revel ultima salon2 vs focal sopra no. 2

[Dennis Murphy]

That's true if you trust the designer. But it's possible to get reasonably flat response and still have dreadful phase relationships, and the drivers may be driven beyond their comfort zones from a distortion standpoint. That can easily happen if someone simply imports frequency response measurements into a design software and clicks on the "system optimization" button and lets it whirrrrrrrr.

 

[KEW]

The greater objective is to hear the recording as you would have heard it live in the venue itself.

I can't claim to know a lot about recording techniques, but I believe the sound quality from a well done recording should be better than "live in the venue" for most non-classical concerts. Even if you have ideal seats, you are a ways back in the audience. The recording is usually taken direct from the musicians' microphones and instrument pick-ups with a couple of mics to capture a bit of the audience sounds, so you are not really capturing that much of the ambiance of the venue.
Classical music more often is recorded by 2 microphones suspended in the room which is closer to what you would hear in the room.

In the Atlanta area, not capturing much of the venue ambiance is often a good thing because the acoustics of many of our venues suck ... being some combination of glass, steel, and concrete.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I can't claim to know a lot about recording techniques, but I believe the sound quality from a well done recording should be better than "live in the venue" for most non-classical concerts. Even if you have ideal seats, you are a ways back in the audience. The recording is usually taken direct from the musicians' microphones and instrument pick-ups with a couple of mics to capture a bit of the audience sounds, so you are not really capturing that much of the ambiance of the venue.
Classical music more often is recorded by 2 microphones suspended in the room which is closer to what you would hear in the room.

In the Atlanta area, not capturing much of the venue ambiance is often a good thing because the acoustics of many of our venues suck ... being some combination of glass, steel, and concrete.

Sorry, yes, when I say "live at the venue", I don't mean to imply a live performance venue.

What I meant is a recording studio that's designed to exhibit desirable acoustic properties that the recording process attempts to capture.

 

[Art Vandelay]

That's true if you trust the designer. But it's possible to get reasonably flat response and still have dreadful phase relationships, and the drivers may be driven beyond their comfort zones from a distortion standpoint. That can easily happen if someone simply imports frequency response measurements into a design software and clicks on the "system optimization" button and lets it whirrrrrrrr.

True. To this point, DSP software is unable to correct for many non-linear distortions, though it's very possible and will no doubt be developed for domestic use in the future.

In the meantime, as long as you're using a competently designed, high quality loudspeaker, DSP correction can be used with confidence.

 

[PENG]

I can't claim to know a lot about recording techniques, but I believe the sound quality from a well done recording should be better than "live in the venue" for most non-classical concerts. Even if you have ideal seats, you are a ways back in the audience. The recording is usually taken direct from the musicians' microphones and instrument pick-ups with a couple of mics to capture a bit of the audience sounds, so you are not really capturing that much of the ambiance of the venue.
Classical music more often is recorded by 2 microphones suspended in the room which is closer to what you would hear in the room.

In the Atlanta area, not capturing much of the venue ambiance is often a good thing because the acoustics of many of our venues suck ... being some combination of glass, steel, and concrete.

I can partially agree with that but if you stick to one sitting position then you are comparing accuracy vs "better". So you can't really compare unless you put place the recording gear in locations that "accurately" measure what the listener would be hearing "live", I doubt that is possible and if it is, then by nature the recording won't be as accurate but could be "better", depends.

 

[KEW]

I can partially agree with that but if you stick to one sitting position then you are comparing accuracy vs "better". So you can't really compare unless you put place the recording gear in locations that "accurately" measure what the listener would be hearing "live", I doubt that is possible and if it is, then by nature the recording won't be as accurate but could be "better", depends.

I really don't follow you. In the case of a full-blown big name rock concert (I know you are more familiar with symphonic concerts) being recorded live, I do not believe the recording engineer really wants the "in the audience" experience since he has access to the feeds directly from the musicians to mix.
Your second sentence starts out saying exactly my point, but ends with a different take. I believe you are defining "accurate" as reflecting what you would hear in the audience, while I would define "accurate" as reflecting what the recording engineer (and, presumably, through association, the musicians) intended of the recording (which is thankfully not the exact "in audience experience"). I go to such concerts to see and hear the band while basking in the energy of thousands of fans*. I do not yet know of a case where the sound quality of such a concert was better than what I get listening to a well done live recording at home.
Symphonic music in a good hall, or a jazz trio in a smaller venue are often a totally different story.

* In grad school, I had a fellow fellow grad student tell me he really liked going to football games because the energy reminded him of the riots back home in Iran! (bear in mind the riots were against the established government in the mid 80's)

 

[Art Vandelay]

I believe you are defining "accurate" as reflecting what you would hear in the audience, while I would define "accurate" as reflecting what the recording engineer (and, presumably, through association, the musicians) intended of the recording (which is thankfully not the exact "in audience experience"). I go to such concerts to see and hear the band while basking in the energy of thousands of fans*. I do not yet know of a case where the sound quality of such a concert was better than what I get listening to a well done live recording at home.

If you go back to the origins of high fidelity recording which began in the 40's and 50's, the objective of the recording process was to capture what you would hear if you were seated in front of a band playing live. This objective still exists for some audiophile productions but is obviously no longer mainstream.

With the advent of multi-track recorders and mixers in the 60's and 70's, production became more studio based, and creative engineers took different paths, essentially making the process an expression of art that sometimes eclipsed the musical content.

Since the digital revolution in the 80's, mainstream music is mostly a construct of studio tools, and no longer requires the services of session musicians, along with many studio techs and engineers.

Whereas in the past an album might have taken many months, and sometimes years to record and produce, today's objective is usually limited to weeks or days.

In most respects, for mainstream music, the necessity for 'accuracy' in the playback system is now less than ever, because recordings themselves are so synthetic and fabricated, and there is no longer a valid point of reference for the listener to gauge the level of accuracy.

 

[KEW]

...because recordings themselves are so synthetic and fabricated, and there is no longer a valid point of reference for the listener to gauge the level of accuracy.

And then there is Melody Gardot!

10 minute documentary:

She certainly uses modern technology where it is useful to get the best recording, but I believe her goal is to capture the performance of the musicians as pure as is possible!

Sorry about the digression, you may like her or not, but I was very pleased when I discovered MG's pure and simple approach to using top quality musicians and demand perfection from herself (the nuance and detail she sings with) without any reason to distort their performance... and your statement struck a chord with me!

 

[Art Vandelay]

Sorry about the digression, you may like her or not, but I was very pleased when I discovered MG's pure and simple approach to using top quality musicians and demand perfection from herself (the nuance and detail she sings with) without any reason to distort their performance... and your statement struck a chord with me!

Thanks for that. I found her albums in Spotify too.

The quality is pretty good though still recorded a few dB too high to be free of the peak limiter, but that's life in 2016.

At least as you say, it's all real and musically satisfying.

 

[Irvrobinson]

In most respects, for mainstream music, the necessity for 'accuracy' in the playback system is now less than ever, because recordings themselves are so synthetic and fabricated, and there is no longer a valid point of reference for the listener to gauge the level of accuracy.

This has been true for many years, which is why you have to use other means to gauge accuracy in your own room. Also, the fact that pop music is synthetic doesn't mean that a colored speaker won't color all pop music similarly and make it sound worse than it is; it will.

You know, Art, I'm fascinated by the contradictions in your posts. On the one hand you're claiming that differences in electronics can produce obvious audible differences in how a speaker performs, and on the other hand you're arguing about measurements and what they reveal. These are contradictory views.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You know, Art, I'm fascinated by the contradictions in your posts. On the one hand you're claiming that differences in electronics can produce obvious audible differences in how a speaker performs, and on the other hand you're arguing about measurements and what they reveal. These are contradictory views.

No need for any fascinations because there are no contradictions.

Everything that's audible is measurable, but there are some types of distortion that are difficult to measure with the usual tools and methods. Fortunately, some are readily revealed using simulation software.

On your other point, I would agree that non-linear distortions are never a good thing, but I would say that a modest degree of linear distortion from a loudspeaker is no longer of much concern anymore.

And of course, linear distortion can be corrected quite easily anyway.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Everything that's audible is measurable, but there are some types of distortion that are difficult to measure with the usual tools and methods. Fortunately, some are readily revealed using simulation software.

Like what, for example?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Like what, for example?

See my post in this thread...http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/can-you-hear-a-difference-in-sound-between-audio-amplifiers.84632/page-49

 

[Audiot]

I don't willingly buy music that is poorly recorded unless I have no choice or somehow get fooled.

I find something to argue with about the general state of recording. While the wide use of MP3s and other compressed files have made their nasty mark, and certain genres uh....revel.....in unnatural sounds from the outset, there are still plenty of well recorded 'tunes' but you don 't find them in top 40 charts as a rule. There are exceptions to everything, but musicians who are serious about their work and understand the relationship between sound and music abound.

Compression and limiting have been a fact of life since the wire recorder if not before. With electric guitars and especially electric bass, extreme compression is viewed as a creative effect, but in recording it should be remembered that it is a tool to be used sparingly. There is no other way to squeeze a "ten pound sound" into a five pound sack, and every single vinyl record and CD for that matter is compressed (and/or equalized) to fit sound into vinyl's (and digital recordings') limited dynamic envelope, which is why we need, for example, RIAA curves (eq in this case) built into every cutting head and phono preamp. The problem isn't compression per se but the loudness wars that have moved (mostly) pop (place suitable genre here_________) music into the realm of the often sonically unlistenable. The dynamics are squashed beyond what is required to tailor the music to the medium.

Loreena McKennett, Alison Krauss, Jerry Douglas, Sarah Jaroze, better classical recordings, a good deal of the Celtic and bluegrass stuff I listen to, Mark Knoppfler, really a long list of musicians who have taken the recording process into their own hands can be found. On the other hand, there are some great players who have no interest in the process and their material shows it. The trick as always is balance in the process starting with laying down tracks, through the mix down and onto mastering. Everybody has to be tight and on the same page or you get less than you hoped for. But compression and limiting are a necessary fact of life.

I treat my music like I do my audio gear, with care and an understanding that musicians (and recordists), especially those who play acoustic as well a amplified instruments, are into sound for it's own sake. Be selective and you can get some lovely stuff. I have shelves full and there is nothing superior about older recordings solely due to their age.

There's a lot of crap out there but there always was. Compression and limiting is a fact of life that can't be done away as it's part and parcel of recording and reproducing music via any and all the media we have. You have to avoid the mines in the field.

I'm sorry to say that a lot of buying public is not educated, doesn't value training and discipline and will tell you they like something because it's raw. What they are actually saying is they don't play, they don't know about making music and care less about reproducing it. But there's great sounding stuff out there.

Getting great live (amplified) sound in a big venue is the hardest task in audio. Sound reinforcement is its own discipline and you always start at a disadvantage for reasons too long to go into here. That said, I've heard some fabulous sound live although never in an arena. You need a more intimate venue, couple of thousand people maximum, 200 to maybe 800 is better, the venue has to be superb and the musicians need to be as practiced as the Blue Angels. When it all comes together, it's magic, but it's also rare. When it does happen, the bass is as good as it gets with amplifiers because you can never move air like a big modern PA that is properly operated in a good hall. Most people rarely experience that.

 

[Audiot]

And don't ask me about too much reverb!

 

[lovinthehd]

I find something to argue with about the general state of recording. While the wide use of MP3s and other compressed files have made their nasty mark, and certain genres uh....revel.....in unnatural sounds from the outset, there are still plenty of well recorded 'tunes' but you don 't find them in top 40 charts as a rule.

What? MP3s for recording, are you daft? Who cares about a top 40 chart either when it comes to audio qualities?

 

[shadyJ]

What? MP3s for recording, are you daft? Who cares about a top 40 chart either when it comes to audio qualities?

It looks like you missed his point there.

 

[Irvrobinson]

See my post in this thread...http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/can-you-hear-a-difference-in-sound-between-audio-amplifiers.84632/page-49

I read those posts. That's audiophile baloney, Art, about negative feedback causing graininess and whatever. Sure, you can find product marketing literature that touts low-feedback or no feedback designs, but only people with great imaginations can hear the difference. Which solid state amplifiers have poor impulse responses? Which have too much high-order distortion (say, above -70db below 1W) that would be audible? For solid-state Class AB amps designed since 1995 I think the answer to both questions is nearly zero.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I read those posts. That's audiophile baloney, Art, about negative feedback causing graininess and whatever. Sure, you can find product marketing literature that touts low-feedback or no feedback designs, but only people with great imaginations can hear the difference. Which solid state amplifiers have poor impulse responses? Which have too much high-order distortion (say, above -70db below 1W) that would be audible? For solid-state Class AB amps designed since 1995 I think the answer to both questions is nearly zero.

There are distortion mechanisms that you can lump under the general umbrella of TIM, and that's mostly what I refer to.

As to whether these distortions are audible, and to what extent they are audible for a given design is a matter of opinion, but there are a great many audio engineers who are of the view that they're audible, and undesirable, and those engineers have spent many years in some cases attempting to design amplifiers that are more immune from such distortions. There's even a Wikipedia entry on the topic.

You're right to say that design has evolved to the point where TIM related distortions are no longer a major problem, but's not to say that they don't exist.

For most people they may not matter, but for some perfectionists they offer an incentive for further research and development.

 

[Art Vandelay]

There's a lot of crap out there but there always was. Compression and limiting is a fact of life that can't be done away as it's part and parcel of recording and reproducing music via any and all the media we have. You have to avoid the mines in the field..

That's true, but it's also true that compression was originally a necessity for the dynamically limited LP medium.

With the advent of CD in the 80's, with 30-40dB of extra dynamic range available, instead of mainstream recordings becoming more dynamic they've become increasingly less dynamic since.

Worse than that is that speakers and amplifiers have also increased the amount of dynamic range that's possible from a domestic hi-fi system.

So with all of the technology and hardware heading in the direction of greater dynamic range, music has decided to head in the totally opposite direction since about 1982.

Sure, not everyone listens through a home hi-fi system, but with digital mastering automation these days it would actually be very simple for artists to release an uncompressed / flat mix download for those who prefer to listen through a hi-fi / AV system at home.

Also, with the power of modern DSP, the future should be the empowerment of the end user to decide on their preferred level of compression and bass / treble equalisation etc. There will soon be no reason to compress / limit at the recording / mastering phases when it can be just as easily done at the user end of the chain.