2. misc-audio
  3. 1150844424

what is good sound ?

when evaluating stereo systems, should the performance of the stereo system itself be the reference point, or should the listener be the basis for the evaluation ?

if the instrinsic quality of sound is the basis for judgment, then such concepts as transparency, neutrality or accuracy might be the standard for evaluation.

otherwise, the listener would be the sole judge and whatever criterion, be it based upon sonic considerations or physiological/psychological states, would be the deciding factor.

whatever approach is selected, what is the justification for either one ?
mrtennis
9rw's avatar
9rw
318 posts
 
Newbee: Compare it to a reference: live unamplified vocals or instruments. In addition to possessing the obviously necessary hearing acuity, a person has to have reference points. He or she has to know how instruments really sound. Then find albums or CDs that have minimal processing and see how it compares. Nothing I've heard matches the live event, but the best systems can recreate a decent illusion. Sometimes it takes an adjustment period to appreciate a more accurate system.
Post removed 
newbee
4,796 posts
 
9rw, Gee, that sounds very simple. But, unless I was actually in the recording studio during the performance how will I ever know what the performance actually sounded like before it hit the mikes?

When referring to 'he or she knows how live instruments really sound' do you mean from within 2 feet, 20 feet, or 100 feet, seated or standing, in what kind of venue?

In one's own room it would seem that the distance between you and a vocalist, for example, would not be nearly the same as in a live performance. Even in a small club you're going to be 20 to 30 feet away from a vocalist and to make the judgment more difficult everyone has a mike in their mouth now to boot. But in your home you're going to be seated, maybe 10 feet away.

In fact most every small scale recording is multi miked so the recording engineer can give equal voice to each instrument in the mix, and or spot light one instrument, or vocalist, so I'm unsure where to even find the ideal recordings to begin with.

If the recording were made at 30 feet of an unamplified vocalist or instrument, and the recording was ideal, then over a 2 channel system I would imagine that you would have a very tiny voice coming from exactly between your speakers and it would be indistinct, recessed, and unlike anything that you would hear if you were just standing 10 feet away (assuming thats a typical distance in a well set up system in a medium sized room.It certainly wouldn't sound 'live'.

FWIW, the problem I have with your statement is that it's not simple to guage accuracy by using live music as a guide. IMHO, all that does is inintentionally create a lot of insecurity in audiophiles who rely on others opinions and results in their chasing gear which they think will bring them closer to the perfect sound. As you have admitted one can't recreate live music electronically in the home, one can't come close, and if one thinks he can he's set out on a very expensive and frustrating trip to no where. Thats why I'm satisfied to just accept the goal of reproducing accurately what I think is on the recording. That is a much more obtainable goal I think.

All IMHO, of course.



mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
there is a simple but not perfect solution as indicated below:

take a single instrument, such as a cymbal.
obtain a decent digital recording device.
measure the distance between the cymbal and the microphone, and make a recording in your listening room.

you may make several recordings, each with a slightly different microphone placement. you will need an assistant for this procedure.

a cymbol could be struck with a wooden drum stick, for recording purposes. thereafter, compare the sound of the cymbal to the recording, fed through your stereo system. make sure the listener is sitting at a distance from the cymbal, equal to the distance between mike and cymbal. hopefully, mike would have been placed at listening position. thus, one has an opportunity to compare the sound of an instrument with the recreation of the sound of the instrument heard through one's stereo system. one can vary components, to try to come as close as possible to the sound of the cymbal.

yes, it is not perfect and it is just a cymbal, but its a start and provides an indication of the differences between live and recording. you could also do this experiment using an acoustic guitar. however, mike placement may be more significant than for a cymbal.
9rw's avatar
9rw
318 posts
 
Newbee: Mrtennis has one solution, but it really isn't so complicated. You either know what a cello sounds like or you don't. Forget whether you're two feet away or two miles away. If you've been around live acoustic music and have paid attention you can tell if a system is coming remotely close to reproducing the sounds/textures/dynamics/nuances and invoking even a trace of the emotions you feel when you listen to a live event. The system is doing this or it isn't and no amount of rationalizing is going to change that fact.
More to discover