advertisement


Why have actives not made bigger inroads in to HiFi?

Given how far away reproduction is to the real thing-and complete ignorance of what the original file is supposed to sound like-add to that the clearly disimilar acoustic environments involved in the recording and any reproduction space the 'more it should sound the same' argument is bollocks...particularly when applied to loudspeakers ie its 'so' wrong the myriad paths to approach the ultimate transparency goal will involve different solutions, different shortfalls, different design compromises and different philosophies as to what 'right' actually is.
 
neil said:
Strange, the first definition is subjective and the second is either subjective or unspecified. That being the case Tony's comment about your version of transparent and mine resulting in different outcomes holds.
Click to expand...

Of course they are subjective as they (the whole glossary) refer(s) to listening evaluation.

If it makes you happier then I'll stick to accurate reproduction of the recorded signal.
 
cooky1257 said:
Given how far away reproduction is to the real thing-and complete ignorance of what the original file is supposed to sound like-add to that the clearly dissimilar acoustic environments involved in the recording and any reproduction space the 'more it should sound the same' argument is bollocks...particularly when applied to loudspeakers ie its 'so' wrong the myriad paths to approach the ultimate transparency goal will involve different solutions, different shortfalls, different design compromises and different philosophies as to what 'right' actually is.
Click to expand...

Spot on, especially the final bit....which I'd suggest for most people will be driven by whether that set of compromises aligns with those factors through which they make an emotional connection to the piece being played.
 
cooky1257 said:
Given how far away reproduction is to the real thing-and complete ignorance of what the original file is supposed to sound like-add to that the clearly disimilar acoustic environments involved in the recording and any reproduction space the 'more it should sound the same' argument is bollocks...
Click to expand...

You can measure accuracy, there's no kneed to know "what the original file is supposed to sound like". Listening to accuracy is more tricky but there are problems that one can identify through listening assessment.
Anyway, a more accurate speaker will sound better than an not so accurate speaker irregardless of the acoustic environment characteristics.

cooky1257 said:
particularly when applied to loudspeakers ie its 'so' wrong the myriad paths to approach the ultimate transparency goal will involve different solutions, different shortfalls, different design compromises and different philosophies as to what 'right' actually is.
Click to expand...

I agree that loudspeakers are, together with vinyl cartridges, the most flawed / less accurate elements in the chain.
And because there are different technologies, each with it's own advantages and shortcomings, it's more difficult to find different speakers sounding very similar, particularly if they use different technologies (e.g. ESL vs. direct radiation monopoles).
But I still believe that speakers which produce good results in the large majority of a comprehensive set of measurements provide "higher" fidelity or accuracy.
 
Listening to a pair of Philips active speakers from the 70s...better than most huffing and puffing small speakers of today...
 
cooky1257 said:
Given how far away reproduction is to the real thing-and complete ignorance of what the original file is supposed to sound like-add to that the clearly disimilar acoustic environments involved in the recording and any reproduction space the 'more it should sound the same' argument is bollocks...particularly when applied to loudspeakers ie its 'so' wrong the myriad paths to approach the ultimate transparency goal will involve different solutions, different shortfalls, different design compromises and different philosophies as to what 'right' actually is.
Click to expand...
Comparing the record to the original performance or the acoustic space of the original or how the original would have been monitored is completely fatuous, we only have the file,record.cd that is it.
We can choose to try and reproduce that file as accurately as we can, my preference is for as Linear A system as possible.
Keith
 
Having just visited Computer Audiophile forum, they have a thread - why do people still use racks full of amps/preamps when active speakers do as good a job using far less space and cost ?

So it depends who you ask the question to.
 
tuga said:
Of course they are subjective as they (the whole glossary) refer(s) to listening evaluation.

If it makes you happier then I'll stick to accurate reproduction of the recorded signal.
Click to expand...
You are including from the speakers in that, aren't you? So why not into the mic, too?
 
Purité Audio said:
We can choose to try and reproduce that file as accurately as we can, my preference is for as Linear A system as possible.
Keith
Click to expand...

Keith, Linear A is an (as yet undeciphered) language used in ancient Crete. Excellent though the technology of the Minoan culture was (viz. the construction of the labyrinth and the half-man, half-bull monster thingy), they are not known to have made much progress in hi-fi.
 
tuga said:
You can measure accuracy, there's no kneed to know "what the original file is supposed to sound like". Listening to accuracy is more tricky but there are problems that one can identify through listening assessment.
Click to expand...
How do you know it's accurate if you don't know what you are comparing it to? Idiotic notion, so by that logic you could tell how 'accurate' a copy of the Mona Lisa is without reverting to the original?
Relying on measurements from Stereophile to judge wether a speaker is any good or not(as you have previously stated) is again just foolish, ie what range of measurement/parameters are audible, have a direct impact on listening impressions etc etc etc..?. again to make the point, two speakers can measure very similarly but sound completely different. Measurements will only take you so far, eg try swapping caps in a speaker crossover and witness the sometimes dramatic difference in perceived quality (with zero impact on measurements).
Greg Timbers; "I am a firm believer that there is no magic in loudspeaker design, but I also strongly believe that we do not have all of the answers and that the ear is still the tool of choice. I can always hear differences that I can't measure but it doesn't make them any less important. It just means that we need to figure out how to measure what we hear. No speaker is even close to sounding "real" so personal opinion is always a major consideration.
 
The whole argument becomes almost philosophical as the only ‘truth’ that ever existed is the sound in the studio control room at point of creation/mastering. As such if you really want to hear a Blue Note as it is meant to sound you need a pair of Altec 604s driven by a tube amp, similariy if you want to hear a coassic Decca SXL you need a pair of Tannoy Silvers or Reds in Canterbury corner cabs druven by Leak TL12.1s. That is the ‘right’, everything else is wrong.

I’ve always wondered whether we’ll ever get to the ‘amp modelling’ technology that has existed for decades now in pro audio where in say Logic Pro you can plug your guitar through digital emulations of a Fender Twin, Marshall stack or whatever. It would be cool to dial-in Rudy Van G’s or George Martin’s Altecs, Abbey Rd’s Quad 50Es & Tannoys, Porky’s Tannoys etc! Hear things just as they were created!
 
Tony L said:
The whole argument becomes almost philosophical as the only ‘truth’ that ever existed is the sound in the studio control room at point of creation/mastering. As such if you really want to hear a Blue Note as it is meant to sound you need a pair of Altec 604s driven by a tube amp, similariy if you want to hear a coassic Decca SXL you need a pair of Tannoy Silvers or Reds in Canterbury corner cabs druven by Leak TL12.1s. That is the ‘right’, everything else is wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The application of main monitor speakers for track laying always raised the rather amusing question when me and our kid were talking Tannoy "could you play a bass through your hifi speakers? if not, how can you expect them to reproduce a bass guitar with any realism....the notion still makes me chuckle.

I’ve always wondered whether we’ll ever get to the ‘amp modelling’ technology that has existed for decades now in pro audio where in say Logic Pro you can plug your guitar through digital emulations of a Fender Twin, Marshall stack or whatever. It would be cool to dial-in Rudy Van G’s or George Martin’s Altecs, Abbey Rd’s Quad 50Es & Tannoys, Porky’s Tannoys etc! Hear things just as they were created!
Click to expand...
Only a matter of time I reckon.
 
The sound quality in the control room is completely immaterial, the only artefact we have is the file, record or CD.
However I do see the point of trying to recreate a period ‘sound’, how the record might have been reproduced at the time of release on contemporary equipment.

Keith
 
cooky1257 said:
Exactly. The application of main monitor speakers for track laying always raised the rather amusing question when me and our kid were talking Tannoy "could you play a bass through your hifi speakers? if not, how can you expect them to reproduce a bass guitar with any realism....the notion still makes me chuckle.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As a bass player it always hugely disappoints me just how few hi-fi systems can reproduce anything even remotely recognisable to the sound I know from the instrument. I am convinced it can only be reproduced by very large drivers in a very large cabinet. You can get the upper harmonics from little hi-fi speakers or studio near-fields, but little of the fundamental and none of the viscral ‘push’ of a string rapidly accelerating to pitch. As you heard the Lockwoods can do it and do it bloody well. I am convinced it is all about moving air with a very large driver - it is not a simple extension/frequency response thing as smaller speakers moving far further and likely digging down lower Hz-wise just don’t do it. They can sound very good, but they never sound ‘real’ the way a truly big speaker can.
 
Tony L said:
The whole argument becomes almost philosophical as the only ‘truth’ that ever existed is the sound in the studio control room at point of creation/mastering. As such if you really want to hear a Blue Note as it is meant to sound you need a pair of Altec 604s driven by a tube amp, similariy if you want to hear a coassic Decca SXL you need a pair of Tannoy Silvers or Reds in Canterbury corner cabs druven by Leak TL12.1s. That is the ‘right’, everything else is wrong.

I’ve always wondered whether we’ll ever get to the ‘amp modelling’ technology that has existed for decades now in pro audio where in say Logic Pro you can plug your guitar through digital emulations of a Fender Twin, Marshall stack or whatever. It would be cool to dial-in Rudy Van G’s or George Martin’s Altecs, Abbey Rd’s Quad 50Es & Tannoys, Porky’s Tannoys etc! Hear things just as they were created!
Click to expand...

You have the recording of a live event or a studio album produced in the mixing console. This is the only truth available. Now you wish to reproduce that music so you need a system that can extract as much information, amplify it and transduce it as accurately as possible. This is called high fidelity reproduction.

I listen mainly to classical music which is generally well recorded. The more accurate the system, the more realistic it'll sound to me.
 
+1.
I've sat in the comfy spot with you Tony and we've wondered aloud how to get that big valve bass head-amp tone otherwise: that Wilton Felder, Root Down bass-lead womp and tone, amongst others. It takes large and linear displacement and control.

There are several varieties of systems that can reproduce it, but large and linear are the best way to start there, for manifest physical reasons too.
Sink-plungers are right out.


tl:dr: no, same total displacement still don't seem enough - there are too many edge effects. Also there is a difference between scaling velocity-volume and pressure sources, and distance effects for both.
 
Purité Audio said:
The sound quality in the control room is completely immaterial, the only artefact we have is the file, record or CD.
However I do see the point of trying to recreate a period ‘sound’, how the record might have been reproduced at the time of release on contemporary equipment.

Keith
Click to expand...
It's curious how you seem to view the file as the reality, but the original sound as not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top