|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 13, 2016 18:34:11 GMT -5
A very simple question - how do you know which speaker is the most "accurate" in your listening room - how do you know what the original performance sounded like and whether that's what your speaker/room are doing?
We can all agree that no two speakers sound alike, so who can say which is more "accurate"?
And please don't point to frequency response graphs, as they are only one part of the story as you well know.
And if you can't be sure about that, the whole "accuracy" argument falls apart.
Trust your ears, or spin components based on measurements seeking nirvana, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Feb 13, 2016 18:48:50 GMT -5
In my photography, I strive for sharpness and accurate color rendition, most of the time. Sometimes, the most evocative photo is blurred or a little out of focus or tilted or, you get the idea. It makes sense to me that accuracy would indeed be pleasing to the ear. I get to hear a lot of amplified and unamplified instruments and voices, and that usually sounds pleasing to me.
But God bless us all and help us admit that we are crazy and should not get upset at a brother's different brand of crazy. That would be rude and hypocritical of any of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 13, 2016 19:11:30 GMT -5
I realize this thread has become one mainly of people giving their preferences, but my point is: Lots of what I read in audio articles and forum posts is that when what they hear through whatever equipment they have (my example was headphones) is considered by the listener to be "neutral" or "accurate" then often they also say they don't care for it that much because it sounds clinical, dry, sterile, etc. But then if "accurate" and "neutral" are supposed to mean that what they hear is a faithful reproduction of the live performance that generated the recording, then wouldn't that mean the live performance was also clinical, dry, sterile, etc? Yet people strive to replicate the live performance. So perhaps people's image or definition of "accurate" and "neutral" is not really faithful reproduction but just something they think is supposed to sound a certain way. It makes no sense to enjoy the live performance but then feel like an accurate or neutral rendition of the same thing leaves something to be desired. Does neutral or accurate sound clinical, dry and sterile ? Yes the recording engineer does all kinds of things with recordings to make them sound a certain way and with digital now it was a sample. You want your gear and speakers to be accurate so you can listen to what the creators of the recording gave you. Just about any recording of a live performance sounds like crap. All the material no matter what the format you put on your stereo has been recorded differently than someone else's material. Led Zeppelin put there drums in a stairwell once. Trying to be academic about this and find a unifying theory of music reproduction that sets a standard for all other reproductions is crazy. Find some good accurate sounding speakers in a compatible acoustic setting and it will not be flat and sterile. It will move you. Those HD 800's if given a Mod to tame that upper frequency and the proper headphone amp, it will make everything you hear on them very nice and not clinical like everyone post. Most of the time people post stuff because they do not want to be different from the group mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Feb 13, 2016 20:04:03 GMT -5
I realize this thread has become one mainly of people giving their preferences, but my point is: Lots of what I read in audio articles and forum posts is that when what they hear through whatever equipment they have (my example was headphones) is considered by the listener to be "neutral" or "accurate" then often they also say they don't care for it that much because it sounds clinical, dry, sterile, etc. But then if "accurate" and "neutral" are supposed to mean that what they hear is a faithful reproduction of the live performance that generated the recording, then wouldn't that mean the live performance was also clinical, dry, sterile, etc? Yet people strive to replicate the live performance. So perhaps people's image or definition of "accurate" and "neutral" is not really faithful reproduction but just something they think is supposed to sound a certain way. It makes no sense to enjoy the live performance but then feel like an accurate or neutral rendition of the same thing leaves something to be desired. I know what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part. I suspect there are 2 definitions of "flat" depending on who you ask. Joe Sixpack on the street probably thinks flat means very little bass and treble; mostly just midrange(ish). Ask somebody who knows a little more about audio and flat refers to the full frequency response graph - no frequencies are emphasized or missing. Neutral is probably the better term to use since it more accurately reflects the fact that the equipment does not alter the source signal. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 13, 2016 20:32:09 GMT -5
I realize this thread has become one mainly of people giving their preferences, but my point is: Lots of what I read in audio articles and forum posts is that when what they hear through whatever equipment they have (my example was headphones) is considered by the listener to be "neutral" or "accurate" then often they also say they don't care for it that much because it sounds clinical, dry, sterile, etc. But then if "accurate" and "neutral" are supposed to mean that what they hear is a faithful reproduction of the live performance that generated the recording, then wouldn't that mean the live performance was also clinical, dry, sterile, etc? Yet people strive to replicate the live performance. So perhaps people's image or definition of "accurate" and "neutral" is not really faithful reproduction but just something they think is supposed to sound a certain way. It makes no sense to enjoy the live performance but then feel like an accurate or neutral rendition of the same thing leaves something to be desired. I know what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part. I suspect there are 2 definitions of "flat" depending on who you ask. Joe Sixpack on the street probably thinks flat means very little bass and treble; mostly just midrange(ish). Ask somebody who knows a little more about audio and flat refers to the full frequency response graph - no frequencies are emphasized or missing. Neutral is probably the better term to use since it more accurately reflects the fact that the equipment does not alter the source signal. Most here know that most here do not have gear that no frequencies are emphasized or missing much less the average American. Take a mental picture of a 10 band graphic equalizer and then think about what 99 % of folks would do with it. Bass up, Treble Up. There is a very small population that would take measurements and attempt to flatten the frequency response so no frequencies are emphasized or missing. I used to always have a graphic equalizer and then I got big into parametric equalizers. Now I do not want any tone control. No tone control on my USP-1 and do not use any with my DC-1 desktop system but could. Headphones I do when they seem to need it but only certain frequencies. What does only on headphones and only certain frequencies say ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 23:20:57 GMT -5
I think we are posting about apples and oranges here.
When talking about speakers that are flat and accurate in my room I am describing speakers whose frequency response and distortion levels in the room, considering my listening position, are as flat across the frequency spectrum and low in distortion as possible. Some folks don't like flat response and prefer overly high or low bass, high or low mids and high or low tweeter response patterns. This has nothing to do with the closeness of the sound source I'm using to the original performance or the recording engineers manipulations on the board. I'm talking about if the speakers accurately reproduce all frequencies at the same exact level as the source does. The source, not the original performance. My speakers are only responsible for the flat/accurate playback of what has been sent to them from the source. For example, if the CD was over recorded in the low bass by 6dB's and the remaining of the CD was a perfectly flat representation of the original performance then my flat speaker would play back the low bass at 6dB's too loud. Presuming I have decent hearing which I do, then to check the accuracy of my speakers I need to check their frequency response at my listening position using a meter and a quality frequency response test CD. I normally would check the accuracy of the frequencies as to how close they are to the actual test tones, in the audible range, say from 30-15,000Hz or so for most folks. For example the test CD would produce the many tones at the same exact loudness level. If perfectly flat/accurate my speakers would play back all the tones at the same exact dB level that I choose for the test. Most folks consider a frequency response in room of about (depending on the speaker size) from 30-80Hz up to 15,000Hz or so within +/- 3dB's (or close to that) to be ideal. Most of us don't have means to determine a measured distortion level but some professional reviews reveal such information. However, most folks do also seem to prefer sound from their speakers that is as low as possible in distortion, regardless of any other distortion added in the recording or playback process.
It is possible for experienced listeners to many times get a general idea of the flatness and distortion of a speaker from an audition at a dealers or friends house or from a pro review. I use these possibilities to narrow down potential speakers to buy and test out in my own room before making the final decision to keep them or return them. I never buy a speaker, new or used unless I am able to listen to them and do a frequency response test in my own room before the purchase is final. Of course many music sources are rather poor in accuracy so even the best speakers can sound lousy with a lousy source. So I use the FR tests and audition of my best CD's to evaluate a speaker before I make the purchase final. There are many other factors to consider in choosing a speaker like dynamic range/power handling/sensitivity/transient response/etc. I have read many reviews/articles, especially from former decades that confirmed that most listeners in blind tests tend to prefer speakers that are flat/accurate and of lower distortion. Presuming the use of very high quality EQ components the old adage of those who refuse to use any frequency response manipulation to correct speakers of in-room frequency abnormalities are missing the boat in realizing flat/accurate sound reproduction in their room. For example, I once had a sub that was extremely flat in my apartment and sounded great. When we moved to the condo there was only one practical location for it. Unfortunately, the sub then exhibited a peak of about 7dB's at 40Hz which irritated me. I use an EQ to lower that and one other smaller peak and then it sounded great.
As far as the original performance sounding close to how my speakers and room represent it, I and my speakers have no control how accurately the perfomance and audio source were controlled and produced.
Just my two yen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefft51 on Feb 13, 2016 23:35:13 GMT -5
I can't do anything about how the recordings are mixed but I want to to reproduce what i have as my source as accurate as possible/practical. Then I want to add distortions as it pleases me. And I want to be able to alter that on the fly if possible. Maybe that's switching in or out a tube buffer or turning up the bass or applying my 'house curve' or my rock&roll curve with my equalizer. What I think would be good is a tube simulator that can add tube distortion and work sort of like an equalizer. Maybe someone makes them?
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 14, 2016 0:18:00 GMT -5
So if you record a live event with Jimmy Hendrix playing his guitar through a Tube Amp and then yo play the recording back using a Solid State Amp, does the Solid State amp makes it more accurate? I personally think this whole accurate stuff is a whole bunch of b.s....
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 14, 2016 0:31:39 GMT -5
So if you record a live event with Jimmy Hendrix playing his guitar through a Tube Amp and then yo play the recording back using a Solid State Amp, does the Solid State amp makes it more accurate? I personally think this whole accurate stuff is a whole bunch of b.s.... The accuracy is not duplicating the live event. It is your electronics and loudspeakers reproducing the recording accurately. KeithL talks about how tubes do not do this very thing all the time. He prefers solid state to tubes because tubes change the recording. The tube gear that Hendrix used to get his sound is captured with the microphone and your solid state gear will reproduce that same sound that came from Hendrix's tube gear. The solid state gear does not take the tube sound that is in the recording away. It is still there. If you play it thru real tubby sounding gear it will change it and that is not accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 14, 2016 0:38:01 GMT -5
So if you record a live event with Jimmy Hendrix playing his guitar through a Tube Amp and then yo play the recording back using a Solid State Amp, does the Solid State amp makes it more accurate? I personally think this whole accurate stuff is a whole bunch of b.s.... The accuracy is not duplicating the live event. It is your electronics and loudspeakers reproducing the recording accurately. KeithL talks about how tubes do not do this very thing all the time. He prefers solid state to tubes because tubes change the recording. The tube gear that Hendrix used to get his sound is captured with the microphone and your solid state gear will reproduce that same sound that came from Hendrix's tube gear. The solid state gear does not take the tube sound that is in the recording away. It is still there. If you play it thru real tubby sounding gear it will change it and that is not accurate. So tubes are accurate at the live event but not in the home environment? |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 14, 2016 0:47:29 GMT -5
The accuracy is not duplicating the live event. It is your electronics and loudspeakers reproducing the recording accurately. KeithL talks about how tubes do not do this very thing all the time. He prefers solid state to tubes because tubes change the recording. The tube gear that Hendrix used to get his sound is captured with the microphone and your solid state gear will reproduce that same sound that came from Hendrix's tube gear. The solid state gear does not take the tube sound that is in the recording away. It is still there. If you play it thru real tubby sounding gear it will change it and that is not accurate. So tubes are accurate at the live event but not in the home environment? No Tubes are beautiful distortion Man !  The live event of music being made is the creative part of all this. There are no boundaries. Sound as art. Ok it came out all distorted and beautiful because of the distortion and you now want to capture that beautiful distortion sound and replay it later for others to here the beautiful distortion sound. You want you equipment that is going to reproduce that beautiful distortion sound to be as accurate as possible. Please do not mess up that wonderful music that Hendrix made. I want to hear it as close to what it sounded like when it was recorded. I want to hear his tube distortion in all it's beauty. |
|
|
|
Post by jefft51 on Feb 14, 2016 12:22:19 GMT -5
All sound is distortion, or maybe a distrubance in the force  |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 14, 2016 12:34:46 GMT -5
All sound is distortion, or maybe a distrubance in the force Star Wars is real. As soon as I get my space ship built I am going to go find it and join the rebellion. If I am good enough and they will let me I would love to be a Jedi. All sound is distortion. Reality sucks !  |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 14, 2016 12:40:59 GMT -5
Even though I picked up the "measurement mike" in this thread, I have to admit that most gear that I really liked didn't measure that well. I do like tube amps and turntables and yes I'm an old fart but I like them anyway and I know it is because of my imprinted youth. But I'm still not letting voodoo science sell me anything.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 14, 2016 16:23:04 GMT -5
So tubes are accurate at the live event but not in the home environment? Oh, I've had this discussion numerous times. Most certainly Jimmy had a level of distortion that he wanted to produce in his performance and if we truly want to hear what he intended then it should not have another layer of distortion added by our equipment. Maybe we prefer the sound with that extra layer added, but that isn't what Jimmy intended us to hear and it most certainly isn't what he laid down at the time. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 14, 2016 16:51:53 GMT -5
A very simple question - how do you know which speaker is the most "accurate" in your listening room - how do you know what the original performance sounded like and whether that's what your speaker/room are doing? We can all agree that no two speakers sound alike, so who can say which is more "accurate"? And please don't point to frequency response graphs, as they are only one part of the story as you well know. And if you can't be sure about that, the whole "accuracy" argument falls apart. Trust your ears, or spin components based on measurements seeking nirvana, IMO. It's a logical fallacy that "no one knows /can prove what is perfectly accurate, therefore we shouldn't strive for accuracy at all". There is no solid line where on one side we have perfect accuracy and then everything on the other side of the line is hugely inaccurate. i.e.; chose your poison. The fact is there are levels of accuracy and they can be measured relatively accurately. It's not a simplistic black (inaccurate) versus white (accurate) scenario, there are a lot of shades of grey. I have tested a lot off gear, both pro and home and like Keith I can say with total confidence that "not a single one of them ever managed to somehow sound different that its measurements". For sure I like to listen to any gear before I buy it, preferably in my own environment. But that is not always possible, so I have to rely on something to start the selection process off. That's either my testing or testing by someone I trust, who has consistent, proven results. Or at the very least results that have previously coincided with mine. If gear tests in the blacker shades of grey then I'm most unlikely to like its sound, while if it tests in the lighter shades of grey than there's a far better chance that I will like it. For example, I know from past experiences that any audible harmonics (odd or even) will annoy me, so I can quickly pass over any gear that tests with that feature. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 14, 2016 16:57:49 GMT -5
Except that except for horns every musical instrument is loaded with harmonics, it's what makes them sound different to a large extent.
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 14, 2016 17:33:18 GMT -5
The accuracy is not duplicating the live event. It is your electronics and loudspeakers reproducing the recording accurately. KeithL talks about how tubes do not do this very thing all the time. He prefers solid state to tubes because tubes change the recording. The tube gear that Hendrix used to get his sound is captured with the microphone and your solid state gear will reproduce that same sound that came from Hendrix's tube gear. The solid state gear does not take the tube sound that is in the recording away. It is still there. If you play it thru real tubby sounding gear it will change it and that is not accurate. So tubes are accurate at the live event but not in the home environment? In My opinion just ME, The "accuracy" of Tubes being played as a extension of a guitar being a extension of the players Hands are completely different things. Then in a home stereo situation. I hope this makes sense. For one the tubes in the amp become part of the instrument itself as far as tone and dynamics. Sorry I have to cut this short Wife wants V-day Dinner. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 14, 2016 17:46:05 GMT -5
The Vox AC30 tube guitar amplifier is famous for its sound and what monkumonku did was give us a catch 22. I want those big 300 watt monoblock tube amps that lonnie is making. I want them to sound tubby but not too tubby. Sometimes you feel like a nut Sometimes you don't Emotiva Glass got nuts XPA don't |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 14, 2016 18:10:28 GMT -5
Well, I can say that I've heard some Akai electronics with true mother-in-law harmonics. Take THAT, accuracy!  |
|
The live event of music being made is the creative part of all this. There are no boundaries. Sound as art. 
