I suppose a very subjective question. You might say the sound should please you. But, if you wanted to reproduce the sound that was intended by the artist, how would you know how close you were? How, for example, would you know if you have too little or too much bass compared to what the artist recorded? Is there a way to measure what you are playing and compare it against a known standard?
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
What is it supposed to sound like?
- Thread starter Jeff
- Start date
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
Andrew17321
Well-known member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 25
- 3
- 18,545
As I frequently go to chamber music concerts, where I am up close to the musical instruments, I know what they sound like. If a music system and the recording produce a sound which is close to the sound of the real instruments I am happy with it.
Having said that, if the music is good and it is well played, I can thoroughly enjoy it on a car radio.
For me it is the music, the music system and the recording are just a means to this end. I am not an audiophile; I am not interested in measurements, flat responses, etc; I use my ears (and those of my wife).
If you want to know what artists wanted to sound like, go to live concerts. Then you will be in a better position to judge music systems.
Having said that, if the music is good and it is well played, I can thoroughly enjoy it on a car radio.
For me it is the music, the music system and the recording are just a means to this end. I am not an audiophile; I am not interested in measurements, flat responses, etc; I use my ears (and those of my wife).
If you want to know what artists wanted to sound like, go to live concerts. Then you will be in a better position to judge music systems.
Vladimir said:
+2
As there's normally no subjective way to tell, the best one can do is get equipment with as flat and neutral FR as possible so that one can feel assured that it's adding as little as possible to the sound.
Jeff said:
Flat - look at the frequency response graphs. As for the room, you could use a microphone and test tones to determine whether it is still flat in your room.
Andrew17321 said:
I think you mean if you want to know what artists actually sound like, not what they want to sound like. There is so much processing, singing over, etc in the studio to create the end product that it may sound very different from what the artist sounds like live.
I prefer live concerts to studio recordings as even the most studio processed recorded band can sound raw and heavy.
But studio recording dont really sound the same to me.
One band that springs to mind as a good example would be 'The Who'
Listen to their albums. Sounds light then listen to them on a live recording and they are heavy.
So my point is cd lps and live whilst having a sound and can often sound a little different.
So the only way getting as close as original recording without colour would be flat and neutral as already said.
For speakers look for flat response and also reviews with the graphs. (Hifi choice)
Amps. High power low distortion.
Room: im no expert on this and have alway accepted what i have or have been very lucky but there are many on here that really go the extra mile and prepare the room with bass traps and stuff. Im sure tomorrow you'll have loads of advice.
Btw are you looking to purchase any equipment or are you just wondering?
But studio recording dont really sound the same to me.
One band that springs to mind as a good example would be 'The Who'
Listen to their albums. Sounds light then listen to them on a live recording and they are heavy.
So my point is cd lps and live whilst having a sound and can often sound a little different.
So the only way getting as close as original recording without colour would be flat and neutral as already said.
For speakers look for flat response and also reviews with the graphs. (Hifi choice)
Amps. High power low distortion.
Room: im no expert on this and have alway accepted what i have or have been very lucky but there are many on here that really go the extra mile and prepare the room with bass traps and stuff. Im sure tomorrow you'll have loads of advice.
Btw are you looking to purchase any equipment or are you just wondering?
If you want this, you must simply run through a mastering monitors through a mixing console (a pre will do it too), all that in a very good prepared room. It's the way masters are done, and it's the way you will come the closest to the what the studio engeneer intended. Most popular mastering monitors are the ATC SCM's, generally the 50 and the 100, Quested's V3110 (that is appreciated in the Rap mastering business), the PMC MB2SA (or the mains of the above located programs).
Those are not cheap speakers because they are working tools for the final stage of a recording process. They have all the qualities of good hifi speakers without the flashy bling bling that is usual in our hobby. Indies and little studios will use cheaper gear that will do the job well too.
P.S. Artists (producers) will not record the same way they are playing live.
Those are not cheap speakers because they are working tools for the final stage of a recording process. They have all the qualities of good hifi speakers without the flashy bling bling that is usual in our hobby. Indies and little studios will use cheaper gear that will do the job well too.
P.S. Artists (producers) will not record the same way they are playing live.
Andrewjvt said:
I bought B&W 683's, an HTM61, and Marantz SR5010 receiver at Best Buy. Sometimes I think it sounds great and other times I think there is too much bass. The drums and bass guitar seem too pronounced, but I am not sure. I think I need to add accoustic panels in my room, but am not sure. I also wonder if putting 4" thick panels behind the speakers would help.
@Jeff. 4" panels by themselves - not really. Search here and elsewhere for room treatment and bass traps. Start a new thread giving room layout & size. GIK acoustics will help with ideas. It can be the most significant upgrade you will ever make!
For me, there's a lot more than flat and neutral frequency responses and well behaved rooms.
A few examples from A/B demos I've had:
System 1: the bass guitar and bass drum make an amorphous bass sound where it's difficult to tell which one is contributing to the bass sounds I'm hearing
System 2: I can differentiate and follow at will either the bass drum or bass guitar.
System A: the vocalist sounds somewhat mechanical / synthetic / robotic.
System B: the vocalist sounds as if they are in the room singing to me.
System I: if I form a graph in my head of volume (y axis) vs time (x axis) I'd plot it as a series of Chiltern hills, or Great Pyramids.
System II: my plot of volume vs time is a series of Eiffel Towers.
System i: it sounds as if the signal has been passed through a huge thick wodge of cotton wool.
System ii: it sounds as if the signal has passed through nothing.
System a: the piano sounds watery / like a poorly tuned upright pub piano.
System b: sounds like a well tuned grand piano is being played by a professional pianist at the other end of the room.
System X : the piano sounds like a cheap 1980's synthesized piano. Difficult to describe it exactly, but the piano sounds "all wrong"
System Y: sounds like a well tuned grand piano is being played by a professional pianist at the other end of the room.
System alpha: placing each musician and vocalist from left to right in a system with the speakers about 14 feet apart, it sounds like each of them in is some sort of cloud where the guitar / vocalist is coming from a 5 feet wide area. The locations of the instruments overlap each other.
System beta: each musician (apart from the drummer) sounds as if they are coming from an area 1 to 2 feet wide. They each have their own separate piece of space from which they are coming from.
In each of those examples, I don't think we need to have been in the recording booth or at the actual concert to know which system is sounding more realistic / more truthful to the original recording.
A few examples from A/B demos I've had:
System 1: the bass guitar and bass drum make an amorphous bass sound where it's difficult to tell which one is contributing to the bass sounds I'm hearing
System 2: I can differentiate and follow at will either the bass drum or bass guitar.
System A: the vocalist sounds somewhat mechanical / synthetic / robotic.
System B: the vocalist sounds as if they are in the room singing to me.
System I: if I form a graph in my head of volume (y axis) vs time (x axis) I'd plot it as a series of Chiltern hills, or Great Pyramids.
System II: my plot of volume vs time is a series of Eiffel Towers.
System i: it sounds as if the signal has been passed through a huge thick wodge of cotton wool.
System ii: it sounds as if the signal has passed through nothing.
System a: the piano sounds watery / like a poorly tuned upright pub piano.
System b: sounds like a well tuned grand piano is being played by a professional pianist at the other end of the room.
System X : the piano sounds like a cheap 1980's synthesized piano. Difficult to describe it exactly, but the piano sounds "all wrong"
System Y: sounds like a well tuned grand piano is being played by a professional pianist at the other end of the room.
System alpha: placing each musician and vocalist from left to right in a system with the speakers about 14 feet apart, it sounds like each of them in is some sort of cloud where the guitar / vocalist is coming from a 5 feet wide area. The locations of the instruments overlap each other.
System beta: each musician (apart from the drummer) sounds as if they are coming from an area 1 to 2 feet wide. They each have their own separate piece of space from which they are coming from.
In each of those examples, I don't think we need to have been in the recording booth or at the actual concert to know which system is sounding more realistic / more truthful to the original recording.
You can't know with electric guitars or electronic keyboards. You can better know what a violin sounds like or a cello. If the music you like to listen to is popular music, electric guitars and keyboards then stop worrying because you simply cannot know because the musicians could be using any number of effects pedals, you don't know what they've set the dials on their instruments to and you don't know what they've set the dials on their amps to.
There is no 'set' sound to an electronic instrument.
I also don't doubt that the sound intended by the artist isn't always what the record company insists is delivered.
There is no 'set' sound to an electronic instrument.
I also don't doubt that the sound intended by the artist isn't always what the record company insists is delivered.
RobinKidderminster said:
since I don't have a rectangular room it would be best if I could upload I diagram. Is there a way to do that?
Electro
Well-known member
- Mar 30, 2011
- 192
- 3
- 18,545
Andrew17321 said:
I totally agree if you know what real instruments sound like the your instinct will tell you if you HiFi system is doing a good job, but Andrewjvt was also correct when he said,
"A neutral amp and speakers with a flat curve with no bumps and a room that behaves"
Covenanter
Well-known member
- Jul 20, 2012
- 96
- 50
- 18,620
Jota180 said:
I agree with this. It's the difference between pop and classical recordings. In pop the recording is part of the artistic production. In classical the recording is simply the mechanism for transferring the music from player to listener.
Chris
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
In any music a hi-fi system can only ever be accurate to the recording. Accuracy to the sound of the original performance is heavily reliant on not just the production but also the engineering of the recording. In many spaces, where you sit in relation to the performers can affect the sound you hear. With a recording there is a whole plethora of factors in between.
Vladimir said:
I'm not aware of any hi-fi systems ever made in the known history of the Universe that have been flat to within +/- 1 db from 20 hz to 20 khz.
Do you know of any?
lindsayt said:
JBL M2, K+H, old Dunlavy's. Mostly professional kit.
Why I asked about flat FR. You said that you value sonic characteristics in loudspeakers despite them being or not being with flat FR. This implies you have directly compared speakers with flat FR level matched and heard with your ears things that escape the microphones. So I asked if the described loudspeakers in your post were at least flat within 2dB, which is generous. -+3dB is a total joke because a 6dB margin of error is HUGE!
Flat on-axis FR is the most important essential parameter you get right first, then you go after good off-axis etc. Doesn't matter what technology and engineering tricks get you there as long as they do. If you ignore the essentials, you end up with a POS like the Zu Audio Essence.
Vladimir, you can, of course provide links to unsmoothed frequency response charts for those speakers (JBL M2, K+H, old Dunlavy's) that have been made by reputable independent sources?
In my first post in this thread I described a number of important sonic differences that I've heard that were independent of frequncy response. So that it's entirely possible that I could prefer a system with a less flat frequency response if it sounded more realistic in important respects not related to the frequency response.
If you or anyone else thinks that a flat frequency response is more important than: bass clarity, vocal clarity and realism, dynamics, overall focus, pitch accuracy and stability, timbre, imaging etc etc then you are quite welcome to your viewpoint. It is not one that I will ever share as I value those aspects highly. Why? Take them away and you have a system that will always sound like a hi-fi system, even if the frequency response is flat. Leave them in, and as long as the frequency response doesn't excessively filter out any instruments, it has a chance of NOT sounding like a hi-fi system.
Whats more, for every example I gave, you don't even have to level match the systems to hear that the latter system is better. You can even have the worse sounding system playing louder and it will still sound worse for the examples I gave.
In my first post in this thread I described a number of important sonic differences that I've heard that were independent of frequncy response. So that it's entirely possible that I could prefer a system with a less flat frequency response if it sounded more realistic in important respects not related to the frequency response.
If you or anyone else thinks that a flat frequency response is more important than: bass clarity, vocal clarity and realism, dynamics, overall focus, pitch accuracy and stability, timbre, imaging etc etc then you are quite welcome to your viewpoint. It is not one that I will ever share as I value those aspects highly. Why? Take them away and you have a system that will always sound like a hi-fi system, even if the frequency response is flat. Leave them in, and as long as the frequency response doesn't excessively filter out any instruments, it has a chance of NOT sounding like a hi-fi system.
Whats more, for every example I gave, you don't even have to level match the systems to hear that the latter system is better. You can even have the worse sounding system playing louder and it will still sound worse for the examples I gave.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram