the case that the room's response at higher frequencies also tells a human what its response will be at lower frequencies? i.e. if a human can tell they are in a large room based on speech, say, their experience tells them what it will do at frequencies far lower than their voice. Ditto a small room. If we try to game the system by creating a separate path for the bass, I am guessing that a listener will feel that something is amiss - all the cues and sensations won't add up.

I am beginning to feel that listening to music over speakers in a room is not just a speaker->ear thing. There is interaction between the listeners and the room and between the recording and the room. The room provides the illusion of a path from the listener to the performance venue because the listeners' own voices etc. blend with the sound of the recording. It is an essential element of the "you are there" experience; not just the raw sound quality that reaches your ears. The room is part of the performance, and it would be a mistake to (attempt to) remove it, or even part of it.

 

[Jakob1863]

Maybe it now became more obvious why i was so often emphasizing that individuals as listeners might be very different in their reaction (based on their personal experience of original and reproduced sound) to reproduced music (as a lossy version of reality), as our brain tries to transform sensory input (containing the very lossy recorded content) into a convincing "picture" which is compatible to our learned internal representation of the outer world/reality.

The variability is quite large.......

 

[Wombat]

I consider live performances that I experience(in that space) to be just that. Reproduced performances(in our space) as just what they are. Different things altogether. All the wishing and hoping and huffing and puffing will not bring them together unless individual psychoacoustic wishing takes over the difference.
The recording of the performance is a distorted impression of the original and the path to the consumer just adds more distortion, as does the listening experience.

I wonder why there is so much interest given to it. Lengthy opinion posts that don't go anywhere. Druthers surpassing reality.

Enjoy live performances and enjoy recordings, or not.

2ch or more, the recording is not 'real' and 'reproduction' in a random space is shaped by environment and expectations.

That's life.

.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yes, the sound varies from seat to seat in the concert hall, all of them.

Here at Verizon Hall in Philly, a friend once gave me his tickets in the side of the 2nd Balcony, in boxes right at the rail about halfway back. The Philadelphia Orchestra was playing Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite and other works. Due to the unusual cello-like shape of those balcony seating areas, and the low, solid wall below the balcony rail, only the far half of the orchestra was visible sitting back - violins, horns and half the wodwinds and trumpets, but not violas, cellos, basses, trombones, etc. Leaning forward, elbows on the rail, I could see and, more importantly, hear the entire ensemble unubstructed. Needless to say, the sound was way, way more enjoyable leaning forward. Yes, I could hear everything with an entirely different emphasis and tonality leaning back, but it was absolutely no pleasure by comparison to leaning forward, believe me. My regular subscription seats, incidentally, after trying many other seating areas, some much more expensive, is on the Main Floor Orchestra area about 2/3's back with unobstructed views of all the performers and no balcony overhang. Not bad at all for about $60/seat, a great, great entertainment bargain if ever there was one.

But, good recordings avoid all this by recording from the perspective of one of the best unobstructed center seats, of course.

To my discerning ears, I CAN adapt to the sound available within reason. But, why should I want to when there is something obviously better, like just leaning forward in the above? Or, by just turning on bass EQ below Schroeder. Or, to my ears, discretely recorded Mch sound.

I would also cite a different example. John Atkinson of Stereophile made a presumably all out, high end stereo recording with Steven Silverman of all the Beethoven Piano Sonatas in someone's home on his Stereophile label. The recording space was larger than typical for a home, but still far smaller than a typical concert venue.

https://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/298/index.html

I have the boxed set. My opinions: generally undistinguished performances with mediocre sound. One hears an unpleasant room acoustic in all of them that one does not encounter live in a halfway decent concert venue or on most other piano recordings. I have no doubt JA tried hard to position the mics as best he could for the recording. But, it is not my favorite, by any means.

The point of all this is there is a substantial difference between large concert venue acoustics and also between those and typically smaller home listening room acoustics. God help us, we do not want to be subjected to recordings made in someone's home or private listening room. Live classical concert goers, like me, distinctly prefer recordings made without the obvious "small room" colorations. And, in playback of concert recordings recorded in live venues, some of us distinctly prefer minimizing, albeit imperfectly but as much as possible, the negative contribution of our typically small listening rooms in favor of hearing, as much as possible, the acoustic of the large, live recording space.

Believing that small room colorations simply disappear as a result of adaptation or familiarity is purely wishful thinking in my view.

I too have noticed that different seats in an auditorium sound different, as I noted before, one soon gets used to it though choosing the best seat I can is always favourite, obviously.
I am not surprised the recording in a domestic room picks up the room modes, I have done loads. As I noted in earlier posts this has been my experience too, the microphone picks up the poor sound and records it accurately. You can't listen through it in a different room IME.
Room colourations don't "disappear", of course. One listens through them. There is a monumental difference between what a microphone "hears" at its location and what a human perceives at the same location, anybody who has made sound recordings is strongly aware of this.
Your taste in hifi listening is very, very different from mine. I suppose we will have to live with it
I have tried bass room anti-mode treatments and am sufficiently indifferent to the effect to not bother. I have tried basic multi channel but was insufficiently impressed to try anything more expensive for music.
I must agree to disagree with you, sorry.

 

[Cosmik]

I consider live performances that I experience(in that space) to be just that. Reproduced performances(in our space) as just what they are. Different things altogether. All the wishing and hoping and huffing and puffing will not bring them together unless individual psychoacoustic wishing takes over the difference.
The recording of the performance is a distorted impression of the original and the path to the consumer just adds more distortion as does the listening experience.

I wonder why there is so much interest given to it. Lengthy opinion posts that don't go anywhere. Druthers surpassing reality.

Enjoy live performances and enjoy recordings, or not.

2ch or more, the recording is not 'real' and reproduction in a random space is shaped by environment and expectations.

That's life.

.

Why even bother to record anything in a real venue then?

Better still, just distribute the piece as a MIDI file so people's PCs can play a first hand digital version of the tune from the score. If that's too exciting, people could just look at the score itself, then they are exposed only to the facts, not distortion. And certainly not opinions.

 

[Wombat]

Why even bother to record anything in a real venue then?

Better still, just distribute the piece as a MIDI file so people's PCs can play a first hand digital version of the tune from the score. If that's too exciting, people could just look at the score itself, then they are exposed only to the facts, not distortion. And certainly not opinions.

Why even bother to record anything in a real venue then?

Better still, just distribute the piece as a MIDI file so people's PCs can play a first hand digital version of the tune from the score. If that's too exciting, people could just look at the score itself, then they are exposed only to the facts, not distortion. And certainly not opinions.

Are you kidding or do you think your suggestion is practical?

 

[svart-hvitt]

I see it so, so much simpler than all that.

The straight line can, and should, be calculated and designed, and all that is necessary is to ensure the speaker duplicates the signal in the form of SPL when measured anechoically, and to ensure that it has uniform dispersion at all frequencies.

In practice, of course, it is not possible to get there absolutely perfectly, but it should be as close as possible; the electronics do it as far as the speaker routinely.

The straight line has to be aimed for quite specifically. Traditional systems are littered with 'incidental' distortions that mean that in your listening tests, you really don't know what you are listening to: phase rotations of passive crossovers, the timing misalignment of drivers on a flat baffle, drivers that go into beaming, doppler distortion, driver breakup, etc. etc. You can't meaningfully tweak in response to listening tests, effectively hoping to use this as organic negative feedback to multi-dimensionally 'linearise' your system towards some mythical recreation of a hologram of the recording session based on a recipe.

What would your recipe look like? An EQ curve, a dash of phase distortion, a smidgeon of valve clipping, a sprinkling of transformer saturation, a drizzle of stereo crosstalk and a pinch of driver breakup, at a temperature of 25 degrees C?

I think that with speakers like the B&O, D&D, Kii etc. we are just beginning to be able to demonstrate that it is much simpler than that: simple linearity in all respects is the way to set the listener's ears at ease. No 'room correction'. No house curve. The speakers blend their output with the room's acoustics. Listeners' own voices also blend with the room. The results of head movements correspond exactly with what the ears hear. If the room has a mode or resonance, it affects the music at all the frequencies it should and in the right ways - so it isn't noticed.

I am not saying that linearity is all we've got and it will have to do in the absence of anything better. I am saying that it was always going to be the 'ideal recipe' but it wasn't possible to demonstrate it until now.

@Cosmik , you wrote:

«I think that with speakers like the B&O, D&D, Kii etc. we are just beginning to be able to demonstrate that it is much simpler than that: simple linearity in all respects is the way to set the listener's ears at ease. No 'room correction'. No house curve. The speakers blend their output with the room's acoustics.»

Well, take a look at this reviewer:

«New Trinnov users here. We installed it in newly built control room with great monitors (Kii Audio) and after setting up the Trinnov we were deeply impressed. The difference is not subtle.
And as someone already said it is not only about EQ. It’s about phase and stereo image. So tight.
If you can afford it, go for it.»
Source: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=13355992&postcount=29

So it seems like your hypothesis has been falsified after all?

OK, I know, this is just an anecdote, etc. But I thought it was interesting how an experienced user found Kii Three to be better thang straight out of the box.

 

[sergeauckland]

Are you kidding or do you think your suggestion is practical?

The suggestion is practical for something like a piano, where a midi file can reproduce the original performance on a similar electronic piano. It's the modern version of the pianola.

I can't see it working for any acoustic instrument, as there's no midi controller for, say, a violin, let alone a whole symphony orchestra, but with an electronic piano one could distribute midi files of famous solo performances, just as was once done with pianola. Pianola recordings are now prized as a way of getting a modern recording of vintage performances.

S.

 

[bennetng]

People will complain about MIDI "jitter" anyway...
http://expressiveness.org/2012/12/04/midi-jitter

Just use traditional musical notation and no one will be able to challenge how ppp, mp and mf should be played in terms of dB.

 

[Cosmik]

@Cosmik , you wrote:

«I think that with speakers like the B&O, D&D, Kii etc. we are just beginning to be able to demonstrate that it is much simpler than that: simple linearity in all respects is the way to set the listener's ears at ease. No 'room correction'. No house curve. The speakers blend their output with the room's acoustics.»

Well, take a look at this reviewer:

«New Trinnov users here. We installed it in newly built control room with great monitors (Kii Audio) and after setting up the Trinnov we were deeply impressed. The difference is not subtle.
And as someone already said it is not only about EQ. It’s about phase and stereo image. So tight.
If you can afford it, go for it.»
Source: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=13355992&postcount=29

So it seems like your hypothesis has been falsified after all?

OK, I know, this is just an anecdote, etc. But I thought it was interesting how an experienced user found Kii Three to be better thang straight out of the box.

Yes, I had already seen one Kii reviewer who went straight for the room correction - it's an almost universal mindset, particularly among the people who would be in the market for DSP-based speakers. B&O supply their own room correction system also, I believe - but the enlightened listener could at least turn it off