I have an idea since you're re-recording via your own DAC, how about I make a recording of my system playing the test track using my Sony portable recorder (using its internal mics). I'll upload that to your server. Then given you've a treated room you could identify the aspects of the replay in my room which you deem 'appalling' and perhaps then I'll learn how to improve my room. Would that be a goer?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Searching for glare...
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Highly reflective rooms without absorption will, in general sound awful.
Your situation, listening very nearfield will ameliorate this to a degree.
Unfortunately mics, especially if they are omni, don't "hear" in the way we hear. So this is unlikely to provide an accurate representation of what you hear in your room.
Your situation, listening very nearfield will ameliorate this to a degree.
Unfortunately mics, especially if they are omni, don't "hear" in the way we hear. So this is unlikely to provide an accurate representation of what you hear in your room.
Last edited:
That's the point though, a mic just placed in a room doesn't represent what you hear. Try it for yourself. If your mics are omni, record music playing in your room, then play that recording back.
It will sound far more "ambient" than what you directly hear.
It will sound far more "ambient" than what you directly hear.
Last edited:
I have made piano recordings, when I first got a Philips compact cassette recorder as a kid, I agree that when I did that I heard the room. But that's a recording of an instrument in my room. When recording piano more recently I got best results with a boundary zone mic, this gets more rid of the room effect.
But recording from my stereo system isn't like recording my piano in my room, the recording comes with its own ambience which overrides the room's ambience. Otherwise how could I get the effect of sounds coming from behind the walls of my room, which on a good recording with decent soundstage depth, I do.
But recording from my stereo system isn't like recording my piano in my room, the recording comes with its own ambience which overrides the room's ambience. Otherwise how could I get the effect of sounds coming from behind the walls of my room, which on a good recording with decent soundstage depth, I do.
I disagree that it overrides the ambience of the room, you hear both. Acoustics have a huge impact on your perception of things like soundstage, depth etc
A good source of information for you is from Floyd Tool. I will try and find some links
A good source of information for you is from Floyd Tool. I will try and find some links
Now you're telling me what I hear? I can't take such hubris seriously. If your experience is you hear your room, all well and good.
Perhaps your meaning is 'One hears the room' - if so then I'm going to distance myself from such a generalisation and go along with my own experience and mention once again that on recordings with decent ambience (such as the one I've uploaded to your server) I do indeed hear the recorded ambient space which overrides my room's ambience.
It could be that you listen mainly to recordings with simulated ambience (reverb?) and so don't get the same effect. Or other possibilities which I won't mention because they might be interpreted as cliches.
Perhaps your meaning is 'One hears the room' - if so then I'm going to distance myself from such a generalisation and go along with my own experience and mention once again that on recordings with decent ambience (such as the one I've uploaded to your server) I do indeed hear the recorded ambient space which overrides my room's ambience.
It could be that you listen mainly to recordings with simulated ambience (reverb?) and so don't get the same effect. Or other possibilities which I won't mention because they might be interpreted as cliches.
Last edited:
Guys we should take the discussions on room acoustics to that forum. There are arguments on both sides on room reflections and reverberations. Let's stay focused on the Glare topic here.
Opus,
3 test tracks for you, one original and two re-recorded with different DAC filters. Opinions on glare greatly received
http://gofile.me/2vnEF/qjAJoTZtq
3 test tracks for you, one original and two re-recorded with different DAC filters. Opinions on glare greatly received
http://gofile.me/2vnEF/qjAJoTZtq
Observations are fine. Let's see how many people identify additional glare. This simple fun test should be a start to see if people feel there is a fundamental issue with digital adding this sort of distortion.
Don't take it too seriously
Don't take it too seriously
In my experience its not a fundamental issue with digital. But it does exist in plenty of digital implementations, particularly ones with opamps in the output stages. What's the output stage of your MDAC incidentally?
Discrete class A AFAIK
Op-Amp front end in the ADC however.
Op-Amp front end in the ADC however.
I had a brief listen last night, but no side-by-side direct comparisons. I listened to each track (plus the original) all the way through separately to see what jumped out at me.
Definitely nothing I'd call 'glare' on any of them. What was noticeable though was the copies lost some low frequency ambience information compared to the original. This was particularly noticeable right at the end and also from time to time during the track. For example there's a slight off-stage noise I suspect from the conductor moving about near the start, its fairly obvious what it is in the original but on the copies this sounds like an indistinguishable noise. My suspicion would fall on your ADC for this.
Definitely nothing I'd call 'glare' on any of them. What was noticeable though was the copies lost some low frequency ambience information compared to the original. This was particularly noticeable right at the end and also from time to time during the track. For example there's a slight off-stage noise I suspect from the conductor moving about near the start, its fairly obvious what it is in the original but on the copies this sounds like an indistinguishable noise. My suspicion would fall on your ADC for this.
Your findings dont surprise me. I dont think digital has anything to do with "glare". Regarding your other comments, this is to be expected. We have degraded the original by passing it through a DAC and an ADC at only 16 bit 44k. There is no way it can retain all the information in the original. Question is where is the largest degradation? Is it the DAC, the ADC or simply the fact that we are only recording at 16 bit 44k?
One more test if you can spend the time. Two recordings of the same track this time at 96kHz 24 bit. Two different DAC output filters. Welcome anyones observations.
The original file is in the link above I will disclose which is the original out of those 3 files later. Obviously Opus knows
http://gofile.me/2vnEF/2HzZ12kWg
One more test if you can spend the time. Two recordings of the same track this time at 96kHz 24 bit. Two different DAC output filters. Welcome anyones observations.
The original file is in the link above I will disclose which is the original out of those 3 files later. Obviously Opus knows
http://gofile.me/2vnEF/2HzZ12kWg
Similar threads
- Sticky
