What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval?

[Ron Texas]

Yes, it has been going on for a significant time. I think the studio quality time and recordings need to improve. Good speakers sound good but bad recording sound bad and good speakers help with bad recordings but there's only so much that can be done.

There are some really great recordings out there made with a single stereo mike, or just 2 or 3 microphones. Maybe we need to go back to the basics.

 

[Doodski]

There are some really great recordings out there made with a single stereo mike, or just 2 or 3 microphones. Maybe we need to go back to the basics.

I have heard 2 mic recordings that where of astounding imaging and detail. So I'm on board with this idea but for rock and pop bands that don't have the musicianship of the jazz and classical musicians they need studios with mixer boards and all the crutches they can muster.

 

[MattHooper]

Does less distortion increase detail retrieval?

Not necessarily. As I've said, it's possible to increase perceived detail by distorting the signal - e.g. re-EQuing a recording to raise the frequencies to which our ears are most sensitive. Which is why we need to be clear on the questions we are asking, which I have tried to be.

It took Toole and Olive decades to do their research which concludes flat on axis and even off axis is preferred with a 65% correlation. That's good science, but there is still a lot we don't know. There are various bits and pieces like narrow suck outs are usually not audible.

There's 35% out there which don't fit the mold. What about them?

Tests on preferences do not directly address the question of the thread, put one way: does the resolution contained in the best recordings outstrip the resolution capabilities of the best current speakers? Or do current speakers, at least in principle, translate all the sonic information in to sound? (with all the obvious caveats of
people's different hearing, and the caveat of "doing so accurately" in the sense of maintaining the balance encoded in the recording).

The issue of speaker neutrality in terms of low distortion can be addressed both ways though - in terms of the consequences in"what people tend to prefer" and also the role neutral/low coloration speakers would play in accurately reproducing the details of recordings. We just have to be careful to identify which we are speaking to.

Is detail real or is it an illusion? Are we supposed to be able to hear individual violins in the orchestra or individual voices in a chorus?

All good questions and nobody said the answer would necessarily be easy. Nonetheless, the whole point of a scientific approach is coming up with ways to investigate such questions, controlling variables to move forward towards answers. There's already tons of research on the nature of audio distortion, masking effects on detail perception, how distortion can arise in speakers etc. So it's not like everything is up in the air.

When you ask: Are we supposed to be able to hear individual violins in the orchestra or individual voices in a chorus? That suggests to me a concern with "accuracy to what the content producer intended." That's certainly a valid conversation to have. But I was trying to get a little deeper or beyond "artists intent" to "can we reproduce all the sonic detail in recordings?" It's always possible there are details in recordings that an artist didn't intend, so that's separable. (In fact, much of the work we do in cleaning up movie production sound involves removing sounds not intended in recordings. And we want speakers capable of resolving those details to make sure can identify them).

So to me the question wouldn't be "are we SUPPOSED to hear individual violins in the recording of the orchestra" but rather "does the recording itself CONTAIN resolution of such detail?" And if it does, can our speakers reproduce that sonic detail for us to hear? Or is it possible to have recordings that encode detail
so subtle that it can not be transduced in to sound via current speaker designs? (And, again, we can separate that question in to 1. Can a speaker transduce that content?" vs "and if so, is it below the practical limits of our hearing" so one can also speak to our hearing limitations).

I see a lot of angst and arguing here. I don't make or enforce the rules, but somebody needs to chill. Have a Bud Lite and take a trip to Target, LOL.

Eh. Some guys like to enter forum conversations and, like in a county fair, put on the dunce cap, sit on the chair in the dunking cage and razz the audience until someone picks up the softballs and dunks them. What they get out of such public behavior is beyond me, but one can indulge them with a few dunks. Personally I'm off to Home Hardware...hopefully an acceptable alternative to Target.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I have heard 2 mic recordings that where of astounding imaging and detail. So I'm on board with this idea but for rock and pop bands that don't have the musicianship of the jazz and classical musicians they need studios with mixer boards and all the crutches they can muster.

Ouch. Don’t agree, but nice burn.

 

[Doodski]

Ouch. Don’t agree, but nice burn.

I am not a studio audio expert but I have spent several days in a studio watching a Bangra band that I hung around with because they where cool. They needed a studio and lotsa takes to get the sound they wanted. My burn was not intended to be nasty. I was just saying my opinion.

 

[Rille]

Vi har kvar att kompensera för stereosystemfel och rumsakustik förutom att få korrekt impulssvar/fyrkantssvar från ca 100Hz och uppåt (säger jag som har ett delat system) och faskorrekt vågformsutbredning i åtminstonde horisontalled. Eller har jag missat att vi redan har sånna system?

 

[Thomas_A]

Vi har kvar att kompensera för stereosystemfel och rumsakustik förutom att få korrekt impulssvar/fyrkantssvar från ca 100Hz och uppåt (säger jag som har ett delat system) och faskorrekt vågformsutbredning i åtminstonde horisontalled. Eller har jag missat att vi redan har sånna system?

English please! Swedish is not understood by most...

 

[IPunchCholla]

I am not a studio audio expert but I have spent several days in a studio watching a Bangra band that I hung around with because they where cool. They needed a studio and lotsa takes to get the sound they wanted. My burn was not intended to be nasty. I was just saying my opinion.

There are a lot of bad musicians in every genre, lots of amazing ones too, and much of the most impactful music has been made by bad musicians (think the Beatles at the start, by their own admission). I’ve seen two piece rock bands that just have crazy skills do things in one take, and the music was just meh. I’ve seen the same with jazz and chamber. I’ve seen youngsters with mediocre skills do some crazy amazing blues renditions just using brass instruments.

One quote by an art historian I respect said “Edward Hopper would have been worse artist, if he had been a better painter.”

Anyway, I think the only generalization I would make is that rock generally requires amplification for recording. Jazz doesn’t. That changes the requirements.

Also, if you read the history of Jazz, meaning it’s invention, you might come to the conclusion that I did, that all contemporary jazz is not jazz at all, but something that sounds like jazz, but is really just the animated corpse of jazz, performed for bourgeois patrons.

For a while, rock was Jazz. Then metal, punk, rap. I’m not sure anything is jazz anymore. Im not sure music or art are capable of doing what jazz did, when it was invented.

 

[Rille]

Och för dig har du ingen översättning..
Vi måste fortfarande kompensera för stereosystemfel och rumsakustik, förutom att få korrekt impulssvar/kvadratsvar från ca. 100Hz och uppåt (säger jag som jag har ett delat system) och faskorrekt vågformsutbredning i åtminstone horisontell riktning. Eller har jag missat att vi redan har sådana system?

 

[Doodski]

There are a lot of bad musicians in every genre, lots of amazing ones too, and much of the most impactful music has been made by bad musicians (think the Beatles at the start, by their own admission). I’ve seen two piece rock bands that just have crazy skills do things in one take, and the music was just meh. I’ve seen the same with jazz and chamber. I’ve seen youngsters with mediocre skills do some crazy amazing blues renditions just using brass instruments.

One quote by an art historian I respect said “Edward Hopper would have been worse artist, if he had been a better painter.”

Anyway, I think the only generalization I would make is that rock generally requires amplification for recording. Jazz doesn’t. That changes the requirements.

Perhaps you have much more experience with jazz and classical than I. All the recitals and jazz concerts that I've attended where precise and amazinggg! Rock can sometimes be pretty rough around the edges but as you quoted, “Edward Hopper would have been worse artist, if he had been a better painter.”

For a while, rock was Jazz. Then metal, punk, rap. I’m not sure anything is jazz anymore. Im not sure music or art are capable of doing what jazz did, when it was invented.

I like to think the jazz I listen to is real jazz and not some sort of homogenized rock jazz thing with roots in Celtic music for example.

 

[Leif]

Perhaps you have much more experience with jazz and classical than I. All the recitals and jazz concerts that I've attended where precise and amazinggg! Rock can sometimes be pretty rough around the edges but as you quoted, “Edward Hopper would have been worse artist, if he had been a better painter.”

I like to think the jazz I listen to is real jazz and not some sort of homogenized rock jazz thing with roots in Celtic music for example.

I would have thought that this was was so obvious it didn’t need saying. However, you generalise. Some rock bands are technically mediocre musicians. Others, on the other hand, are highly skilled. In addition, an orchestral musician does a cover, whereas most rock bands create and play music. For me the true complexity of classical music is the composition, but that’s my subjective personal view.

 

[Doodski]

I would have thought that this was was so obvious it didn’t need saying. However, you generalise. Some rock bands are technically mediocre musicians. Others, on the other hand, are highly skilled. In addition, an orchestral musician does a cover, whereas most rock bands create and play music. For me the true complexity of classical music is the composition, but that’s my subjective personal view.

I thought it simplistic too although I was matched with similar commentary so I kept it down to earth simple. LoL. I listen to jazz from I'm guessing the 30s and all rock forms from about the 50s to the current stuff. Of course there are many top level rock musicians that are great but I think the majority of them are not that great.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Perhaps you have much more experience with jazz and classical than I. All the recitals and jazz concerts that I've attended where precise and amazinggg! Rock can sometimes be pretty rough around the edges but as you quoted, “Edward Hopper would have been worse artist, if he had been a better painter.”

I like to think the jazz I listen to is real jazz and not some sort of homogenized rock jazz thing with roots in Celtic music for example.

I would recommend looking into the origins of jazz. It wasn’t tight. It wasn’t in control. It was crazy, a breaking free for the poor in New Orleans. The authorities were threatened by it. It was lambasted in the press. People demanded it be stopped. Contemporary jazz has lost all of that. It’s probably impossible to sustain. Now, it takes the same-ish form using better production. But nobody is threatened by it. Nobody is losing control when they listen to it (as in ripping their clothes off). It is a polite version of what it was. Musicianship wise it is better.

It reminds me of civil war re-enactors in the US. They take the forms of the thing, while simultaneously emptying it of the real.

 

[Doodski]

Musicianship wise it is better.

For sure although Thelonious Monk aka Melodious Thunk is a gem in the rough.

It reminds me of civil war re-enactors in the US. They take the forms of the thing, while simultaneously emptying it of the real.

Have you seen the YouTube videos when black people arrived at a civil war reenactment in period piece slave clothing? It's embarrassing for the civil war actors and they wanted it to stop. Hilarious.

 

[Leif]

I thought it simplistic too although I was matched with similar commentary so I kept it down to earth simple. LoL. I listen to jazz from I'm guessing the 30s and all rock forms from about the 50s to the current stuff. Of course there are many top level rock musicians that are great but I think the majority of them are not that great.

I can only comment on the rock music I listen to, but most are pretty good. Consider an orchestra, most musicians will play fairly simple parts, some just one short phrase in an entire symphony. The lead violinist may play a highly complex part, and chamber musicians will play very complex parts too. Thus there is a huge range of technical ability. If you’ve spent twenty years or more playing, you will be pretty capable.

 

[Doodski]

I can only comment on the rock music I listen to, but most are pretty good. Consider an orchestra, most musicians will play fairly simple parts, some just one short phrase in an entire symphony. The lead violinist may play a highly complex part, and chamber musicians will play very complex parts too. Thus there is a huge range of technical ability. If you’ve spent twenty years or more playing, you will be pretty capable.

My point of reference is a ex-girlfriend who started studying the flute at a young age and went to Berklee for a music scholarship and came out a wonderful player that made me cry whenever I saw and heard her playing. It's was just so emotional and outrageous that a person could do what she does that it made me get all excited about it. I have ~3100 YouTube music videos bookmarked and mostly pop and rock and of them there are some that sound horrible but are so good musically that I listen to them and then there are the opposite.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

I have two 27" monitors, both are calibrated. Anyone who is serious about photography calibrates their monitor, the difference can be significant, especially if you want prints to match. You need to distinguish between casual users, and a visual artist.

I can’t calibrate my iPhone X and iPad, needless to say neither matches my monitors, and they don’t even match each other. I’m sure most iPhone and iPad owners don’t care.

It's true I just use a spyder monitor calibrator and it works great.

 

[Doodski]

It's true I just use a spyder monitor calibrator and it works great.

That's a great tool. Thanks for posting that. I imagine flesh tones are very good after a calibration.

 

[dlaloum]

What passives are under 1%THD.

Electrostatics

 

[Travis]

So to me the question wouldn't be "are we SUPPOSED to hear individual violins in the recording of the orchestra" but rather "does the recording itself CONTAIN resolution of such detail?" And if it does, can our speakers reproduce that sonic detail for us to hear? Or is it possible to have recordings that encode detail
so subtle that it can not be transduced in to sound via current speaker designs? (And, again, we can separate that question in to 1. Can a speaker transduce that content?" vs "and if so, is it below the practical limits of our hearing" so one can also speak to our hearing limitations).

Do you hear individual violins when you listen to an orchestra live (the assumption is it is a good orchestra). Answer: No, unless the conductor intends for you to hear an individual one (violin concerto), or there is one really bad violinist out of tune or tempo, or one that is audibly louder than the others. Let’s assume with our hypothetical orchestra, they perform like a well oiled machine . The concert master and other 9 violinists are in perfect unison and they sound as one and so audience members regardless of hearing level or skill can’t hear individual violinists.

Are we supposed to hear individual violinists in a recording of the orchestra?

Fortunately, that has a very easy and simple answer. It depends on how the orchestra was recorded. Then it depends on how the recording was mixed and what format - for sake of argument and simplicity, let’s say it end up being a 2 track stereo in digital format.

I can record that orchestra with 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 microphones (ensemble setup) across the front, at a single height, or dual heights. At an absolute minimum, it will record everything capable of being perceived by human hearing. Every instrument in the orchestra, the conductor’s baton tapping, the toes tapping of the double bass player, the AC system, a train horn in the distance, a bad hammer on the piano, etc. Or I can use an ensemble set up (8 microphones as an example) augmented with each violin (let’s say 10) in the orchestra individually miked. Again, everything that is capable of being heard, will be on that recording, Eight tracks of the orchestra as a whole, and ten tracks of ten individual violins.

Again, with professional grade microphones, proper placement, professional grade digital recorder, all of the information capable of being heard by the human ear (and much more) will be on that recording.

It can be mixed however you want it to sound. If you don’t want individual violinists, it can be mixed that way. Want the violin section as a whole to come up or down, easy. Want the cellos up or down, easy. You want the toe taps, no problem. Because the violinists were tracked individually, if you want them where they were on stage, that’s easy. If you want 4 on the left, 4 on the right, and 2 in the center, that’s easy. If you want any of the violinists to stand out a little more than the others, easy.

Is there a 22.7 hz hum from the HVAC equipment that’s audible in there, poof it’s gone.

The problem, going all the way back to tape, isn’t that the recording isn’t capturing enough “content” or information (detail), it’s that it captures too much information (noise). It’s been that way for at least 75 years.

Is a speaker capable of reproducing/transducing that content? If the speaker system has a relatively flat frequency response that covers the range of frequencies of the content (recording) then it is capable of reproducing (transiting it).

Is it audible, below the limits of our hearing? It depends on how it is mixed. If the piano is at the level that someone in audience would be hearing it live, and you know what you are hearing, the bad hammer will be there. If the toe tapping of the double bass players is 20 Fb below the overall level of the performance and wasn’t emphasized or de-emphasized in the mix, probably not, but it’s there on play back. Some may hear HVAC hum on play back, others not.

The information/content is on the recording, with a capable speaker, it’s also on the playback.