Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Instability

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    Probably reality is not a realistic goal so to speak. One might have a shot at recreating what is actually on the recording, however. Even that is a little
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 12, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Probably reality is not a realistic goal so to speak.
      One might have a shot at recreating what is actually
      on the recording, however.

      Even that is a little complicated to define precisely,
      for reasons we have often discussed.

      A good start would be to make pink noise sound right on your system, one channel at a time. This is a source that is known--
      and you can learn what it ought to sound like!

      REG


      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
      >
      > The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can
      > recreate the tone,etc of reality.
      >
      > yip
      >
      > >
      > >From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
      > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > >Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
      > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
      > >
      > >
      > >I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
      > >I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
      > >"recording" is not really recording any particular
      > >reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
      > >when you do it.
      > >(Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
      > >he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
      > >is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
      > >Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
      > >But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
      > >from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
      > >The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)
      > >
      > >My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
      > >or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
      > >for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
      > >may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
      > >playback equipment that one is trying to test.
      > >
      > >This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
      > >No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
      > >behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!
      > >
      > >REG
      > >
      > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location
      > >>is the culprit, I
      > >>
      > >> think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what
      > >>were the
      > >>
      > >> extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this
      > >>compromise?
      > >>
      > >> Ted
      > >>
      > >> On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
      > >>
      > >> >
      > >> > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
      > >> > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
      > >> > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
      > >> > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
      > >> > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
      > >> > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
      > >> > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
      > >> > is a considerable shift in sound.
      > >> >
      > >> > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
      > >> > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
      > >> > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
      > >> > equipment using extant recordings.
      > >> >
      > >> > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
      > >> > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
      > >> > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
      > >> > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
      > >> > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
      > >> > "right" and vice versa.
      > >> >
      > >> > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
      > >> > differences among components.
      > >> >
      > >> > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
      > >> > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
      > >> > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
      > >> > Notturno sound, as it happens).
      > >> >
      > >> > REG
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > ------------------------------------
      > >> >
      > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • ymm
      But REG we listen to stereo. Should not the pink noise be heard in stereo. Yip
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 12, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        But REG we listen to stereo. Should not the pink noise be heard in stereo.
         Yip

        From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, 13 September 2010 00:45:08
        Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

         


        Probably reality is not a realistic goal so to speak.
        One might have a shot at recreating what is actually
        on the recording, however.

        Even that is a little complicated to define precisely,
        for reasons we have often discussed.

        A good start would be to make pink noise sound right on your system, one channel at a time. This is a source that is known--
        and you can learn what it ought to sound like!

        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
        >
        > The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can
        > recreate the tone,etc of reality.
        >
        > yip
        >
        > >
        > >From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
        > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        > >Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
        > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
        > >
        > >
        > >I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
        > >I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
        > >"recording" is not really recording any particular
        > >reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
        > >when you do it.
        > >(Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
        > >he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
        > >is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
        > >Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
        > >But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
        > >from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
        > >The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)
        > >
        > >My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
        > >or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
        > >for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
        > >may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
        > >playback equipment that one is trying to test.
        > >
        > >This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
        > >No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
        > >behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!
        > >
        > >REG
        > >
        > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@> wrote:
        > >>
        > >> Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location
        > >>is the culprit, I
        > >>
        > >> think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what
        > >>were the
        > >>
        > >> extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this
        > >>compromise?
        > >>
        > >> Ted
        > >>
        > >> On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
        > >>
        > >> >
        > >> > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
        > >> > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
        > >> > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
        > >> > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
        > >> > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
        > >> > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
        > >> > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
        > >> > is a considerable shift in sound.
        > >> >
        > >> > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
        > >> > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
        > >> > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
        > >> > equipment using extant recordings.
        > >> >
        > >> > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
        > >> > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
        > >> > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
        > >> > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
        > >> > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
        > >> > "right" and vice versa.
        > >> >
        > >> > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
        > >> > differences among components.
        > >> >
        > >> > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
        > >> > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
        > >> > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
        > >> > Notturno sound, as it happens).
        > >> >
        > >> > REG
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> > ------------------------------------
        > >> >
        > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >


      • Tom Mallin
        Whatever else one might think of them, the Mercury Living Presence recordings from the 50s and 60s were all engineered by the same man, Bob Fine, and he
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 12, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Whatever else one might think of them, the Mercury Living Presence recordings from the 50s and 60s were all engineered by the same man, Bob Fine, and he generally used about the same widely-spaced three-omni-mike set up and only recorded in a few halls. He even used only two or three different types of microphones for all these recordings. Plus, Wilma Cozart Fine supervised all the CD remasterng (I think?) and she was present at most of the original recordings. Some of the recordings were made on tape and some on 35 mm magnetic film, but that seems to affect mostly the hiss level (the film recordings being generally quieter).

          And yet there are still major differences in sound among these recordings in terms of tonal balance. The amount of high frequency cut required to make the top end sound natural varies from about 3 dB to 11 dB and some require HF cuts over a broader range in the highs. The amount of apparent bass also varies considerably, even among recordings made by the same group in the same hall within a few months of each other.

          Yes, the recordings made in particular halls sound more like each other than recordings made in different halls and particular halls seem to have more or less bass and warmth. But what may be surprising is the amount of variance among the recordings made of the same or similar group in the same hall.



          >>> "Robert" <regonaudio@...> 9/12/2010 10:17 AM >>>
          I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
          I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
          "recording" is not really recording any particular
          reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
          when you do it.
          (Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
          he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
          is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
          Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
          But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
          from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
          The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)

          My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
          or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
          for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
          may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
          playback equipment that one is trying to test.

          This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
          No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
          behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!

          REG


          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...> wrote:
          >
          > Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location is the culprit, I
          > think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what were the
          > extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this compromise?
          >
          > Ted
          >
          > On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
          > > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
          > > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
          > > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
          > > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
          > > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
          > > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
          > > is a considerable shift in sound.
          > >
          > > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
          > > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
          > > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
          > > equipment using extant recordings.
          > >
          > > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
          > > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
          > > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
          > > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
          > > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
          > > "right" and vice versa.
          > >
          > > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
          > > differences among components.
          > >
          > > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
          > > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
          > > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
          > > Notturno sound, as it happens).
          > >
          > > REG
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >




          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Kim Rochat
          ... Robert, At one time Richard Heyser (IIRC) suggested that a standard impulse be recorded through the microphones at the recording venue and included at the
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 12, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            At 09:45 AM 9/12/2010, you wrote:

            >Probably reality is not a realistic goal so to speak.
            >One might have a shot at recreating what is actually
            >on the recording, however

            Robert,

            At one time Richard Heyser (IIRC) suggested that a standard impulse
            be recorded through the microphones at the recording venue and
            included at the beginning of the recording. The reproduced impulse
            could then be used to correct the playback system to precisely
            reproduce the original event.

            I've always been intrigued by "what-if" this had been done as
            standard practice and am interested in your opinion as to how close
            to reality we might have been able to get.

            Futuristic/what-if me imagines a real time calibration system where
            at the beginning of playback a microphone near the listening position
            hears the impulse and instantly corrects the playback for "perfect
            reproduction" that particular recording.

            Thanks,
            Kim
          • Richard Tuck
            I ll settle for plausibility and enjoyment, I really get off on what you might call micro-detail. So you don t hear these kind of things in a concert hall, my
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 12, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              I’ll settle for plausibility and enjoyment, I really get off on what you might call micro-detail.  So you don’t hear these kind of things in a concert hall, my favourite music is at home in much smaller spaces.

               

              Richard

               


              From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ymm
              Sent: 12 September 2010 16:51
              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

               




              The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can recreate the tone,etc of reality.

               

              yip

               

              From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
              Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

               

              I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
              I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
              "recording" is not really recording any particular
              reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
              when you do it.
              (Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
              he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
              is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
              Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
              But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
              from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
              The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)

              My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
              or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
              for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
              may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
              playback equipment that one is trying to test.

              This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
              No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
              behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!

              REG

              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...> wrote:
              >
              > Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location is the culprit, I
              > think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what were the
              > extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this compromise?
              >
              > Ted
              >
              > On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
              >
              > >
              > > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
              > > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
              > > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
              > > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
              > > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
              > > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
              > > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
              > > is a considerable shift in sound.
              > >
              > > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
              > > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
              > > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
              > > equipment using extant recordings.
              > >
              > > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
              > > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
              > > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
              > > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
              > > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
              > > "right" and vice versa.
              > >
              > > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
              > > differences among components.
              > >
              > > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
              > > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
              > > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
              > > Notturno sound, as it happens).
              > >
              > > REG
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >



            • Edward Mast
              Along these lines, Michael Lavorgna s article under As We See It in the most recent Stereophile is of interest. Ned ... Along these lines, Michael Lavorgna s
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 12, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Along these lines, Michael Lavorgna's article under "As We See It" in the most recent Stereophile is of interest.
                Ned    
                On Sep 12, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Richard Tuck wrote:

                 

                I’ll settle for plausibility and enjoyment, I really get off on what you might call micro-detail.  So you don’t hear these kind of things in a concert hall, my favourite music is at home in much smaller spaces.

                 

                Richard

                 


                From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ymm
                Sent: 12 September 2010 16:51
                To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                 




                The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can recreate the tone,etc of reality.

                 

                yip

                 

                From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
                To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
                Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                 

                I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
                I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
                "recording" is not really recording any particular
                reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
                when you do it.
                (Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
                he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
                is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
                Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
                But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
                from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
                The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)

                My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
                or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
                for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
                may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
                playback equipment that one is trying to test.

                This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
                No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
                behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!

                REG

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...> wrote:
                >
                > Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location is the culprit, I
                > think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what were the
                > extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this compromise?
                >
                > Ted
                >
                > On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
                >
                > >
                > > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
                > > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
                > > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
                > > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
                > > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
                > > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
                > > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
                > > is a considerable shift in sound.
                > >
                > > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
                > > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
                > > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
                > > equipment using extant recordings.
                > >
                > > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
                > > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
                > > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
                > > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
                > > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
                > > "right" and vice versa.
                > >
                > > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
                > > differences among components.
                > >
                > > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
                > > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
                > > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
                > > Notturno sound, as it happens).
                > >
                > > REG
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >





              • Robert
                This actually confuses the issue quite a lot because it is very sensitive to head movements. Of course so is music --but fortunately because music changes a
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 13, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  This actually confuses the issue quite a lot because it
                  is very sensitive to head movements. Of course so is
                  music --but fortunately because music changes a good bit all
                  the time, one tends not to notice it so much!

                  See however here

                  http://www.regonaudio.com/Mono.html

                  The thing is that one wants to zero in on problems
                  that are spatially invariant over small head movements,
                  and these are best detected one channel at a time.
                  Of course, it is alos intriguing to check for channel
                  matching and for the one can use pink noise, same in both channels
                  --this if you get your head positioned exactly in the middle
                  ought to have tight focus.

                  REG
                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > But REG we listen to stereo. Should not the pink noise be heard in stereo.
                  > Yip
                  >
                  > >
                  > >From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
                  > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Sent: Monday, 13 September 2010 00:45:08
                  > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >Probably reality is not a realistic goal so to speak.
                  > >One might have a shot at recreating what is actually
                  > >on the recording, however.
                  > >
                  > >Even that is a little complicated to define precisely,
                  > >for reasons we have often discussed.
                  > >
                  > >A good start would be to make pink noise sound right on your system, one channel
                  > >at a time. This is a source that is known--
                  > >and you can learn what it ought to sound like!
                  > >
                  > >REG
                  > >
                  > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can
                  > >> recreate the tone,etc of reality.
                  > >>
                  > >> yip
                  > >>
                  > >> >
                  > >> >From: Robert <regonaudio@>
                  > >> >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > >> >Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
                  > >> >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                  > >> >
                  > >> >
                  > >> >I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
                  > >> >I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
                  > >> >"recording" is not really recording any particular
                  > >> >reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
                  > >> >when you do it.
                  > >> >(Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
                  > >> >he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
                  > >> >is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
                  > >> >Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
                  > >> >But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
                  > >> >from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
                  > >> >The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)
                  > >> >
                  > >> >My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
                  > >> >or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
                  > >> >for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
                  > >> >may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
                  > >> >playback equipment that one is trying to test.
                  > >> >
                  > >> >This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
                  > >> >No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
                  > >> >behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!
                  > >> >
                  > >> >REG
                  > >> >
                  > >> >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@> wrote:
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >> Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different
                  > >>location
                  > >>
                  > >> >>is the culprit, I
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >> think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders
                  > >>what
                  > >>
                  > >> >>were the
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >> extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this
                  > >> >>compromise?
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >> Ted
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >> On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
                  > >> >> > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
                  > >> >> > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
                  > >> >> > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
                  > >> >> > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
                  > >> >> > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
                  > >> >> > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
                  > >> >> > is a considerable shift in sound.
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
                  > >> >> > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
                  > >> >> > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
                  > >> >> > equipment using extant recordings.
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
                  > >> >> > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
                  > >> >> > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
                  > >> >> > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
                  > >> >> > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
                  > >> >> > "right" and vice versa.
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
                  > >> >> > differences among components.
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
                  > >> >> > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
                  > >> >> > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
                  > >> >> > Notturno sound, as it happens).
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > REG
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > ------------------------------------
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >> >
                  > >> >>
                  > >> >
                  > >> >
                  > >> >
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Robert
                  The hall variations are major. But also be advised that the microphones were not always the same. And of course weather conditions also varied and that matters
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 13, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The hall variations are major. But also be advised that the microphones were not always the same.
                    And of course weather conditions also varied and that matters
                    both to the sound of the hall and to the sound of the
                    string instruments especially. I HATE to play concerts
                    in a Santa Ana, as the super low humidity wind from the desert is called here in Southern California(like a Scirocco).
                    Makes the violin hard to play and screechy.

                    Also small variations in position of the players and the mikes
                    can change things. It is all quite unstable stuff.

                    But comes to that so is life! and so is photography. Anyone who
                    has tried to get the color "right" in a photo soon finds him or herself off on a wild goose chase!

                    REG

                    --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Whatever else one might think of them, the Mercury Living Presence recordings from the 50s and 60s were all engineered by the same man, Bob Fine, and he generally used about the same widely-spaced three-omni-mike set up and only recorded in a few halls. He even used only two or three different types of microphones for all these recordings. Plus, Wilma Cozart Fine supervised all the CD remasterng (I think?) and she was present at most of the original recordings. Some of the recordings were made on tape and some on 35 mm magnetic film, but that seems to affect mostly the hiss level (the film recordings being generally quieter).
                    >
                    > And yet there are still major differences in sound among these recordings in terms of tonal balance. The amount of high frequency cut required to make the top end sound natural varies from about 3 dB to 11 dB and some require HF cuts over a broader range in the highs. The amount of apparent bass also varies considerably, even among recordings made by the same group in the same hall within a few months of each other.
                    >
                    > Yes, the recordings made in particular halls sound more like each other than recordings made in different halls and particular halls seem to have more or less bass and warmth. But what may be surprising is the amount of variance among the recordings made of the same or similar group in the same hall.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > >>> "Robert" <regonaudio@...> 9/12/2010 10:17 AM >>>
                    > I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
                    > I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
                    > "recording" is not really recording any particular
                    > reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
                    > when you do it.
                    > (Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
                    > he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
                    > is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
                    > Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
                    > But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
                    > from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
                    > The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)
                    >
                    > My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
                    > or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
                    > for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
                    > may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
                    > playback equipment that one is trying to test.
                    >
                    > This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
                    > No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
                    > behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!
                    >
                    > REG
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location is the culprit, I
                    > > think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what were the
                    > > extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this compromise?
                    > >
                    > > Ted
                    > >
                    > > On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
                    > > > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
                    > > > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
                    > > > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
                    > > > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
                    > > > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
                    > > > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
                    > > > is a considerable shift in sound.
                    > > >
                    > > > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
                    > > > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
                    > > > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
                    > > > equipment using extant recordings.
                    > > >
                    > > > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
                    > > > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
                    > > > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
                    > > > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
                    > > > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
                    > > > "right" and vice versa.
                    > > >
                    > > > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
                    > > > differences among components.
                    > > >
                    > > > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
                    > > > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
                    > > > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
                    > > > Notturno sound, as it happens).
                    > > >
                    > > > REG
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------------------------------
                    > > >
                    > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                  • Robert
                    Of course one is tempted to say that if everything about recording is so unstable, then why worry about details of playback? But of course there is a reason.
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 13, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Of course one is tempted to say that if everything about
                      recording is so unstable, then why worry about details
                      of playback?
                      But of course there is a reason. For one thing, the kind of
                      things that vary about recording are different from the kinds
                      of things that are wrong about playback, usually.
                      And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                      ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                      them.
                      You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                      curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                      system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                      doing at the expense of the music.

                      Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself from learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so good--you have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                      It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems peculiarities and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s wind up all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                      you start to listen for it.

                      Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter target curves slightly.

                      REG
                    • Robert
                      The trouble is that micro detail is not part of music. Believe me, if we could play without bow noise, say, we would! No one ought to like those epiphenomena.
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 13, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The trouble is that micro detail is not part of music.
                        Believe me, if we could play without bow noise, say,
                        we would! No one ought to like those epiphenomena.
                        It is the fact that one cannot hear the key clicks.
                        the bow noise, the hammer banging, the pedal clunking and so on in concerts that makes concerts so beautiful.
                        To each his own. But you can take my word for it,
                        we all try to minimize the noise to the extent we
                        can without sacrificing power and projection when we need it.

                        REG

                        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Edward Mast <nedmast2@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Along these lines, Michael Lavorgna's article under "As We See It" in the most recent Stereophile is of interest.
                        > Ned
                        > On Sep 12, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Richard Tuck wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > > I'll settle for plausibility and enjoyment, I really get off on what you might call micro-detail. So you don't hear these kind of things in a concert hall, my favourite music is at home in much smaller spaces.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Richard
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ymm
                        > > Sent: 12 September 2010 16:51
                        > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can recreate the tone,etc of reality.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > yip
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
                        > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
                        > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
                        > > I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
                        > > "recording" is not really recording any particular
                        > > reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
                        > > when you do it.
                        > > (Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
                        > > he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
                        > > is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
                        > > Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
                        > > But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
                        > > from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
                        > > The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)
                        > >
                        > > My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
                        > > or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
                        > > for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
                        > > may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
                        > > playback equipment that one is trying to test.
                        > >
                        > > This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
                        > > No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
                        > > behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!
                        > >
                        > > REG
                        > >
                        > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location is the culprit, I
                        > > > think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what were the
                        > > > extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this compromise?
                        > > >
                        > > > Ted
                        > > >
                        > > > On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
                        > > > > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
                        > > > > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
                        > > > > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
                        > > > > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
                        > > > > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
                        > > > > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
                        > > > > is a considerable shift in sound.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
                        > > > > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
                        > > > > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
                        > > > > equipment using extant recordings.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
                        > > > > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
                        > > > > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
                        > > > > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
                        > > > > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
                        > > > > "right" and vice versa.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
                        > > > > differences among components.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
                        > > > > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
                        > > > > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
                        > > > > Notturno sound, as it happens).
                        > > > >
                        > > > > REG
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ------------------------------------
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • ymm
                        To hear micro detail, use an in-the- ear earphone,like the ER. Yip
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 14, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To hear micro detail, use an in-the- ear earphone,like the ER.

                          Yip

                          From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
                          To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:09:57
                          Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                           

                          The trouble is that micro detail is not part of music.
                          Believe me, if we could play without bow noise, say,
                          we would! No one ought to like those epiphenomena.
                          It is the fact that one cannot hear the key clicks.
                          the bow noise, the hammer banging, the pedal clunking and so on in concerts that makes concerts so beautiful.
                          To each his own. But you can take my word for it,
                          we all try to minimize the noise to the extent we
                          can without sacrificing power and projection when we need it.

                          REG

                          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Edward Mast <nedmast2@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Along these lines, Michael Lavorgna's article under "As We See It" in the most recent Stereophile is of interest.
                          > Ned
                          > On Sep 12, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Richard Tuck wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          > > I'll settle for plausibility and enjoyment, I really get off on what you might call micro-detail. So you don't hear these kind of things in a concert hall, my favourite music is at home in much smaller spaces.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Richard
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ymm
                          > > Sent: 12 September 2010 16:51
                          > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The audiophile will never know whether the recording and his audio gears can recreate the tone,etc of reality.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > yip
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
                          > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:17:06
                          > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I am not sure they thought of it as a compromise.
                          > > I think it is more like honesty, an admission that
                          > > "recording" is not really recording any particular
                          > > reality! that a lot depends on what you do, or even
                          > > when you do it.
                          > > (Years ago,some people thought Harry Pearson was exaggerating when
                          > > he said that humidity changed the sound of recordings, that
                          > > is that the humidity at the time of the recording did.
                          > > Some ignorant people at the time even made fun of him for this.
                          > > But of course he was absolutely right as you can see
                          > > from the air absorption curves as they depend on humidity.
                          > > The tonal balance of a hall shifts with humidity changes!)
                          > >
                          > > My main point here is that if one uses a particular recording
                          > > or set of recordings to test things, one has to be prepared
                          > > for the idea that the unpredictable aspects of the recording
                          > > may be on the same order of magnitude as the things about the
                          > > playback equipment that one is trying to test.
                          > >
                          > > This is particularly true about space, about "soundstage".
                          > > No one has any way at all to tell what the "soundstage"
                          > > behavior on playback of any specific recording is supposed to be!
                          > >
                          > > REG
                          > >
                          > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Surely some combination of different microphone type and/or different location is the culprit, I
                          > > > think I would notice this also and find it a bit disturbing. One wonders what were the
                          > > > extenuating circumstances that forced the respective engineers into this compromise?
                          > > >
                          > > > Ted
                          > > >
                          > > > On 10 Sep 2010 at 16:55, Robert wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I went back to listening(as I do sometimes) to the Dvorak
                          > > > > Legends recording, Fischer cond Budapest on Philips.
                          > > > > I think it is really interesting to note how much different
                          > > > > the two segments are, one recorded in March, one recorded in May
                          > > > > of the same year(1999). Two engineers are credited. Perhaps one did
                          > > > > one date, the other the other. But for whatever reason, even though
                          > > > > the recording venue is the same and the orchestra and conductor, there
                          > > > > is a considerable shift in sound.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > This illustrates, similarly to J Gordon Holt's famous speaking into
                          > > > > different mikes demo, how unstable the recording process is and how
                          > > > > difficult it is to make anything but strictly comparative judgments of
                          > > > > equipment using extant recordings.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > For gross things, the problem is not so bad. But the difference
                          > > > > between the sound of these two segments of the same CD is on the same
                          > > > > order of magnitude as the differences between two audio components,
                          > > > > even two speakers. If one had a system which made one sound "right"
                          > > > > ,whatever right was taken to mean, the other segment would not sound
                          > > > > "right" and vice versa.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The differences are small in absolute terms, but so are the
                          > > > > differences among components.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > If you have this recording, have a listen to the Notturno string sound
                          > > > > and then the string sound in the Legends. Both pleasant, both in some
                          > > > > sense realistic, but quite different.(I considerably prefer the
                          > > > > Notturno sound, as it happens).
                          > > > >
                          > > > > REG
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > ------------------------------------
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >


                        • laurie483000
                          Very interesting and I ve never seen it mentioned before, nor even considered that the subtle things that are wrong will not be detected when listening to
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 15, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even considered that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when listening to new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have had it pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in mind when auditioning any new stuff.

                            I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new piece of equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes acknowledging to myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then. Clearly first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.


                            Laurie



                            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                            > ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                            > them.
                            > You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                            > curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                            > system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                            > doing at the expense of the music.
                            >
                            > Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself from learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so good--you have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                            > It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems peculiarities and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s wind up all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                            > you start to listen for it.
                            >
                            > Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter target curves slightly.
                          • Tom Mallin
                            I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many audiophiles change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear something(s)
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 15, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many audiophiles change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly different from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to get over their infatuation.

                              I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes a good long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side" infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing better than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse, much less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new piece.

                              >>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                              Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even considered that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when listening to new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have had it pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in mind when auditioning any new stuff.

                              I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new piece of equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes acknowledging to myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then. Clearly first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.


                              Laurie



                              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                              > ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                              > them.
                              > You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                              > curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                              > system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                              > doing at the expense of the music.
                              >
                              > Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself from learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so good--you have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                              > It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems peculiarities and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s wind up all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                              > you start to listen for it.
                              >
                              > Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter target curves slightly.




                              ------------------------------------

                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                            • ymm
                              For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of the Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition. Yip
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 15, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                For me nowadays,  only when a  speaker than can surpass the excellence of the Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.

                                Yip

                                From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                 

                                I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many audiophiles change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly different from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to get over their infatuation.

                                I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes a good long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side" infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing better than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse, much less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new piece.

                                >>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even considered that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when listening to new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have had it pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in mind when auditioning any new stuff.

                                I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new piece of equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes acknowledging to myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then. Clearly first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.

                                Laurie

                                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                > ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                                > them.
                                > You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                > curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                                > system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                                > doing at the expense of the music.
                                >
                                > Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself from learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so good--you have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                > It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems peculiarities and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s wind up all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                > you start to listen for it.
                                >
                                > Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter target curves slightly.

                                ------------------------------------

                                Yahoo! Groups Links


                              • Robert
                                Fair enough. But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level: Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience ,too, and as
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 15, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Fair enough.
                                  But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:
                                  Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.

                                  But every sound source has some nature to it.
                                  For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.
                                  On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of its own.
                                  It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.
                                  This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things
                                  do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most people).

                                  So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming for a while better--simply because the new
                                  one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more
                                  like something without character. This is not a question of
                                  better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some
                                  sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch
                                  from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less
                                  individual character because one had not learned what the character was.

                                  Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love
                                  with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad, even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones). Something similar happened with the
                                  Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people
                                  also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall
                                  say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply
                                  different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to go with my SP1/2s)

                                  The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.
                                  Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's
                                  relationship to it changes with exposure to it!

                                  It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers of various types and sizes, from various eras).

                                  REG


                                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of the
                                  > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.
                                  >
                                  > Yip
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                  > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                  > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                  > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many audiophiles
                                  > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear
                                  > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly different
                                  > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to get
                                  > >over their infatuation.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio
                                  > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes a good
                                  > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side"
                                  > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing better
                                  > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse, much
                                  > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new piece.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                  > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even considered
                                  > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when listening to
                                  > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have had it
                                  > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in mind
                                  > >when auditioning any new stuff.
                                  > >
                                  > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new piece of
                                  > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes acknowledging to
                                  > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly
                                  > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then. Clearly
                                  > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.
                                  > >
                                  > >Laurie
                                  > >
                                  > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                  > >>
                                  > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                  > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                                  > >> them.
                                  > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                  > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                                  > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                                  > >> doing at the expense of the music.
                                  > >>
                                  > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself from
                                  > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so good--you
                                  > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                  > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems peculiarities
                                  > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s wind up
                                  > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                  > >> you start to listen for it.
                                  > >>
                                  > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter target
                                  > >>curves slightly.
                                  > >
                                  > >------------------------------------
                                  > >
                                  > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Richard Tuck
                                  I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter of mm)
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 16, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and
                                    the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter
                                    of mm) and driver location and were put down on the same stands.

                                    The Harbeths blew the Rogers away, although I still use the Rogers as rather
                                    big desktop monitors.

                                    I guess to a first approximation they had the same radiation pattern, so it
                                    was down to drivers and crossovers.

                                    Comments?

                                    Richard

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                    On Behalf Of Robert
                                    Sent: 16 September 2010 02:09
                                    To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                    Fair enough.
                                    But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:
                                    Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience
                                    ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.

                                    But every sound source has some nature to it.
                                    For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.
                                    On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of
                                    its own.
                                    It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.
                                    This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things
                                    do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most
                                    people).

                                    So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming
                                    for a while better--simply because the new
                                    one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as
                                    it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more
                                    like something without character. This is not a question of
                                    better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some
                                    sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch
                                    from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less
                                    individual character because one had not learned what the character was.

                                    Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love
                                    with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad,
                                    even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this
                                    way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is
                                    right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones).
                                    Something similar happened with the
                                    Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people
                                    also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall
                                    say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply
                                    different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate
                                    speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to
                                    go with my SP1/2s)

                                    The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.
                                    Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's
                                    relationship to it changes with exposure to it!

                                    It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I
                                    follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers
                                    of various types and sizes, from various eras).

                                    REG


                                    --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of
                                    the
                                    > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.
                                    >
                                    > Yip
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                    > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                    > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                    > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many
                                    audiophiles
                                    > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear
                                    > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly
                                    different
                                    > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to
                                    get
                                    > >over their infatuation.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio
                                    > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes
                                    a good
                                    > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side"
                                    > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing
                                    better
                                    > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse,
                                    much
                                    > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new
                                    piece.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                    > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even
                                    considered
                                    > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when
                                    listening to
                                    > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have
                                    had it
                                    > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in
                                    mind
                                    > >when auditioning any new stuff.
                                    > >
                                    > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new
                                    piece of
                                    > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes
                                    acknowledging to
                                    > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly
                                    > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then.
                                    Clearly
                                    > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.
                                    > >
                                    > >Laurie
                                    > >
                                    > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                    > >>
                                    > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                    > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                                    > >> them.
                                    > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                    > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                                    > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                                    > >> doing at the expense of the music.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself
                                    from
                                    > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so
                                    good--you
                                    > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                    > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems
                                    peculiarities
                                    > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s
                                    wind up
                                    > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                    > >> you start to listen for it.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter
                                    target
                                    > >>curves slightly.
                                    > >
                                    > >------------------------------------
                                    > >
                                    > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >




                                    ------------------------------------

                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • Charlie Daniell
                                    Those would be rather large desktop monitors! From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tuck Sent:
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 16, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Those would be rather large desktop monitors!

                                       

                                      From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tuck
                                      Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:12 PM
                                      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                       

                                       

                                      I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and
                                      the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter
                                      of mm) and driver location and were put down on the same stands.

                                      The Harbeths blew the Rogers away, although I still use the Rogers as rather
                                      big desktop monitors.

                                      I guess to a first approximation they had the same radiation pattern, so it
                                      was down to drivers and crossovers.

                                      Comments?

                                      Richard

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                      On Behalf Of Robert
                                      Sent: 16 September 2010 02:09
                                      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                      Fair enough.
                                      But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:
                                      Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience
                                      ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.

                                      But every sound source has some nature to it.
                                      For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.
                                      On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of
                                      its own.
                                      It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.
                                      This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things
                                      do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most
                                      people).

                                      So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming
                                      for a while better--simply because the new
                                      one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as
                                      it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more
                                      like something without character. This is not a question of
                                      better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some
                                      sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch
                                      from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less
                                      individual character because one had not learned what the character was.

                                      Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love
                                      with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad,
                                      even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this
                                      way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is
                                      right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones).
                                      Something similar happened with the
                                      Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people
                                      also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall
                                      say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply
                                      different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate
                                      speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to
                                      go with my SP1/2s)

                                      The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.
                                      Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's
                                      relationship to it changes with exposure to it!

                                      It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I
                                      follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers
                                      of various types and sizes, from various eras).

                                      REG

                                      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:

                                      >
                                      > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of
                                      the
                                      > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.
                                      >
                                      > Yip
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                      > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                      > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                      > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many
                                      audiophiles
                                      > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear
                                      > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly
                                      different
                                      > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance
                                      to
                                      get
                                      > >over their infatuation.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any
                                      audio
                                      > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it
                                      takes
                                      a good
                                      > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other
                                      side"
                                      > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be
                                      doing
                                      better
                                      > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing
                                      worse,
                                      much
                                      > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new
                                      piece.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...>
                                      9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                      > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even
                                      considered
                                      > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when
                                      listening to
                                      > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to
                                      have
                                      had it
                                      > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this
                                      in
                                      mind
                                      > >when auditioning any new stuff.
                                      > >
                                      > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new
                                      piece of
                                      > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes
                                      acknowledging to
                                      > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly
                                      > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then.
                                      Clearly
                                      > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.
                                      > >
                                      > >Laurie
                                      > >
                                      > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com,
                                      "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                      > >>
                                      > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                      > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen
                                      for
                                      > >> them.
                                      > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                      > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an
                                      audio
                                      > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it
                                      is
                                      > >> doing at the expense of the music.
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is
                                      keeping yourself
                                      from
                                      > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so
                                      good--you
                                      > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                      > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems
                                      peculiarities
                                      > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary
                                      Hahn';s
                                      wind up
                                      > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                      > >> you start to listen for it.
                                      > >>
                                      > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to
                                      alter
                                      target
                                      > >>curves slightly.
                                      > >
                                      > >------------------------------------
                                      > >
                                      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >

                                      ------------------------------------

                                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                                    • Fred
                                      I see analogy of the dark arts that so vastly differentiate physically similar engines. Drivers can be so much more than mere fluxed coils waggling cones.
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 16, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I see analogy of the dark arts that so vastly differentiate physically similar engines. Drivers can be so much more than mere fluxed coils waggling cones.

                                        :-)

                                        Fred.


                                        --- On Thu, 16/9/10, Richard Tuck <rtuck@...> wrote:

                                        From: Richard Tuck <rtuck@...>
                                        Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Thursday, 16 September, 2010, 22:12


                                        I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and

                                        the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter

                                        of mm) and driver location and were put down on the same stands.



                                        The Harbeths blew the Rogers away, although I still use the Rogers as rather

                                        big desktop monitors.



                                        I guess to a first approximation they had the same radiation pattern, so it

                                        was down to drivers and crossovers.



                                        Comments?



                                        Richard



                                        -----Original Message-----

                                        From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]

                                        On Behalf Of Robert

                                        Sent: 16 September 2010 02:09

                                        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com

                                        Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability



                                        Fair enough.

                                        But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:

                                        Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience

                                        ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.



                                        But every sound source has some nature to it.

                                        For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.

                                        On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of

                                        its own.

                                        It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.

                                        This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things

                                        do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most

                                        people).



                                        So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming

                                        for a while better--simply because the new

                                        one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as

                                        it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more

                                        like something without character. This is not a question of

                                        better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some

                                        sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch

                                        from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less

                                        individual character because one had not learned what the character was.



                                        Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love

                                        with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad,

                                        even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this

                                        way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is

                                        right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones).

                                        Something similar happened with the

                                        Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people

                                        also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall

                                        say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply

                                        different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate

                                        speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to

                                        go with my SP1/2s)



                                        The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.

                                        Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's

                                        relationship to it changes with exposure to it!



                                        It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I

                                        follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers

                                        of various types and sizes, from various eras).



                                        REG



                                        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:

                                        >

                                        > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of

                                        the

                                        > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.

                                        >

                                        > Yip

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>

                                        > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com

                                        > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54

                                        > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                        > >

                                        > >

                                        > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many

                                        audiophiles

                                        > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear

                                        > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly

                                        different

                                        > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to

                                        get

                                        > >over their infatuation.

                                        > >

                                        > >

                                        > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio

                                        > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes

                                        a good

                                        > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side"

                                        > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing

                                        better

                                        > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse,

                                        much

                                        > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new

                                        piece.

                                        > >

                                        > >

                                        > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>

                                        > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even

                                        considered

                                        > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when

                                        listening to

                                        > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have

                                        had it

                                        > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in

                                        mind

                                        > >when auditioning any new stuff.

                                        > >

                                        > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new

                                        piece of

                                        > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes

                                        acknowledging to

                                        > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly

                                        > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then.

                                        Clearly

                                        > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.

                                        > >

                                        > >Laurie

                                        > >

                                        > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:

                                        > >>

                                        > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are

                                        > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for

                                        > >> them.

                                        > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target

                                        > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio

                                        > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is

                                        > >> doing at the expense of the music.

                                        > >>

                                        > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself

                                        from

                                        > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so

                                        good--you

                                        > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.

                                        > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems

                                        peculiarities

                                        > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s

                                        wind up

                                        > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once

                                        > >> you start to listen for it.

                                        > >>

                                        > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter

                                        target

                                        > >>curves slightly.

                                        > >

                                        > >------------------------------------

                                        > >

                                        > >Yahoo! Groups Links

                                        > >

                                        > >

                                        > >

                                        >



                                        ------------------------------------



                                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      • Robert
                                        Radiation pattern depends on more than the size of the speaker itself--the size of the drivers also matters. Actually, there is some considerable evidence that
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 16, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Radiation pattern depends on more than the size of the speaker
                                          itself--the size of the drivers also matters.

                                          Actually, there is some considerable evidence that if radiation pattern and frequency response match, then the speakers will sound
                                          rather similar. Not exactly identical of course.
                                          Things like driver materials matter in ways that are not too obvious on frequency response graphs though they are likely explainable in linear systems terms if one goes deeply enough into the linear system behavior.

                                          It would be interesting to try to use micro EQ to make the two
                                          speakers sound alike. This might work a lot better than
                                          most audiophiles expect it to.

                                          People really have figured out a lot about what makes speakers sound
                                          as they do. It is not so mysterious as it was once believed to be.
                                          The thing is, that knowing what counts does not always make it easy
                                          to get what one wants anyway.

                                          But a lot of the things that everyone offered as explanations of why the speakers sounded so much different turned out to be
                                          not so complex. It is just that people turned out to be EXTREMELY
                                          sensitive to frequency response effects.

                                          REG

                                          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I see analogy of the dark arts that so vastly differentiate physically similar engines. Drivers can be so much more than mere fluxed coils waggling cones.
                                          >
                                          > :-)
                                          >
                                          > Fred.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- On Thu, 16/9/10, Richard Tuck <rtuck@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > From: Richard Tuck <rtuck@...>
                                          > Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                          > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Date: Thursday, 16 September, 2010, 22:12
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and
                                          >
                                          > the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter
                                          >
                                          > of mm) and driver location and were put down on the same stands.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The Harbeths blew the Rogers away, although I still use the Rogers as rather
                                          >
                                          > big desktop monitors.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I guess to a first approximation they had the same radiation pattern, so it
                                          >
                                          > was down to drivers and crossovers.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Comments?
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Richard
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          >
                                          > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                          >
                                          > On Behalf Of Robert
                                          >
                                          > Sent: 16 September 2010 02:09
                                          >
                                          > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Fair enough.
                                          >
                                          > But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:
                                          >
                                          > Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience
                                          >
                                          > ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > But every sound source has some nature to it.
                                          >
                                          > For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.
                                          >
                                          > On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of
                                          >
                                          > its own.
                                          >
                                          > It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.
                                          >
                                          > This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things
                                          >
                                          > do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most
                                          >
                                          > people).
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming
                                          >
                                          > for a while better--simply because the new
                                          >
                                          > one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as
                                          >
                                          > it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more
                                          >
                                          > like something without character. This is not a question of
                                          >
                                          > better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some
                                          >
                                          > sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch
                                          >
                                          > from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less
                                          >
                                          > individual character because one had not learned what the character was.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love
                                          >
                                          > with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad,
                                          >
                                          > even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this
                                          >
                                          > way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is
                                          >
                                          > right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones).
                                          >
                                          > Something similar happened with the
                                          >
                                          > Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people
                                          >
                                          > also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall
                                          >
                                          > say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply
                                          >
                                          > different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate
                                          >
                                          > speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to
                                          >
                                          > go with my SP1/2s)
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.
                                          >
                                          > Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's
                                          >
                                          > relationship to it changes with exposure to it!
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I
                                          >
                                          > follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers
                                          >
                                          > of various types and sizes, from various eras).
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > REG
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of
                                          >
                                          > the
                                          >
                                          > > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Yip
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@>
                                          >
                                          > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                          >
                                          > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many
                                          >
                                          > audiophiles
                                          >
                                          > > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear
                                          >
                                          > > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly
                                          >
                                          > different
                                          >
                                          > > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to
                                          >
                                          > get
                                          >
                                          > > >over their infatuation.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio
                                          >
                                          > > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes
                                          >
                                          > a good
                                          >
                                          > > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side"
                                          >
                                          > > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing
                                          >
                                          > better
                                          >
                                          > > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse,
                                          >
                                          > much
                                          >
                                          > > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new
                                          >
                                          > piece.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                          >
                                          > > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even
                                          >
                                          > considered
                                          >
                                          > > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when
                                          >
                                          > listening to
                                          >
                                          > > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have
                                          >
                                          > had it
                                          >
                                          > > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in
                                          >
                                          > mind
                                          >
                                          > > >when auditioning any new stuff.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new
                                          >
                                          > piece of
                                          >
                                          > > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes
                                          >
                                          > acknowledging to
                                          >
                                          > > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly
                                          >
                                          > > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then.
                                          >
                                          > Clearly
                                          >
                                          > > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >Laurie
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > >>
                                          >
                                          > > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                          >
                                          > > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                                          >
                                          > > >> them.
                                          >
                                          > > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                          >
                                          > > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                                          >
                                          > > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                                          >
                                          > > >> doing at the expense of the music.
                                          >
                                          > > >>
                                          >
                                          > > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself
                                          >
                                          > from
                                          >
                                          > > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so
                                          >
                                          > good--you
                                          >
                                          > > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                          >
                                          > > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems
                                          >
                                          > peculiarities
                                          >
                                          > > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s
                                          >
                                          > wind up
                                          >
                                          > > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                          >
                                          > > >> you start to listen for it.
                                          >
                                          > > >>
                                          >
                                          > > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter
                                          >
                                          > target
                                          >
                                          > > >>curves slightly.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                        • Richard Tuck
                                          Hi Charlie They certainly don t hide themselves but they are great for editing etc. I tried some mini monitors but they didn t do it for me. BTW I tend to do
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 17, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            Hi Charlie

                                             

                                            They certainly don’t hide themselves but they are great for editing etc. I tried some mini monitors but they didn’t do it for me.  BTW I tend to do writing other places :o)

                                             

                                            Richard

                                             


                                            From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Charlie Daniell
                                            Sent: 16 September 2010 22:51
                                            To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                             




                                            Those would be rather large desktop monitors!

                                             

                                            From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Richard Tuck
                                            Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:12 PM
                                            To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                             

                                             

                                            I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and
                                            the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter
                                            of mm) and driver location and were put down on the same stands.

                                            The Harbeths blew the Rogers away, although I still use the Rogers as rather
                                            big desktop monitors.

                                            I guess to a first approximation they had the same radiation pattern, so it
                                            was down to drivers and crossovers.

                                            Comments?

                                            Richard

                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                            On Behalf Of Robert
                                            Sent: 16 September 2010 02:09
                                            To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                            Fair enough.
                                            But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:
                                            Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience
                                            ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.

                                            But every sound source has some nature to it.
                                            For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.
                                            On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of
                                            its own.
                                            It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.
                                            This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things
                                            do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most
                                            people).

                                            So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming
                                            for a while better--simply because the new
                                            one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as
                                            it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more
                                            like something without character. This is not a question of
                                            better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some
                                            sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch
                                            from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less
                                            individual character because one had not learned what the character was.

                                            Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love
                                            with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad,
                                            even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this
                                            way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is
                                            right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones).
                                            Something similar happened with the
                                            Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people
                                            also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall
                                            say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply
                                            different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate
                                            speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to
                                            go with my SP1/2s)

                                            The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.
                                            Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's
                                            relationship to it changes with exposure to it!

                                            It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I
                                            follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers
                                            of various types and sizes, from various eras).

                                            REG

                                            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:

                                            >
                                            > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of
                                            the
                                            > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.
                                            >
                                            > Yip
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@...>
                                            > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                            > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                            > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many
                                            audiophiles
                                            > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear
                                            > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly
                                            different
                                            > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance
                                            to
                                            get
                                            > >over their infatuation.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any
                                            audio
                                            > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it
                                            takes
                                            a good
                                            > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other
                                            side"
                                            > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be
                                            doing
                                            better
                                            > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing
                                            worse,
                                            much
                                            > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new
                                            piece.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@...>
                                            9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                            > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even
                                            considered
                                            > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when
                                            listening to
                                            > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to
                                            have
                                            had it
                                            > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this
                                            in
                                            mind
                                            > >when auditioning any new stuff.
                                            > >
                                            > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new
                                            piece of
                                            > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes
                                            acknowledging to
                                            > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly
                                            > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then.
                                            Clearly
                                            > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.
                                            > >
                                            > >Laurie
                                            > >
                                            > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com,
                                            "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                            > >>
                                            > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                            > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen
                                            for
                                            > >> them.
                                            > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                            > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an
                                            audio
                                            > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it
                                            is
                                            > >> doing at the expense of the music.
                                            > >>
                                            > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is
                                            keeping yourself
                                            from
                                            > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so
                                            good--you
                                            > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                            > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems
                                            peculiarities
                                            > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary
                                            Hahn';s
                                            wind up
                                            > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                            > >> you start to listen for it.
                                            > >>
                                            > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to
                                            alter
                                            target
                                            > >>curves slightly.
                                            > >
                                            > >------------------------------------
                                            > >
                                            > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >

                                            ------------------------------------

                                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                                             


                                          • yvl222
                                            And a lot more to early arrivals. Victor
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 17, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              And a lot more to early arrivals.

                                              Victor

                                              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Radiation pattern depends on more than the size of the speaker
                                              > itself--the size of the drivers also matters.
                                              >
                                              > Actually, there is some considerable evidence that if radiation pattern and frequency response match, then the speakers will sound
                                              > rather similar. Not exactly identical of course.
                                              > Things like driver materials matter in ways that are not too obvious on frequency response graphs though they are likely explainable in linear systems terms if one goes deeply enough into the linear system behavior.
                                              >
                                              > It would be interesting to try to use micro EQ to make the two
                                              > speakers sound alike. This might work a lot better than
                                              > most audiophiles expect it to.
                                              >
                                              > People really have figured out a lot about what makes speakers sound
                                              > as they do. It is not so mysterious as it was once believed to be.
                                              > The thing is, that knowing what counts does not always make it easy
                                              > to get what one wants anyway.
                                              >
                                              > But a lot of the things that everyone offered as explanations of why the speakers sounded so much different turned out to be
                                              > not so complex. It is just that people turned out to be EXTREMELY
                                              > sensitive to frequency response effects.
                                              >
                                              > REG
                                              >
                                              > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > I see analogy of the dark arts that so vastly differentiate physically similar engines. Drivers can be so much more than mere fluxed coils waggling cones.
                                              > >
                                              > > :-)
                                              > >
                                              > > Fred.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- On Thu, 16/9/10, Richard Tuck <rtuck@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > From: Richard Tuck <rtuck@>
                                              > > Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                              > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                              > > Date: Thursday, 16 September, 2010, 22:12
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > I have only really owned two big-ish speakers. One was the Rogers LS7 and
                                              > >
                                              > > the other the Harbeth C7 2. They are virtually identical in size (a matter
                                              > >
                                              > > of mm) and driver location and were put down on the same stands.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > The Harbeths blew the Rogers away, although I still use the Rogers as rather
                                              > >
                                              > > big desktop monitors.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > I guess to a first approximation they had the same radiation pattern, so it
                                              > >
                                              > > was down to drivers and crossovers.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Comments?
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Richard
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > -----Original Message-----
                                              > >
                                              > > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
                                              > >
                                              > > On Behalf Of Robert
                                              > >
                                              > > Sent: 16 September 2010 02:09
                                              > >
                                              > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                              > >
                                              > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Fair enough.
                                              > >
                                              > > But there is another aspect of this at a deeper level:
                                              > >
                                              > > Everything has some character to it. The Harbeths less in my experience
                                              > >
                                              > > ,too, and as everyone knows, I find them excellent,too.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > But every sound source has some nature to it.
                                              > >
                                              > > For a start, every speaker has a radiation pattern.
                                              > >
                                              > > On the other hand, perfect audio would be perceived to be without nature of
                                              > >
                                              > > its own.
                                              > >
                                              > > It would be a disembodied realization of the recording.
                                              > >
                                              > > This is impossible in a non-anechoic environment(and things
                                              > >
                                              > > do not sound good in an anechoic environment to the minds and ears of most
                                              > >
                                              > > people).
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > So any speaker that replaces another that is good has some chance of seeming
                                              > >
                                              > > for a while better--simply because the new
                                              > >
                                              > > one has not yet started to have its character heard its character so much as
                                              > >
                                              > > it will after a while, so the new one likely seems more
                                              > >
                                              > > like something without character. This is not a question of
                                              > >
                                              > > better or not. If two speakers of different sorts were in some
                                              > >
                                              > > sense equally good, this effect would still happen. At a sudden switch
                                              > >
                                              > > from what one was used to, the new thing would seem to have less
                                              > >
                                              > > individual character because one had not learned what the character was.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Of course this can work the other way ,too. One can fall in love
                                              > >
                                              > > with a certain character, and then things that are different can seem bad,
                                              > >
                                              > > even if they are not in fact worse. People fall in love with Quads this
                                              > >
                                              > > way--they often like what is wrong with them as much as they like what is
                                              > >
                                              > > right about them(or so one gathers, especially about the original ones).
                                              > >
                                              > > Something similar happened with the
                                              > >
                                              > > Spendor BC1s--wonderful speakers indeed, but to some extent people
                                              > >
                                              > > also fell for the idiosyncratic aspects of their sound--I shall
                                              > >
                                              > > say wrong aspects since in some sense it was not wrong, simply
                                              > >
                                              > > different. When the Spendor SP1 and SP!/2 came along, arguably more accurate
                                              > >
                                              > > speakers, not everyone wanted to change! (I have my original BC1s back, to
                                              > >
                                              > > go with my SP1/2s)
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > The point here is the learning and habituation aspect of this.
                                              > >
                                              > > Whether one gets to like something or gets not to like it, one's
                                              > >
                                              > > relationship to it changes with exposure to it!
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > It is all a good reason to have a lot of speakers, perhaps(advice I
                                              > >
                                              > > follow--I have lost count but I have at least 12 pairs of serious speakers
                                              > >
                                              > > of various types and sizes, from various eras).
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > REG
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > For me nowadays, only when a speaker than can surpass the excellence of
                                              > >
                                              > > the
                                              > >
                                              > > > Harbeth M 40 or 40.1 will merit longer audition.
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > Yip
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >From: Tom Mallin <tmallin@>
                                              > >
                                              > > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                              > >
                                              > > > >Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 04:17:54
                                              > >
                                              > > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >I agree. REG has put his finger on a major reason why so many
                                              > >
                                              > > audiophiles
                                              > >
                                              > > > >change equipment so frequently. They buy something because they hear
                                              > >
                                              > > > >something(s) about it that is better than (or at least refreshingly
                                              > >
                                              > > different
                                              > >
                                              > > > >from) what they are used to, but before they have a sufficient chance to
                                              > >
                                              > > get
                                              > >
                                              > > > >over their infatuation.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >I think it is also the main reason why a responsible review of any audio
                                              > >
                                              > > > >equipment usually takes a long audition period. For most of us, it takes
                                              > >
                                              > > a good
                                              > >
                                              > > > >long while to get past the "grass is always greener on the other side"
                                              > >
                                              > > > >infatuation with what a piece of unfamiliar equipment seems to be doing
                                              > >
                                              > > better
                                              > >
                                              > > > >than what we're used to so that we begin to hear what it is doing worse,
                                              > >
                                              > > much
                                              > >
                                              > > > >less to put into proper perspective the betters and worsers of the new
                                              > >
                                              > > piece.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>>> "laurie483000" <laurie483000@> 9/15/2010 3:01 PM >>>
                                              > >
                                              > > > >Very interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before, nor even
                                              > >
                                              > > considered
                                              > >
                                              > > > >that 'the subtle things that are wrong' will not be detected when
                                              > >
                                              > > listening to
                                              > >
                                              > > > >new equipment, but will gradually become learnt. I'm rather glad to have
                                              > >
                                              > > had it
                                              > >
                                              > > > >pointed out and can now see that it is rather important to bear this in
                                              > >
                                              > > mind
                                              > >
                                              > > > >when auditioning any new stuff.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >I've now and again been taken aback by the sound quality of some new
                                              > >
                                              > > piece of
                                              > >
                                              > > > >equipment, generally loudspeakers at a show - whilst sometimes
                                              > >
                                              > > acknowledging to
                                              > >
                                              > > > >myself that some aspect is not quite right but at the time a seemingly
                                              > >
                                              > > > >unimportant defect - and been very tempted to change there and then.
                                              > >
                                              > > Clearly
                                              > >
                                              > > > >first or brief impressions cannot be relied upon.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >Laurie
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> And secondly, the things wrong with the playback are
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> ALWAYS THE SAME. This means one tends to learn them and listen for
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> them.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> You will probably like your system better if you switch target
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> curves often! --not by a lot but by a little. The goal of an audio
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> system is to be not there--not to let one's self perceive what it is
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> doing at the expense of the music.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> Part of this is being "neutral". But part of it is keeping yourself
                                              > >
                                              > > from
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>learning the system. This is why new (to you) systems can sound so
                                              > >
                                              > > good--you
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>have not yet learned the subtle things that are wrong.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> It is also why audiophiles keep changing. They learn the systems
                                              > >
                                              > > peculiarities
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>and then they start to hear them all the time, just like Hilary Hahn';s
                                              > >
                                              > > wind up
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>all ways the same vibrato can start to drive you nuts once
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> you start to listen for it.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>
                                              > >
                                              > > > >> Of course oyu can change equipment a lot--but it is cheaper to alter
                                              > >
                                              > > target
                                              > >
                                              > > > >>curves slightly.
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >------------------------------------
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > ------------------------------------
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • HM
                                              My first experience with room correction systems was Peter Lyngdorf placing a boxed speaker on one chair and a car soundboard on the other. They were very
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 17, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                My first experience with room correction systems was Peter Lyngdorf placing a boxed speaker on one chair and a car soundboard on the other.
                                                They were very different in all terms of sonic performance, response, coloration, efficiency etc.
                                                We listened to a singer with guitar and a concert for percussion and orchestra.
                                                The TacT RCS 2.0 was able to restore a soundstage with some depth and focus and the sound was well balanced and without any obvious coloration.
                                                The change was stunning.
                                                BR HM

                                                >
                                                > People really have figured out a lot about what makes speakers sound
                                                > as they do. It is not so mysterious as it was once believed to be.
                                                > The thing is, that knowing what counts does not always make it easy
                                                > to get what one wants anyway.
                                                >
                                                > But a lot of the things that everyone offered as explanations of why the speakers sounded so much different turned out to be
                                                > not so complex. It is just that people turned out to be EXTREMELY
                                                > sensitive to frequency response effects.
                                                >
                                                > REG
                                              • Fred
                                                This sets me to remembering being drawn tens of yards to an open Hi-Fi shop frontage in Akihabara, Tokyo in 1968. It was a demonstration of same sized drivers
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 18, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  This sets me to remembering being drawn tens of yards to an open Hi-Fi shop frontage in Akihabara, Tokyo in 1968. It was a demonstration of same sized drivers that in turn were played in free air then placed over a hole in a upright box. A crude good-better-best comparison of qualities that although technically inelegant, was startling, attracted great interest and no doubt did as intended for sales.

                                                  Fred.


                                                  --- On Sat, 18/9/10, HM <hmartinburm@...> wrote:

                                                  From: HM <hmartinburm@...>
                                                  Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                                  To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 0:20


                                                  My first experience with room correction systems was Peter Lyngdorf placing a boxed speaker on one chair and a car soundboard on the other.

                                                  They were very different in all terms of sonic performance, response, coloration, efficiency etc.

                                                  We listened to a singer with guitar and a concert for percussion and orchestra.

                                                  The TacT RCS 2.0 was able to restore a soundstage with some depth and focus and the sound was well balanced and without any obvious coloration.

                                                  The change was stunning.

                                                  BR HM



                                                  >

                                                  > People really have figured out a lot about what makes speakers sound

                                                  > as they do. It is not so mysterious as it was once believed to be.

                                                  > The thing is, that knowing what counts does not always make it easy

                                                  > to get what one wants anyway.

                                                  >

                                                  > But a lot of the things that everyone offered as explanations of why the speakers sounded so much different turned out to be

                                                  > not so complex. It is just that people turned out to be EXTREMELY

                                                  > sensitive to frequency response effects.

                                                  >

                                                  > REG
                                                • HM
                                                  Hi Fred People left the shop with 2 open upright boxes under their arms? BR HM
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 18, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hi Fred
                                                    People left the shop with 2 open upright boxes under their arms?
                                                    BR HM
                                                    >
                                                    > This sets me to remembering being drawn tens of yards to an open Hi-Fi shop frontage in Akihabara, Tokyo in 1968. It was a demonstration of same sized drivers that in turn were played in free air then placed over a hole in a upright box. A crude good-better-best comparison of qualities that although technically inelegant, was startling, attracted great interest and no doubt did as intended for sales.
                                                    >
                                                    > Fred.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --- On Sat, 18/9/10, HM <hmartinburm@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > From: HM <hmartinburm@...>
                                                    > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                                    > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 0:20
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > My first experience with room correction systems was Peter Lyngdorf placing a boxed speaker on one chair and a car soundboard on the other.
                                                    >
                                                    > They were very different in all terms of sonic performance, response, coloration, efficiency etc.
                                                    >
                                                    > We listened to a singer with guitar and a concert for percussion and orchestra.
                                                    >
                                                    > The TacT RCS 2.0 was able to restore a soundstage with some depth and focus and the sound was well balanced and without any obvious coloration.
                                                    >
                                                    > The change was stunning.
                                                    >
                                                    > BR HM
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > > People really have figured out a lot about what makes speakers sound
                                                    >
                                                    > > as they do. It is not so mysterious as it was once believed to be.
                                                    >
                                                    > > The thing is, that knowing what counts does not always make it easy
                                                    >
                                                    > > to get what one wants anyway.
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > > But a lot of the things that everyone offered as explanations of why the speakers sounded so much different turned out to be
                                                    >
                                                    > > not so complex. It is just that people turned out to be EXTREMELY
                                                    >
                                                    > > sensitive to frequency response effects.
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > > REG
                                                    >
                                                  • Fred
                                                    Yeah - and also with paired drivers slung by strings around their necks ;-) Actually a bit less practical than Charles Aznovoice s pre-Walkman stereo in this
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 18, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Yeah - and also with paired drivers slung by strings around their necks ;-)

                                                      Actually a bit less practical than Charles Aznovoice's "pre-Walkman" stereo in this scene from "Candy"!

                                                      http://tinyurl.com/33p6wyo

                                                      Fred.


                                                      --- On Sat, 18/9/10, HM <hmartinburm@...> wrote:

                                                      From: HM <hmartinburm@...>
                                                      Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability
                                                      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 19:08



                                                           
                                                            Hi Fred

                                                      People left the shop with 2 open upright boxes under their arms?

                                                      BR HM

                                                      >

                                                      > This sets me to remembering being drawn tens of yards to an open Hi-Fi shop frontage in Akihabara, Tokyo in 1968.  It was a demonstration of same sized drivers that in turn were played in free air then placed over a hole in a upright box.  A crude good-better-best comparison of qualities that although technically inelegant, was startling, attracted great interest and no doubt did as intended for sales.

                                                      >

                                                      > Fred.

                                                      >

                                                      >

                                                      > --- On Sat, 18/9/10, HM <hmartinburm@...> wrote:

                                                      >

                                                      > From: HM <hmartinburm@...>

                                                      > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Instability

                                                      > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com

                                                      > Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 0:20

                                                      >

                                                      >   

                                                      >       My first experience with room correction systems was Peter Lyngdorf placing a boxed speaker on one chair and a car soundboard on the other.

                                                      >

                                                      > They were very different in all terms of sonic performance, response, coloration, efficiency etc.

                                                      >

                                                      > We listened to a singer with guitar and a concert for percussion and orchestra.

                                                      >

                                                      > The TacT RCS 2.0 was able to restore a soundstage with some depth and focus and the sound was well balanced and without any obvious coloration.

                                                      >

                                                      > The change was stunning.

                                                      >

                                                      > BR HM

                                                      >

                                                      >

                                                      >

                                                      > >

                                                      >

                                                      > > People really have figured out a lot about what makes speakers sound

                                                      >

                                                      > > as they do. It is not so mysterious as it was once believed to be.

                                                      >

                                                      > > The thing is, that knowing what counts does not always make it easy

                                                      >

                                                      > > to get what one wants anyway.

                                                      >

                                                      > >

                                                      >

                                                      > > But a lot of the things that everyone offered as explanations of why the speakers sounded so much different turned out to be

                                                      >

                                                      > > not so complex. It is just that people turned out to be EXTREMELY

                                                      >

                                                      > > sensitive to frequency response effects.

                                                      >

                                                      > >

                                                      >

                                                      > > REG

                                                      >
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.