I dont undertstand how a microphone does not pick up certain frequencies in the live music - this really makes no sense. How can a microphone decide to ignore certain frequencies when its response covers the entire spectrum. And even more hard to beleive is that a speaker cabinet can magically know excatly what sounds were ignored by the mucrophone and reproduce these. it sounds like magical thinking to me, no offence. I would be looking into WHY the recording is not up to par, rather than build a faulty speaker cabinet
Superb question! Made a video response, but the sound was compromised, so I have to remake it. Briefly, there's zero magic involved with the process, it's all hard-core physics. The issue with recording is not the frequency range - the issue is directivity! The sound radiates from the instruments in a split directional/omnidiretional pattern, and the modern loudspeakers reproduce exclusively the directional component. Having the cabinet radiate as well (what I'm talking about), the omnidirectional component is provided as well. It is not perfect, but a lot better than the usual nothing. In addition, while our ears pick up sounds from any direction, the microphones have unique patterns. The event is never ever recorded completely, only soundwaves traveling in a specific plane. Expanded more on that, hopefully I can remake it soon. Until then you an check out this older video, with the largest controlled experiment between live and recorded music. Here, they used omnidiretional microphones to record. Yet, the speakers were unable to reproduce it, only the directive aspect, requiring the speakers do do more than they can with the usual approach. Here's my video on the seminal listening test, which every audiophile should be aware of: th-cam.com/video/nMfnnOZGokc/w-d-xo.html
During my review of No-rez I talked about some people liking a lively sounding speaker cabneit and that some engeeners Tune their crossover with the cabneit in mind - But i like how the norez helps my speaker disappear in the room
You perfectly describe what is so great about listening to music at home. Good job, I have been to many concerts and they are fun but my deepest, most spiritual experiences with music were always when I was alone listening carefully
What happens when a recording engineer puts all that resonant harmonic content into the recording that you like? Then your resonant system would add it again and it would be too much.
Very valid comment. However, most recordings done in our times are on the dry / ultra dry side so that's something I'm never ever worried about. I don't realistically see any recordings coming out in this decade where that could be a real issue.
Very well demonstrated how controlled resonance differs from just a cheap cabinet. My collection of Klipsch heritage line and the Legend KLF series 30. The inherent poor cabinet quality of the 30s were only ones that benefited from the NoRez lining. Originally bought for LaScallas but I felt as you do and happy I did not use on those. Thanks for another wonderful tutorial!
The “knock test” just doesn’t apply to very big horns as the resonances are just way below the threshold of hearing. The smaller the cabinets the higher the inside pressures and resonances…
So true! Cabinet resonances are a big problem for small cabinets, because the air pressure inside transmits energy to the cabinet much below its ability to resonate. All that excess energy will be converted to resonance at the peak of the cabinet's resonance spectrum. With a big live cabinet the resonant modes are not so problematic, because the cabinet is not forced to resonate octaves below the main resonant frequency, so the nasty resonant modes are not triggered.
Most pro cabinets are made from high ply count baltic birch and are stiff enough, Danny's use of impulse response measurements is accurate it always tell's you when some thing is showing up in stored energy. The fact the Real World Audio has build a robust sub chassis, means that any stored energy will likely disipate quickly and the wood becomes akin to a sound board in a guitar . But this needs to be judiciuosly worked out and some panels might benefit from no-res damping . Only the impusle response (waterfall plots) will show where those frequency's are and on which panels if you use an accelerometer.
@@ARGBlackCloud Thank you ARGBlackCloud, bulls eye, superb summary! ; ) My method for cabinet improvement will be to look for overly resonances using a stethoscope, and add a slim spruce ridge there for distributing the resonances over a wider surface for quick dissipation - so the energy is transferred to the cabinet, and then to air instead of being lost / smeared. My aim is to transfer as much energy as possible, and maintain highest possible resemblance to methods used by luthier to control resonances.
Dear Viewer, the link to the coffee-station, or, as I could call it, the Tea-house is right here: www.buymeacoffee.com/RealWorldAudio This is a way to support my channel in a hassle-free manner, and you can contribute as low as 2$ if you feel compelled. If so, I welcome your support with a warm welcome, it goes a long way to allow me to continue with this channel in the future! All your support will go towards improving this channel, and towards the tweaks and components I explore on the channel. János
.....................Yes you are right on the spot with your comments, so many audiophiles strubble and seem troubled by the matter because they do not understand it.........and your comment about what GR is doing with commercial speaker is also fully correct !
Pearl audio spent alot of time to get the sound of his sibelius he based it to sound like a instrument that it was reproducing reviews on the speakers are very good interesting he uses a modified mark audio driver and never plans on upgrading the speaker I've heard him in a interview comparing the cabinet to a violin body and spent alot of time to get the cabinet right.
I respect the Pearl Acoustics very much, his approach to loudspeaker design is an example for the industry to follow. Instead of spewing forth a new (or several new) half-baked "products" every year, he spent long years, decades coming up with a solid design that he perfected while staying very strongly in touch with music. He is doing recordings as well. Doing recordings is a very strong indication that the person is really into audio for the love of music, and not as a means to just make a living through selling a product.
I believe that Harley tuned the volume and length of the quarter wave horn of the Sibelius speaker, not the cabinet walls. Pearl Acoustics use 33mm solid oak...very inert! I doubt the Sebelius suffers from additive cabinet resonances: Harley Lovegrove is a recording engineer. Why would he want his speakers to corrupt the quality of his recordings? 🎶🤫🎶
@@impuls60 I wondered the same thing! - so I've built and borrowed Cabs for a specific purpose and used them for the opposite 'style' music. In general I've found when this type of thing is done either the top end becomes a bit to 'brilliant' OR the bad becomes Muddy. And of course horns get shouty.... Cheers
I love the live sound from shows. I just got some Lascallas and i feel they are the closest I have heard to "live sound". I must say that the recordings have alot to do with getting that concert sound that comes across you in a way that adds a feeling of bliss. With some recordings you just dont get that so I now am only searching for shows with that special sound.
After going through some of my CDs yesterday, I will say some recordings sound 3D with my system and make it sound like a 10K system. And others, like 70 percent of them sound “meh.” Aerosmith’s Get a Grip and Pump sound 3D; Journey’s Raised on Radio sound 2D. Steve Win woods Roll With It sounds 3D; Eric Clapton’s August sounds 2D.
Hi I just discovered your channel an interesting approach one that Harbeth has long shared though using a more conventional methodology. You mentioned something about an internal frame to which the cabinet panels are attached. How do you obtain wideband harmonics in your speaker cabinet panels? Might you elaborate upon that a bit more? Also, you mentioned that micrphones don't pick up the harmonics of western and indian classical concerts well. I dont follow why that would be so. Again, an explanation as to why would be most appreciated. You mentioned something about DiY but I see no direct reference to it in your video titles...
Hi Geoffrey, the wide range of frequency response comes from securing the baffle to a strong frame. The frame forces the oscillations to happen in a single plane, like a drum skin. Also, there is no burden on the baffle to support the weight and structure of the cabinet. The frame does all the support, the baffles are not subjected to the stress of static load bearing (which would otherwise force them to oscillate at their main resonance modes.) About the microphones: the sound that the human ear hears at a concert arrives from a wide array of angles. (That's how we hear a concert - very big portion arriving from the wall reflections.) Microphones are membranes moving back and forth. They pick up preferentially sound coming at right angle to the membrane, and pick very little of the other angles. So, a microphone hears something quite different than what a human ear would at the same spot.
This is quite interesting. Very intrigued by your resonant cabinet. So, the resonance is then only sympathetic to the point that it still doesn’t collude the detail? I’m personally trying to decide between a dead cabinet or one that is is designed or “tuned” or resonant. I suppose there is also the room to consider. In my case, a small room with a very responsive raised floor acting almost like a passive radiator. Was initially considering using some no rez in my quad S2’s to control low mid swell (that was noticeable when they were used in other rooms as well). But still worry that it will compress the richness they also communicate.
Did you hear something about no rez? 120€/m2. Extraordinary expensive! What is your vavorite Material? In germany we have a new damping foam. Called CARUSO.
I am a bit confused. I thought that the voigt transmission line speakers your built and talked about later on are supposed also to resonate and give real live music experience, but then I noticed that some of the plans I see on the internet use absorbing materials (in the narrow part in particular). I would be grateful if you can elaborate on that...
The filler on the top is to reduce the transmission line errors in the bass - it is just a very light filling, and very little. Yes, it deadens the sound, but not fully, leaves cabinet mostly live. You add as little of the filling as possible to tune the pipe to your room. You may not need any. Adding too much filling deadens the cabinet and completely ruins the sound.
I dramatically improved the sound of a pair of 3 way budget speakers by simply replacing the crossovers, clamp gluing a 1/2" thick sheet of plywood to the outside backside. And installing two 1" square hardwood crossbraces six inches apart in the middle to the inside running side to side. Kept the original poly fill on the inside back. They'll never be confused as audiophile grade, but even the wife, who doesn't care at all about music, noticed the improved difference. I don't think I'll be doing any resonance treatment in them. With a quality amp, they have a nice retro sound. Mid and highs are smooth, bass is tighter. They've never been bass monsters even with the 12" woofers, but the bass is definitely tighter without the bloat they did have.
Problem is that the moving cabinet resonates back toward the speaker cone. So, some note you will hear simultanely double or triple occasions because of the vibrations.
Wood transmits vibrations at approximately x15 -20 times the speed of sound, so it can radiate quite uniformly through a large surface. While we have this issue of simultaneous vibrations, the live cabinet radiates in an omnidirectional pattern. I think this omnidirectivity is a benefit that far surpasses any disadvantages the technology offers.
@@realworldaudio Hi Janos, so through a given panel, resonating and retransmiting the vibrations of the driver, we have only an amplification of the said vivrations, expended to more surface, with a little real time unphasing of some degrees. with the omnidirectional parameter, we finally have something that improves the 3D sound staging, helping to bring volume and placement to the sound. but it could also be a false 3D imaging process vs the recording. thinking about the tone and harmonic reconstruction, it's again a reason more to take advantage of the design. that been said, i would see the global structure as you made, but the distribution of vibrating panels made in a incremental way for the surfaces engaging their proper mass and size properties to tranduce different ranges of frequencies in a complete way, so that any panel couldn't enter in resonance with the opposite or the neighbour panel. with the VOL global goal, it would be a very interesting improvement? what do you think?
The cabinet is a high mass passive radiator. Did an experiment yesterday, placed a stethoscope on the Voice of Lancelot's cabinet and listened. It was just like listening to a woofer, I could follow the dialogues and all the bass instruments crystal clear. As I pressed the stethoscope harder, it played softer, and when pressing with approx a few kg strength, it went totally quiet. ;
I know that there is a so called "hi end" speaker ( about 10 grand a pair ) that are made out of solid wood and are made to resonate. They also designed to sit against the back wall of the room to take advantage of room gain for the bass. Two way design. Simple, elegant to look at. Unfortunately I have never listened to them. I wish I could remember the manufactuer.
Wow... i thought i was crazy! I too build speakers to add more to the music, because it just sounds so much more realistic! I use other specific materials and port designs... Once you build such speakers, you triamp and build custom crossovers for each driver. The synergy is just way better than commercially sold "expensive" speakers...
Hi Al, it's so refreshing to get actual experience as feedback. People just theorize on "what if", and "we know it better because textbook says so", but almost nobody takes the effort to actually try things, optimize and listen for themselves. :)
@@realworldaudio I let the manufacture provide measurements. After that, its all 100% listening test, using golden ears and experience! Cabinet construction, tryouts are all based on ear. The use of all electronics custom tuned is a must, down to the very special wire technologies... special alternative crossover methods are a must! Using metallic screens and over sized ports add so much more realism as well as usage of huge 4" driver pro horns and a well balanced pair of super tweeters tuned by a finely calibrated set of both electrolytic and wima caps with a drain load in the center... by the way, im a Electronics Engineer with an open mind...
Interesting take on the topic of speaker cabinet resonance and why to use anti resonance techniques in speaker building. Actually, I agree with most of what you said, including being in agreement with Danny at GR Research, as well as the benefit of anti resonance application for mass market speakers. To some degree, I think you're on to something, in that recorded music is not the same as a live performance, but I'm a bit fuzzy on how one can determine with any certainty what was missing vs what was picked up by mics and recorded, then studio edited. And... Even if there's a way to differentiate it, how would one design a speaker to transfer that missing information to the cabinet? The only thing that will cause resonance to the speaker cabinet is whatever's played back through the transducers, and the only thing they'll playback and potentially excite the speaker cabinet with, is what was recorded and edited, then played back. If a recorded track has a lot going on in any particular region of frequencies that translates to and audibly exhibits the natural frequency of that cabinet's material construction, it's difficult to quantify, impractically difficult to measure, and any intended built-in design work would be at best very hard, if not impossible to predict and equally as difficult to make resonate loud enough to audibly sum into the overall response characteristic of the loudspeaker system with any consistency. I would venture to say, that if a completed loudspeaker assembly exhibits less than a perfect response in some area, (for example a 400 Hz minus 10 Db suck-out), it would take an enormous amount of natural panel resonance to fill in that void. Again, very hard to predict, calculate, or design into a cabinet. About the only way I can imagine it would help, is if the void or drop in frequency was minimal and the cabinet resonance was tightly controlled to only resonate within that narrow window, and at a sound pressure level that was sufficient to supplement that inherent shortcoming of that particular fully assembled loudspeaker. For example, if your finished design exhibits an area where the response is down by 1 Db between 200 - 600 Hz, and you can make the cabinet resonate in that region loud enough to compensate for that. That being said, I would say it's a stretch to attempt to incorporate panel resonance caused by a traditional transducer, in such a way it would benefit the overall sound and measuring it would take an extremely well built anechoic chamber and seriously accurate measuring to distinguish. I do think it's a plausible idea however, but it would need something more like a hybrid DML and traditional design to accomplish. I'm guessing that if you're hearing audible differences between what you refer to dead cabinets and live cabinets, it's likely not external panel resonance you're hearing but potentially it could be reverberation, standing waves and echo inside the cabinet, (especially if it's not damped), coming through the woofer cone, bass reflex vents or ports if equipped, and the cabinet walls. My two cents anyway. Excellent observations, but the theory of cabinet materials transferring resonance from the absence of recorded sound that doesn't exist, loud enough to be heard has some giant holes. Any resonance of your speaker cabinet construction is more likely from the recorded signal causing a natural resonance at particular frequencies from the external source e.g. recorded sound playing through a transducer intensely enough to excite the cabinet materials, something inside the cabinet, or the woofer cone itself. I'd be interested to see how you plan for, measure and control your cabinet resonances. Do you have certain videos you could recommend that demonstrate that speaker building technique? Thanks
I have a pair of original Altec 817A(that’s the installation/indoor version) and at first they look kind of “flimsy” compared to todays high-end ultra expensive models. They are only made out of 18 mm. material! But bare in mind they are still app 115 kg. with the 515 s. I have never been able to physically fell any vibrations at normal listening levels, by the time you are able to fell some vibrations the sound level is so high you have left the room! I added some app 10-15 kg of extra damping just for the sake of it but honestly I am not able to detect any improvement or different SQ. So now I am left with a cabinet that is almost impossible to move as the total most be in the 120-130 kg. range… and that’s just the mid-bass cabinet.
Another great video, so much info on this one! ++1 for properly designed live cabinets, Indian instruments & Ustad Zakir Hussain! Greetings from a very wet Bangalore, India, rained so heavily last night I could hear the rain through my closed back headphones!! I've been fortunate enough to listen to several Indian maestros perform live from up-close, most speakers don't really do justice to their ability to manipulate their instruments in ways that shouldn't be possible! Also had the privilege of watching Iron Maiden, Guns & roses, Metallica & Amon Amarth (among others) perform live in Bangalore, those giant monster cabinet arrays these pros use aren't really comparable to anything in home HiFi audio. It all feels very surreal (not realistic) up close, transporting our minds to another dimension like you mentioned :) It's not very realistic to expect live performance levels inside any enclosed space mainly because of room reflections & resonances. The absolute best realistic hifi design in my opinion is still a full length open baffle line array, still not available for purchase anywhere in the world!!
Thank you Vikas! Seeing Ustad Zakir Hussain in person, working his magic on he tabla was pure rapture. His playing is something that is not happening at the human level, it is completely transcendent. I have a little drumming experience, with dumbek, and also started learning the basics of tabla, and have seen several fantastic tabla players up close. (And have Western drummer friends, and heard and seen some of the best Western drummers work their magic.) Yet, Ustad Zakir Hussains playing seemingly defies all human logic, he makes the impossible happen. Even though I heard him many times on recordings, seeing how fast his hands move, and create seemingly endless rythms waved together on just two drums, and how is he making the sounds with incredible timing defies all logic. I just cannot emphasize the level of his mastery. If we compare the skills of even the best Western drummers, they are like children in comparison. And that's not belittling the best of drummers. It's how elevated Ustad Zakir Hussains skills are. Also, in general, classical Indian music is about 500 years more advanced (both instrument technology and mathematics of the music) than Western music, and requires an entirely different level to master.
Hey i have just stumbled upon this concept of live cabinet ...can you suggest some more videos on this " live cabinet" and controlled resonance concept!
Hi Ramon, very tough issue as the main resonator in cars is the metal frame & chassis itself, and we cannot add enough dampening to affect the resonances of half a ton of chassis and frame. : ( If we want a lot of low frequency extension in a car, perhaps the only way is to use DSP to avoid the hyper-massive resonance modes of the frame and chassis. My approach to car stereo is to have bass down to 60Hz or so, and do not force it below significantly as the interior of the cabin does not allow formation of lower sound waves. It would be just a massive pressure zone creating massive listening fatigue, and the ones who can hear really the bass are the poor victims outside the car. (The waves of deep frequencies can form only outside the car, they are largely inaudible inside, just felt as violent pressure-changes in your chest). So, instead of forcing what would always be a compromise, I let the car be the vehicle of beauty in the midrange. Every day I commute in the car, and on highway speeds the 10-40Hz frequency range is already 80-100dB, super loud from the traffic and road noise.... if I want material in that range to be noticeable, then I had to crank it quite above 100+dB. After a few weeks my hearing would be already compromised.
@@ramongomez6720 Ahh, the elusive black goo! (The automotive adhesive for windshields). My mentor Stu LOVED it to death, although not as an all-out dampening material to treat the inside, but as a moldable material to break up surface sound reflections. That's the only tweak I viciously hate because it stains everything, ruins every surface it touches, and it's impossible t remove from clothes / carpet / any surface without the harshest solvents (acetone). So, I use blue tac instead (80% as effective, yet leaves no stain). Will dedicate a few videos to it, as it's an incredibly powerful tool and removes practically all issues associated with reflections / diffraction with wide front baffles. (Brielfly, when properly applied, it can bring an astonishing improvement in the three dimensionality of the sound stage).
Look up sound deadening material for cars on Amazon. It comes in thin squares that you peel off the paper backing and you press on the aluminum side with a roller. It's thin and heavy
@@ramongomez6720 Ah, I see. That's self adhesive a butyl sheet, fulfills same function as no-rez, mass-loaded vinyl and similar dampening sheets. The real gem from the car industry is the windshield adhesive tacky black goo. Audio note uses it to couple the drivers to the cabinets & its use on the baffle surfaces to prevent reflections / diffractions will elevate any and every cabinet. Essentially you can use it to elevate good / great speakers to greater heights. The damping sheets are of very limited use in comparison, to fix compromised cabinets which were voiced poorly. If you were wondering if the butyl sheet or mass-loaded vinyl could be used instead of no-rez - the answer is yes. ;
he is financially motivated , you are not , plus how do get passed the small size of tone wood , do you think if I use clamps and join a few pieces would it be similar to using a one large baffle as the lumbers are quite long but not wide enough for 15 and 18 inch drivers from pro audio
Yes, you can clamp together several narrow pieces to form a wider one. Just make sure that the grains run the same way (longitudinally), and it will act as a single wider sheet. They use this technique for piano soundboards, which are too big to make from a single piece.
@@cobar5342 he is claiming it is the best period plus he has been giving out reviews these days , audio is a dirty business , u follow him and u will end up with a flat boring speaker and the room also adds to the sound , all he does is put better crossover parts , I would stick with original crossover with better quality
It sounds great to me - It just depends on the recording to be honest. Cello/Counter bass can sound like... I mean, I go to the church to listen to the performances, and the way the notes are clean and you sort of have this physical impression from them. And I hear that coming from no box, no place, like, a ghost playing in the room. The moment you add speaker resonance, the boxes are there, and this "meat" becomes a distinct boomy thickness that I personally find distracting and sounds nothing like reality neither. Death boxes sound far more real to me. I do not think we can reach real life dynamics anyways, so we are bound to what we have.
Thank you Bastian! Indeed, box sound can be so obtrusive, and in best cases just plain unnatural. That's why I do not build "speaker cabinets", when I build them I build them as music instruments, with design goals, criteria and solutions used by luthiers (of course, with limitations to practicality). Cheers, Janos
BTW Janos, Tabla is not exactly indian drums if you really wanna hear the insane indian "Drums" you have to listen to Dhol which is possibly the biggest instrument in the world. You can the Dhol instrument in like say the video song called "Nagada Sang Dhol "
Why not taper your "tone wood" panels like an instrument to avoid strong single note resonances. It would be interesting for you to publish accelerometer readings from each of your panels to see which notes are added. What about quarter notes for Indian music? To my mind "High Fidelity" implies a different approach..... sorry 🎶🤫🎶
I think you make a very good point & I have thought the same for years, the speaker cabinet is no different than a musical instrument, I may make my ports on my next project shaped like f holes, just because why not
Great video I just saw this two years after you did it. A way I’m able to get some of a great vibration sound is with my or anybody with a Yamaha receiver there are a couple dozen modes of theaters, jazz clubs, churches ECT. Most music is best straight out but certain jazz and blues in some of the jazz hall pre-sets you feel like you’re all of a sudden there. Most of the church modes have too much reverb but some classical recordings in the Hall in Munich mode close your eyes and it feels like you’re about Dead Center, First row of the balcony. It puts you there it’s crazy. Unfortunately, when being reviewed, they probably don’t have the time to experiment and figure out how to make it flow.
First off, that's jacked up placement for those large speakers. They're much too close to room boundaries and obstruction objects. Your stereo imaging and soundstaging must be pretty bad - I bet they sound pretty boxy and are able to be easily pinpointed. Generally, you'd want your speaker drivers to produce the sound, not your speaker cabinets. I have grave doubts on the SQ of your system and it's ability to produce accurate sound. Do you though - if you like it, I love it.
I am far from an expert, but here is my understanding of the „resonance matter“: There are two types of cabinet distortion (or distortions in general) to consider: (a) additive and (b) subtractive. Speakers that try to kill all resonances run the danger of removing too much energy from the sound. They often sound much less lively and natural than my own Audio Note AN-Es to my ears. I interpret this as subtractive distortion. Instead of looking at cabinet resonances as a separate thing, I would look at the sound a speaker produces as a whole. It‘s the interplay between the drivers AND the cabinet. Dead (and heavy) cabinets don‘t just kill resonances but sound. You said it, the key is „controlled resonances“. My thesis is that one cannot get rid of cabinet resonances without sacrificing musical energy. Just because a speaker has cabinet resonances does not mean that it will sound colored. Resonances can aid the drivers and make the whole speaker sound more faithful to the recording. Just my 20 cents…
Regarding the subjective side of things, Audio Note AN_E Speakers to me sounds very distinct, and for my wife they "sound horrible! Who would be so dumb to pay that much for them" - her words. I play from Metal, to salsa, to EDM, to Paco de Lucia, to Dvorak and I expect everything to sound great. It is not that they sound bad, but they sound EXTREMELLY colored and congested by comparison to a solid design. How loud do you play? The louder you crank them, the worse it becomes! it does sound coloured and I can not only hear the coloration, and with it, how congested and thick the sound can turn in certain frequencies, but It is also easy to see the ringing on the box in the measurements. I feel AN is far more an instrument, a taste, than a hi-fi tool. It presents music under their light, and glad some folks like it. To me? Hm... It really gets me that this guy has the balls to charge that much for a sub optimal tool, or for other to try his taste. Here comes a Japanese brand that uses the same principle with cheap plastic to enhance the psychoacoustic experience in cheap systems, because this guy is not reinventing the wheel. But there is this big consumer monster selling the same principle on the cheap (because it is a cheap trick) and we call it NOT hi-fi, we trash them, and state how unbearable is to play music with 10%+ harmonic distortion, but then a guy in the UK words his marketing differently, applies veneers to boxes and now it is proper hi fi? No, I am having none of that. We are paying for a boutique development of someone's view of sound, and sure... let's leave it then to the "Connoisseurs" of "high end" sound, so they can forever eternally swap cables and fuses trying to make those boxes sound reasonably good. I am a simple man, and much prefer a copper cable, and a predictable and proper made speaker that one can work with to address reasonable the issues it might represent in the room they have been installed.
@@BastianUllr Hi Bastian, did you try the AN-E in a full AN system, or in a non-AN system? When I heard them it was in a full AN system and they we so remarkably colorless that to this day it was the only commercial speaker / system I heard that had no noticeable coloration. I have no recollection of the system's voicing at all, there were no noticeable colorations that could be attributed to the speakers. When AN-E speakers are plugged to different systems, they let the colorations of the system come through unfiltered. Plug the same AN-E to three different systems, and it will sound with drastically different colorations reflecting the gear. The AN-E line has dozens of speakers, from mid-level to extremely high (Toyota Camry to Bentley), so experiences may vary greatly depending on which one is in question. My experience with AN-E came with the top of the line model 20 years ago, in the top AN system, so might not represent the lower end models behavior so well. There I defer to the accounts of the users of these speakers. In general, AN equipment are strictly voiced to match each other, trying them in different systems leads to spectacular failures - not because the speakers or amps etc have problems, but because of extreme mismatch. Digging in my memories the entry level Audio notes do have strong coloring, but the top models are the most colorless and natural, highest fidelity one can find commercially. This was my impression when I heard them 20 years ago when I lived in Europe.
@@BastianUllr the beautiful thing about our hobby is that there are plenty of choices. If the sound of AN-Es is not your thing, then buy whatever else floats your boat. It’s a good thing to have diverging opinions and to be open about them. However, why do you proceed to barrage the whole brand?
@@realworldaudio it was a full AN system, we were not impressed. Classical sounded let’s say, pretty and thick, grand at a volume regularly I’d expect to sound thin and yeah. Some folks might benefit from this, I’m sure. Different listening habits. But for me was Simply underwhelming, and the price tag was hefty. I guess I’m in the look for something different. However, see the comparison you made. We are placed on very different sides of the spectrum as people. I would NEVER trade a Camry for a Bentley, unless I would want to sell the Bentley, buy a Camry and who knows what more with the money left from the sale. Not that I don’t respect motor sports and its history. It’s just that I would appeal immediately as to which one is the best tool from both of them to transport myself, I need no style, I care none for pride of ownership. Much less I have a chauffeur to send to leave and pick up the car from service the countless times I’d need to do so. Not strong colouring. The amplifiers are great for a tube amp, no doubt. The issue to me is how the speakers sounded. But no doubt a person looking for that kind of bloom would hear my system and likely think it’s sterile and lifeless, since it sounds so much more like headphones over a neutral amp. I’m a solid state guy, my speakers are braced to the bones. Anyways, I sort of know a folk who collects music from the 60/70 and he swears by AN, yet his concern is not linearity nor he cares for the chase of fidelity, but of the most emotional rendition of his records. Whatever that means, he seems to have arrived close to where he wants to be.
I have helped my speakers get a better life Like, live sound by putting a speaker upward as you have done. If you want dead sound make them out of concrete I guess LOL
Indeed! A good friend of mine actually has a pair of speakers made of concrete! Recently helped him move, and WHAT A ROYAL PAIN IT IS TO MOVE CONCRETE SPEAKERS!!! Talking about breaking your back! :) He said they have great bass, but I've never heard him play them, so cannot tell much. He's playing around with FR speakers, and the concrete speakers are in storage. That sums it up. LOL :)
before to continu watching the video ...........it is clear that'd there is much confusion about and between the different approaches of reproducing music ...........Danny is focussed on regular industrial audio speakers for ( today's high end / commercial audio ) and Janos has the approach of musical event /reproduction versus the actual audio industry. One's goal is commercial benefit uner the label off perfect pure sound , the other is living music to identify as a believable musical event......................the illusion of an almost perfect technology versus a human musical experience ( for the human soul ) A piano sounds different at any moment, place , temperature ( climat ) , the piano player ...........and the position and the mood of the listener...............but it's still and always a piano...............this is NOT the case with high end audio..... Distortion figures are valid with fixed frequencies and thier importance is quite different and variable as an audible experience..........if it measure good or perfect than it sounds like that ............WE KNOW BETTER FOR A LONG TIME ! The problem is that in many cases one CAN NOT argue about it ............people are totaly brainwashed with beliefsystems ( and not only for audio/music reproduction ) Very expensive systems in shows like Axpona .......................they sound nothing like real life but may be very impressive , i have to leave after some minutes because they hurt my musical feeeling and creates almost instantly listening fatigue ( in my case ). So there's an enormous GRAND CANYON between those two different approaches and most pêople are not capable to imagine a bridge from both sides off the canyon.
Thank you Frank! Indeed, my goal is to hear the HUMAN behind the instruments. To feel what the musicians feel. To GET what they want to SHARE. It's uncanny how attuned we can get to the musicians intent.... to me, that's all that matters, music as a "tool" to CONNECT to a bigger reality, to receive the intent, the message. Shows are empty and pointless, it's just the wrapping paper. Sure, one can appreciate a nice wrapping paper... to me what matters is what is in the "box" .
@@realworldaudio precisely my point. So you guys are saying my system lacks soul? Every time I play Dvorák I have my heart in my hand, but it’s just my poor taste because I like wrappers? And not because my system is a number chaser (what’s the point of a 360kmh car when you would never take it off the street to go to the restaurant? In practical terms, to certain margins, things can be sufficient and even preferable.), but then the problem is, it does actually measure bonkers good, and I don’t think it lacks soul. I have listened to the difference, and I did not prefer it. But I don’t say it’s not good. I say, why you guys think Is simply better and the one who actually connects? I don’t connect, I didn’t like it. It doesn’t get me, it sounds more like a stereo to my ear than mine. Would I dare to say that mine has more souls than yours? Heck, I’ve cried to a song in a sweet afternoon using headphones of 15 bucks with a disk man Panasonic in my lap. I don’t need to be a snob to hear the soul of the music maybe? And hence I call the whole thing out, stating, why psychoacoustics works only good when is used by certain brands and certain pseudo principles. I can use DSP and lift the area that the box tends to enhance. It sounds even cleaner and provides the lift in the chest area. What gives? But I don’t even feel I need to because it’s placed so it measures accordingly to where I sit and my habits of loudness. So, different approach? Sure. But to the extent that I don’t have taste or cannot get to the musician talking to me because my system has inert speakers? Two different pairs of inner speakers that don’t sound like each other by the way. Nah… not having any of it.
@@BastianUllr Hi Bastian, you have brought up a super important aspect of audio system choices, that it always comes down to execution of individual systems. We cannot universally generalize that a system would work or not, as there's always room acoustics and personal preference to take into account. Every single audio chain (no matter cost or refinement) has issues, and it is up to us to pick the one we can live with, that resonates with us, that matches our room. The weaknesses of other approaches always strike us as major roadblocks, so I do not think there will ever be an audio system that is accepted equally by everyone. I have noticed that whatever audio gear I started fiddling around with, I could always make it sound in a way that caused me joy and happiness. The crucial difference to me was the amount of work put in to reach that level - it comes to me naturally with purist approach, I understand that road very deeply, and was urged by my friends to share this experience with the world. That's what this channel is about, and I describe its possible advantages because this road is almost unknown, or has very little attention in the general audiophile community. Nevertheless, it should be possible to create a system with inert speakers and DSP that can give a deep emotional response and a full experience. I have no experience with achieving that (because I have not tried), so I cannot share pointers on how to get there. However, I am more than happy to hear you made it work, verified by your friends who heard your system, and that there are more than a few way(s) to reach deep appreciation of music. It's been 20 years since I heard AN, and at that time I thought that the lower models were indeed colored sounding but they each suited a specific genre perfectly. The Ongaku - M9 pre - IO TT however was extremely neutral, as close to sitting in the concert hall as possible. I'd be curious though how I would interpret the AN sound if I heard it again after 20 years of my transformational audio journey... as I understand PQ made a lot of changes since, and I cannot testify to what direction. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences! Your sharing is very important to me, as you cover part of the audio journey where I have only passive experience, only listening to other systems - some on the budget level, some on the dark side of the moon as far as expenses go.
Thicker solid wood gives a darker / deeper tone, with lowered dynamics compared to a properly built live cabinet. Ultimately it's a question of taste, which is one's preference and what music one listens to.
It looks weak to blame the recording equipment when it is just your own and preference and bias that are at play here. Then speakers that omitting the cabinet issue all together like some of Danny Richie top of the lines open baffle, Clayton Shaw Spatial Audio, Linkwiz LX521, PureAudioProject quintet15, Jamo R 909, magnapan, Gunnar Hildén - Oido Audio Oido 12 OBEM, Martin Logan, Quad and so on and on to mention a few. I think that MAYBE it is NOT that the microphone is not able to pickup the colouration and added distortion that you and some of your friends may like. I think that is MORE likely that you like that colouration and added distortion.🤔 IF the the microphone is not able to pick up some mystical/mythical sound from a performance you have been in a particular good mood yourself when listening (nobody as you said sneezeed, farted or fighting traffic and so on at that particular event.) And the way to go is to add back that mystical/mythical "lost" sound by a vibrating some box/panels. Then all the buyers that spent their hard own money into a open baffle/dipole speaker as some of them mentioned that has NO cabinet and 0% box colouration and distortion from the same when there is NO box at all.. So the bottom line you think that ALL of those many thousands of dipole speaker owners CAN NOT EXPERIENCE what a live event sounds like when the microphones can't capture "all" the sound! It is MORE LIKELY that you my friend like and have a individual bias of what you think it should sound like than that is something inadequate with thousands of different models of microphones. (And it doesn't matter if you bring a hand full of friends, I think the dipole owners has also friends. So that doesn't prove anything. 😉) Is it so hard to say: "I like colored sound that has nothing with what how it actually sounded like when it were performed that I am able to create with some extra added distortion." Or is it better to say: "I recreated the sound that microphones can't capture with vibrating little bit extra with some panels so it add back what the microphone were not able to capture!" Yeh, the last statement is better because then YOU feel good and are superior to all recording engineers, microphone developers and all other engineers out there in the world that over many decades and lifetimes of work that were dedicated only to music. Were not able to fix.. Sorry it is not my intention to sound harsh but I just trying to determine logically if there is any valid point with flawed microphones and that a vibrating box is needed. And I am not convinced of that is the case.. 🥰👍🙏🎶🎵🎼
I love your comment, that you bring up so many new aspects. Actually, I love that there is so much diversity, and that engineers are employing so vastly different techniques and solutions to solve the compromises we have with our recording and playback technology. I don't think there is a serious flaw in the recording processes used. Yet, a number of recording engineers/ professionals are adamant that the process is flawed, hence, I'm also obliged to point out the imperfections - not because I diss these people, but because I respect them enough to heed and share their warnings. I enjoy and love pretty much every audio system I hear (unless it causes significant listening fatigue), and I do appreciate their strengths more than I fault their weaknesses. Yet, if I were not to point out weaknesses, I would be simply giving garbage on my channel as everything is filtered rosy and peachy, and I'm would not be sincere just a grinning bobble head. I feel I have the obligation to tell my subjective impressions (as subjective as it gets) as I do not see this happening in the audio world. Most speaking on the matter have financial interests that require careful wording. I have none. When someone is already happy with their system or recordings, that's the best news for me, I do not want to convert anyone to any approach..... just sharing my experiences, so those who are unhappy can learn from it and perhaps find what they are looking for, in case what I share resonates with their own experiences. I hope my unusual sharings will help that process. Of course not every single person (sadly), as we are all so different and often want to reach diametrically opposing goals, and I cannot word every sentence that it triggers the right subsocnscious associations in every single viewer (as the same sentence elicits vastly different reactions based on the viewers mind frame - which I have no control over at all.) Back to the mikes: what I said is based on physics. Because of directionality the microphones capture less reflected sound VS direct radiated sound. This is a fact, that is the consequence of the technology used, and was already reported in the 50s by audio professionals that it significantly skews the tonality if the recording. (Since, we have been developing / using microphones with much higher directivity then back then, so this is perhaps an even bigger issue now in general than it used to be.) I'm not blaming anyone, nor trying to establish superiority, simply reminding everyone of what's always been in front of us. Employing a well-designed live cabinet to me renders the tone and harmonic nature of wooden body instruments better than using a deadened cabinet. Is it more "correct" than a dead cabinet? No. Does it sound better to me subjectively? Definitively yes. There is an observation that is made by all (who participate in the test): when you have a guitar, a piano, or a cello properly setup in the room, it will make the piano, guitar, cello, etc on the recording sound more natural (regardless the system / recording). It always makes the instrument sound more natural. The live cabinet strategy is to turn the cabinet into a music instrument, so you always have at least one music instrument in the room.... Of course, I agree that this might not be what you want when one listens to music that does not involve a violin, a piano or a cello, or when one desires the absolute leanest studio sound. No technology of "perfect", this is just my interpretation that I find subjectively way more desirable than others, and as such, I refer to it as "better", for lack of a better word. We are all forced to pick a design goal, and mine is to render violin, cello, guitar, sitar, tabla as NATURAL and REAL to my perception as possible. So, the approach I show might work if that's your goal, and will not when one prioritizes others (such as pure studio sound). Just because things can be ALWAYS improved upon is not reflecting badly on the people who were involved with the design of microphones, recording system, engineers, players, luthiers, etc... it's just a simple fact of life. We can always do more, the road is never at an end. I'm just pointing at kinks in the road. This does not make me smarter or better. My aim is to HELP so you can go further than I did.
Bro this channel is not for you if u think gr research does anything to u speaker u are a fool the way to change the speaker is by changing cabnit material , cabnit volume , cables used , crossover parts , he only does one thing, plus making everything flat is the stupidest thing he does and I know whe he does it show people like u that ur little audio knowledge is valid when u don't no nothing , make a few speakers and then come here fan boy
@@realworldaudio Thank you for your reply. 💖 I do not understand what problem there is with microphone directionality we call it pickup pattern and there is several of those and a microphone is not only picking up sound from the point to were it is aiming towards the pickup pattern can be wider than that. So it is again up to the recording engineer to pick type and pickup pattern on the microphones and choose placement of it. To paint the sound picture that he want to present to you during the sound reproduction. If I understand it correctly you like classical music and often that is big orchestral pieces. Then the microphones are further away and from example string section of a orchestra. In that situation when: x Microphone is greater distance from the individual instrument x Microphone is picking up several instruments at once x Microphone is picking up more reflections of room than the instrument because of distance above Then I understand that the details you are talking about is lost and you want to put it back into the performance during your reproduction of the event. (Nothing wrong with the microphone it is the placement of it you dislike.) But that is decisions that the recording engineer have done and robed you THAT detail (vibrating wood) of experience. Due to traditions, impracticality to put a microphone in each instrument of a big symphony orchestra and mix it together. That would give you a TOTALY different experience and nothing you are able to experience in the auditorium when your ears are not for example IN the cello body when it is like the microphone many many meters away from it. So you want for example put back the cello/instrument 2-3 m in front of you.. That is cool.. That I can understand. So when a violin, piano, cello, guitar, mandolin and so on hit the frequency/ies that your speakers are tuned to and excite it so it vibrate and make a sound. Then all of those different types of instruments at X Hz will get the same added sound TONE from your active cabinet. So in principle the same tone for all the instruments at same frequency reproduced. I am a sound stage guy and likes to listen to placement of instruments and their body. When not listening to orchestral music. Let say we are listening to a trio and the cello performer is on the left of the phantom center. why would I want a wood cabinet on the right if the drums is there.. that don't work for me anyway. So I see that your active vibrating box speakers is great/nice to get some intimacy/closeness added on far placed microphones there sound stage is of lower importance and more of importance is the total energy and dynamics of the whole orchestra! Regarding orchestra music I have a anecdotal story. I listen to all kind of music and I buy orchestral recordings on LPs especially for example 1812, Beethoven 5, Bolero, star wars (London philharmonic orchestra) and so on. I have several versions of each just to compare different productions and orchestras and so on. But for many years I have been disappointed of that I never heard the "fullness", big impact and I impressive BIG orchestral performance using conventional box speakers. Each time I stand there with my new LP and think wow now I will hear something big and impressive that will overwhelm me... and then I only get "mehh".. Yes, I hear all instruments, placement, performance and all that good stuff but I never got the big impact form a big orchestral that I thought that should overwhelm me as I were expecting a big symphony orchestra should/can do.. I were always disappointed in that department. But when I got my dipole magnapan speakers I found that suddenly got that qualities that no box speaker has done before! And my enjoyment factor took a big leap for just orchestral playback. I do not know why the reason is but I guess that when the magnapan is a dipole and plays as much backwards as forwards then I will get bigger and more "GRAND" presentation of a orchestra as I were expecting to get. My speakers is ~1.5 m away from the wall behind it so the sound that are going backwards toward the wall behind it and then bouncing back towards the speaker. Then the sound has travel 1.5+1.5 m at 22 degree C the sound speed is 344.31 m/s. That gives that the reflected sound is delayed by 8.7 ms and when it is greater than 5 ms that is the limit for the ear brain can separate the reflected sound from the direct sound.. (if it is lower than 5ms then the brain can not distinguish between what is the direct sound and what is the reflected sound it will get the perception of mushed together and that it is the "same" sound..) But anyway that added sound of the reflected full range sound bouncing back to sweet spot may be contributing that a full orchestral symphony setup is getting as "BIG" presentation as I expected it to be.. ..that were a pleasant surprise to me and most welcome one. What I am trying to say is that dipole AND correctly setup can enhance enjoyment of full symphony orchestral recordings as it did for me.👍
@@AmazonasBiotop There was a remarkable study done in 1956 when they recorded and orchestra in the concert hall. Then had both orchestra and the playback system on the stage and played it to the audience, who witnessed it as a very complex A/B test with both open and blinded components. When the stereo was playing, the orchestra faked as if they were playing - the string players used a second, treated bow with tape on it so it made no sound but looked convincing enough as if they were playing. They had about 100 trained spotters mixed in with the audience to observe their reactions and then to interview the rest of the audience in the intermission and after the performance. The majority of the audience could not tell recorded from live playing (unless they were sitting in first rows and had keen eyesight to spot the faking or heard the tape hiss). The giveaway for hearing recorded music for experienced listeners was that the tonal balance has shifted towards predominantly strings, and less wooden tone on the recordings. Yet, even most trained listeners reported that the recorded bits still sounded live. I think this is largely due to the microphone pickup pattern, although loudspeaker dispersion made it even worse.(The narrow dispersion might be the cause why you find box cabinets inadequate to render the scale and weight of an orchestra, but this is a separate train of thought.) I mentioned that study as it is the only true test for fidelity I know of, with real proportions and scale, with enough subjects involved (from complete dilettantes to golden ears the entire range participating), and keeping the hall acoustics constant in the equation. While this will probably seem primitive to you, compared to modern recording techniques, yet, the absolute simplicity of a pair of microphones (3 in this case for the concert hall) is capable of rendering a credible acoustic space. Nowdays we have the experience and knowledge and means to use multiple mikes, with multiple patterns - yet. Yet. Huge yet: when musical space is spliced from a number of microphones per stereo channel, then the original acoustic space is lost. As my second mentor noted, the only realistic acoustic space rendering comes from a single mike per channel, and I do agree with him. Fidelity to event exists only with authentic audio space.. of course, we can debate that, and it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Me, both of my mentors, and many of my most experienced audio friends we all have experienced this over and over. On systems that are capable of extremely high resolving power (resolving - not artificially contrasting), the authentic acoustic space is a quantuum leap in experience. (In a home listening setting, which is quite different from a studio session.) You have a radically different window of opportunity to study recording & playback. However, what you experience is not objective outside your studio. The recording goes through the filter of the monitoring equipment, and the final result / mixing relies on adapting to the colorations of the playback equipment. So, while you experience total neutraity and authenticity, it is not inherently neutral, but mirrors the voicing of the monitoring gear. Accuracy does not exist outside a closed system. As every recording crew has their own recipe, own monitoring system, every mix is different. What I, the user can strive for is to be able to play a wide rage of recordings with maximized experience. That's where system choices come in, to allow for that, without becoming over-specialized to play only the recordings of a singular recording/mastering engineer. Cheers;
@@realworldaudio I think the the biggest missing piece that I believe the creator of this video is trying to create is the room. I'm certain the mic picks up the resonance of the instrument. That is fundamental to the sound emitted by that instrument. When listening in a concert hall I have to believe you are much further away from the instruments than the mics are ( I could be wrong). Being further away would mean you are receiving a much larger portion of the room sound than the instrument sound. It sounds to me that this is an attempt to add "room" sound back into the recording.
I didn't get a point why you need panels to emit some sound? What are you missing in a music you listen to? Is this about "fixing" a crossover or a motor/membrane? PS "Piano board" is already recorded and present in a music in a proper ratio.. PS A mylar microphone membrane captures everything. What you're missing may be is a space your two ears capture better than one mic and one sound engineer. I think you try to create some artificial sounds which mimic like reflections captured with two ears simultaneously. But this is a way of an alone person. Because you create resonances only you like basing on your personal live listening experience, and which work only in your room. PSS You will always miss something cause you use boring electrodynamic drivers ))
Having a Resonance panel would be good for a speaker shortcomings. If the speakers selected had a dip in a frequency range. Then just like making horn loaded speakers or step baffles or ports in a speaker or any kind of sound enhancement to balance out a speaker. That means you would have to actually test your speaker by itself find out where it is lacking measure it record it. Then you’re trying to Mechanically make a particular panel by selecting different materials different thicknesses and different methods of suspension to resonate only in that frequency range that you want. What you can do and then take measurements again to show and prove that it has accomplish the same thing as a good speaker that doesn’t have that problem in the first place. Or could have been simply implemented in the crossover design without having to make a residence panel. But then all the good nice recordings especially the ones that are uncompressed will have a unusually high peak in the band at which that resonance panel is doing its job of enhancing which then would make the recording sound a natural. And to get a mechanical solid mass of material resonating to where it actually can multiply the signal only happens once you reach a certain threshold of power input where can overcome the mass and start operating more like a speaker service. That means all music that comes from that speaker with a resonance panel would actually be missing that additional residence from the panel at low power so again it would sound unnatural because it’s its lacking area. But yes having a floating free resonance panel would work excellent if you want that boost just like a pair of old pioneer BS 52 speakers that were enhanced to me at the bottom end to exaggerate the base and had high sparkling tweeters that were amazing for the first five minutes of listening to music for such a small speaker. For certain kinds of music and situations speakers like that are fun to listen to for a while on certain types of music .
The purpose of a speaker is to reproduce the signal. A speaker is not a musical instrument. To compare it to a piano is ridiculous. Great recordings of great musicians is all in the signal. Let the artist create and you just listen and enjoy. I don't want to hear you singing along with Dire Straits nor your speakers singing/resonating along with them either. Bad Direction buddy.
Thank you for your kind observation, no offense taken. Yet, it is incorrect to assume that inert cabinets reproduce the signal as it is in the recording. They do not. What is called as inert, is actually far from physically inert / neural. It is not possible to just quench out energy, dampening exactly means: smeared and taken out of time alignment and signal coherence. Definitely not my cup of tea as it results in an overly mechanized sound.
You adding Cabinet resonances to every recording is not logical approach to getting a live sound. Buy some klipsch speakers or any horn loaded P.A. type like they use in Live venues. Add a lot of reflective surfaces to your listening room. Don't change the source with your speakers! That is the job of the Artist, Mixer, and Master. Reverb, ambience, and all the extras are already added to the recording. Let the experts do their jobs. Yours is to reproduce and enjoy!
Loudspeakers are NOT musical instruments. Musical instruments PRODUCE music, loudspeakers REPRODUCE music. So if your purpose is Hi-Fi you can't design speakers that work like musical instruments, if your purpose is to have fun and get something you like that's fine as well but it is NOT Hi-Fi. It is a matter of UNQUESTIONABLE definition. The main reason why one would want to have speakers with cabinet sound is that in reality most people do not or cannot have any control on room acoustics and recorded material. These two are the main bottle necks in Hi-Fi. So even millionaire hi-end gear cannot do anything about it and actually is a complete waste of money...things get a lot better if at least room acoustics is under control (which is not putting some thin panels on the walls...).
The reproduction is never passive, it always adds its own character to what is being reproduced. There is no such thing as a perfectly inert cabinet. Resonances can only be transformed, energy cannot be taken away without consequences. Inert cabinets still add their own colors, which are quite nasty and not in harmonic correlation to the music as their level and frequency is altered to an extreme degree. We all need to pick a type of sound: higher level harmonic addition, or lower level non-harmonic mess.... Is it going to be resembling a music instrument or an industrial dream of plastic and metal. That type of plastic-taste distortion is not prominent on the most popular genres of music that audiophiles listen to (jazz, pop, funk, pop). Yet, for tonality and timbre, it's as disturbing as a shot of arsenic. (My ears are calibrated to live violin / guitar / piano.) Your hearing might work differently, we all assign different weights / importance to different acoustic cues. There's no perfect solution, only what agrees with us the most. Thank you for your comment! ;
@@realworldaudio The idea is that the original signal gets as much as possible identical to what is recored because there some art in it. The art (expression, interpretation etc..) is put in by the musician. Then you can do whatever you want but you are randomly altering the artistic value of a recording to make it pleasing to you ears. That it is not HiFi. It's a definition. Period. I say that, looking at your pictures, it's not about calibration of the ears! I play the piano and go often to live ( 100% acoustic, too) events. I think, actually I am pretty certain, that you don't like HiFi because YOUR system has a lot of systematic errors in it, starting from your listining room. On top of that, there are a number of them that people do not realize. For some people it is an impossible task to solve so all they have left is make it pleasing, nothing bad in it.
@@p.r.8049 Hi PR, indeed, my room is not an anechoic room, it is a "normal looking" listening room with room balanced, organic sound treatments (and professional highest level wall treatments). Its main goal is to function as a living room, conductive to a productive and welcoming family life, and to allow listening to music 10+ hours a day while we go about working on our hobbies. My point is that the recordings feel natural to me in my room & system: they come to life with a credible feeling that it's happening right here, and I am partaking of the performance, be it a string quartet, a genuine grand piano in my living room (I was living with an exceptional antique grand piano in our living room for a good many years), or a live rock or Pink Floyd concert. I have voiced my system exactly the way to suit all my needs down to the last T. It's not just me who finds it natural (yet very highly revealing and transparent). I had professional musicians and movie industry professionals (movie director, actors) point out that the sound in my system is extremely natural & authentic. Talking of piano, I had a professional pianist (student of Hector Villa-Lobos) moved to tears while listening. I find the mainstream ultra-high end solutions to generally sound a little (or a lot) off: they render the resolution but in a very mechanical way. My aim was reproduction where you can feel the presence of a living, breathing human being creating the music. Also, my system was accused to sound as "too audiophile" by someone who prefers colored, dreamy sound (and is an audiophile with very high credentials and experience). I cannot speak of every recording studio, and every recording chain as I have not heard feedback from all of them, and personally I was not present at every recording session in every studio. Generally though I have heard a lot of complaints about the recording quality from those who had such experiences, so if they were all so high fidelity, then it's a little mystery why there are thousands of reports from both professionals and music lovers all around the world reporting dissatisfaction. I am glad your experience is very different, I consider you very lucky to be working with a great recording crew and recording / playback equipment that mirrors your sonic perception. I know, you are not alone. There are tons of very positive accounts of experiences with very fruitful recording sessions as well. World is not just all extremes (not everything peachy or sour - there's a wide range, and I voice my system to sound natural, and present the event as authentically and honestly as possible with the widest range of recordings.) Thank you for sharing!
A listening room is NOT anechoic. I have never heard of anyone having an anechoic room as listening room. Don't know where you got this idea from. A living room with main function as family room, most of the time is not ideal. But everyone does what he can, I agree and I did not say that what you do and what you like is wrong but the only one on the extreme is you in the sense that what you do only applies to you. I am not in the professional audio by the way but it is true that not all recordings are good. In fact, listening room and recordings are the two big bottlenecks of HiFi (or whatever personal interpretation of it). It's definitely not the expensive gear that will make bad recordings sound better. Quite the contrary, assuming the listening room is not a problem. The only thing a methodical approach with common shared definitions and experience can bring over a subjective idea is avoiding errors over other errors. I do no attempt to give any judgment because it's simply impossible without being there. Good fortune.
Imagine the pure sound of a violin in steel......................with NO-REZ to make it sound better.....(LESS or NO DISTORTION =/= MUSIC for the soul.....)
Really??? REALLYYY?????? We are speaking of an INSTRUMENT. A violin is supposed to have the timbre (harmonics) of a violin! Not of a guitar, not of a car, but a violin. We are not trying to reproduce cleanly the sound of the string even, but to amplify mechanically the sound produced by the string with the enhancement provided by the box and the wood natural resonance. NOW, if you ask me, can I record this beautiful sound from the violin so I can listen to it every morning home? Sure! ... and what I would try to do is so when you play back sounds exactly like that beautiful violin, not like the F*** boxes you just paid to play back the beautiful violin. I do not want the Rumor of the violin, a sort of chewed up reproduction of it neither. For that, we can get Bose, or whatever speaker in the corner store. Do not come here to tell me that a "master tuner" can make proper resonances on a box. PLEASEE... it would work for some songs, and ring on another. It becomes completely unpredictable as to what would be the outcome. What a absolutely stupid argument you are coming up with. Imagine a violin made of wood mic'd nicely, and that you can hear the capture as you would've sitting where the Mic was. Why would I want a box coloration making all the process of reproducing that in my room, which is already a problem, even worse? WHY WOULD I PAY SO MUCH FOR MORE HASSLE! How many cables and crap have you already gone through to mitigate all the things you feel are wrong to start with? Please...
@@BastianUllr Frank made that comment as a joke, what would a violin sound if we treated it as an audiophile loudspeaker cabinet. I'm glad you are not thrilled with that possibility either ; ). Cheers, Janos.
I dont undertstand how a microphone does not pick up certain frequencies in the live music - this really makes no sense. How can a microphone decide to ignore certain frequencies when its response covers the entire spectrum. And even more hard to beleive is that a speaker cabinet can magically know excatly what sounds were ignored by the mucrophone and reproduce these. it sounds like magical thinking to me, no offence. I would be looking into WHY the recording is not up to par, rather than build a faulty speaker cabinet
Superb question! Made a video response, but the sound was compromised, so I have to remake it. Briefly, there's zero magic involved with the process, it's all hard-core physics. The issue with recording is not the frequency range - the issue is directivity! The sound radiates from the instruments in a split directional/omnidiretional pattern, and the modern loudspeakers reproduce exclusively the directional component. Having the cabinet radiate as well (what I'm talking about), the omnidirectional component is provided as well. It is not perfect, but a lot better than the usual nothing.
In addition, while our ears pick up sounds from any direction, the microphones have unique patterns. The event is never ever recorded completely, only soundwaves traveling in a specific plane. Expanded more on that, hopefully I can remake it soon. Until then you an check out this older video, with the largest controlled experiment between live and recorded music. Here, they used omnidiretional microphones to record. Yet, the speakers were unable to reproduce it, only the directive aspect, requiring the speakers do do more than they can with the usual approach. Here's my video on the seminal listening test, which every audiophile should be aware of: th-cam.com/video/nMfnnOZGokc/w-d-xo.html
During my review of No-rez I talked about some people liking a lively sounding speaker cabneit and that some engeeners Tune their crossover with the cabneit in mind - But i like how the norez helps my speaker disappear in the room
You perfectly describe what is so great about listening to music at home. Good job, I have been to many concerts and they are fun but my deepest, most spiritual experiences with music were always when I was alone listening carefully
Thank you for sharing! 👍👍
What happens when a recording engineer puts all that resonant harmonic content into the recording that you like? Then your resonant system would add it again and it would be too much.
Very valid comment. However, most recordings done in our times are on the dry / ultra dry side so that's something I'm never ever worried about. I don't realistically see any recordings coming out in this decade where that could be a real issue.
So who are consuming these lesser recordings? Don't mastering houses assume the end consumers playback systems?
@1st-Harmonic One other aspect is, how a person holds their tongue.
Very well demonstrated how controlled resonance differs from just a cheap cabinet. My collection of Klipsch heritage line and the Legend KLF series 30. The inherent poor cabinet quality of the 30s were only ones that benefited from the NoRez lining. Originally bought for LaScallas but I felt as you do and happy I did not use on those. Thanks for another wonderful tutorial!
You are welcome L.B.! ;
The “knock test” just doesn’t apply to very big horns as the resonances are just way below the threshold of hearing. The smaller the cabinets the higher the inside pressures and resonances…
So true! Cabinet resonances are a big problem for small cabinets, because the air pressure inside transmits energy to the cabinet much below its ability to resonate. All that excess energy will be converted to resonance at the peak of the cabinet's resonance spectrum. With a big live cabinet the resonant modes are not so problematic, because the cabinet is not forced to resonate octaves below the main resonant frequency, so the nasty resonant modes are not triggered.
Very interesting.
Most pro cabinets are made from high ply count baltic birch and are stiff enough, Danny's use of impulse response measurements is accurate it always tell's you when some thing is showing up in stored energy. The fact the Real World Audio has build a robust sub chassis, means that any stored energy will likely disipate quickly and the wood becomes akin to a sound board in a guitar . But this needs to be judiciuosly worked out and some panels might benefit from no-res damping . Only the impusle response (waterfall plots) will show where those frequency's are and on which panels if you use an accelerometer.
@@ARGBlackCloud Thank you ARGBlackCloud, bulls eye, superb summary! ; ) My method for cabinet improvement will be to look for overly resonances using a stethoscope, and add a slim spruce ridge there for distributing the resonances over a wider surface for quick dissipation - so the energy is transferred to the cabinet, and then to air instead of being lost / smeared. My aim is to transfer as much energy as possible, and maintain highest possible resemblance to methods used by luthier to control resonances.
Dear Viewer, the link to the coffee-station, or, as I could call it, the Tea-house is right here:
www.buymeacoffee.com/RealWorldAudio
This is a way to support my channel in a hassle-free manner, and you can contribute as low as 2$ if you feel compelled. If so, I welcome your support with a warm welcome, it goes a long way to allow me to continue with this channel in the future! All your support will go towards improving this channel, and towards the tweaks and components I explore on the channel.
János
.....................Yes you are right on the spot with your comments, so many audiophiles strubble and seem troubled by the matter because they do not understand it.........and your comment about what GR is doing with commercial speaker is also fully correct !
Pearl audio spent alot of time to get the sound of his sibelius he based it to sound like a instrument that it was reproducing reviews on the speakers are very good interesting he uses a modified mark audio driver and never plans on upgrading the speaker I've heard him in a interview comparing the cabinet to a violin body and spent alot of time to get the cabinet right.
I respect the Pearl Acoustics very much, his approach to loudspeaker design is an example for the industry to follow. Instead of spewing forth a new (or several new) half-baked "products" every year, he spent long years, decades coming up with a solid design that he perfected while staying very strongly in touch with music. He is doing recordings as well. Doing recordings is a very strong indication that the person is really into audio for the love of music, and not as a means to just make a living through selling a product.
So what happens when a speaker tuned to mimic violin harmonic content plays an electic guitar note?! Nothing good I would imagine.
I believe that Harley tuned the volume and length of the quarter wave horn of the Sibelius speaker, not the cabinet walls. Pearl Acoustics use 33mm solid oak...very inert!
I doubt the Sebelius suffers from additive cabinet resonances: Harley Lovegrove is a recording engineer. Why would he want his speakers to corrupt the quality of his recordings?
🎶🤫🎶
@@impuls60 I wondered the same thing! - so I've built and borrowed Cabs for a specific purpose and used them for the opposite 'style' music.
In general I've found when this type of thing is done either the top end becomes a bit to 'brilliant' OR the bad becomes Muddy. And of course horns get shouty....
Cheers
I love the live sound from shows. I just got some Lascallas and i feel they are the closest I have heard to "live sound". I must say that the recordings have alot to do with getting that concert sound that comes across you in a way that adds a feeling of bliss. With some recordings you just dont get that so I now am only searching for shows with that special sound.
After going through some of my CDs yesterday, I will say some recordings sound 3D with my system and make it sound like a 10K system. And others, like 70 percent of them sound “meh.” Aerosmith’s Get a Grip and Pump sound 3D; Journey’s Raised on Radio sound 2D. Steve Win woods Roll With It sounds 3D; Eric Clapton’s August sounds 2D.
Hi I just discovered your channel an interesting approach one that Harbeth has long shared though using a more conventional methodology. You mentioned something about an internal frame to which the cabinet panels are attached. How do you obtain wideband harmonics in your speaker cabinet panels? Might you elaborate upon that a bit more?
Also, you mentioned that micrphones don't pick up the harmonics of western and indian classical concerts well. I dont follow why that would be so. Again, an explanation as to why would be most appreciated.
You mentioned something about DiY but I see no direct reference to it in your video titles...
Hi Geoffrey, the wide range of frequency response comes from securing the baffle to a strong frame. The frame forces the oscillations to happen in a single plane, like a drum skin. Also, there is no burden on the baffle to support the weight and structure of the cabinet. The frame does all the support, the baffles are not subjected to the stress of static load bearing (which would otherwise force them to oscillate at their main resonance modes.)
About the microphones: the sound that the human ear hears at a concert arrives from a wide array of angles. (That's how we hear a concert - very big portion arriving from the wall reflections.) Microphones are membranes moving back and forth. They pick up preferentially sound coming at right angle to the membrane, and pick very little of the other angles. So, a microphone hears something quite different than what a human ear would at the same spot.
wonderful video - such passion for music. and fascinating observations about live music vs. recordings
This is quite interesting. Very intrigued by your resonant cabinet. So, the resonance is then only sympathetic to the point that it still doesn’t collude the detail? I’m personally trying to decide between a dead cabinet or one that is is designed or “tuned” or resonant. I suppose there is also the room to consider. In my case, a small room with a very responsive raised floor acting almost like a passive radiator. Was initially considering using some no rez in my quad S2’s to control low mid swell (that was noticeable when they were used in other rooms as well). But still worry that it will compress the richness they also communicate.
Did you hear something about no rez? 120€/m2. Extraordinary expensive! What is your vavorite Material? In germany we have a new damping foam. Called CARUSO.
Whoa, got really expensive. I prefer sheep's wool, on a sheepskin when I need some dampening.
I am a bit confused. I thought that the voigt transmission line speakers your built and talked about later on are supposed also to resonate and give real live music experience, but then I noticed that some of the plans I see on the internet use absorbing materials (in the narrow part in particular). I would be grateful if you can elaborate on that...
The filler on the top is to reduce the transmission line errors in the bass - it is just a very light filling, and very little. Yes, it deadens the sound, but not fully, leaves cabinet mostly live. You add as little of the filling as possible to tune the pipe to your room. You may not need any.
Adding too much filling deadens the cabinet and completely ruins the sound.
@@realworldaudio Thx. I love the way you explain and simplify things...
I dramatically improved the sound of a pair of 3 way budget speakers by simply replacing the crossovers, clamp gluing a 1/2" thick sheet of plywood to the outside backside.
And installing two 1" square hardwood crossbraces six inches apart in the middle to the inside running side to side.
Kept the original poly fill on the inside back.
They'll never be confused as audiophile grade, but even the wife, who doesn't care at all about music, noticed the improved difference. I don't think I'll be doing any resonance treatment in them. With a quality amp, they have a nice retro sound. Mid and highs are smooth, bass is tighter. They've never been bass monsters even with the 12" woofers, but the bass is definitely tighter without the bloat they did have.
Problem is that the moving cabinet resonates back toward the speaker cone. So, some note you will hear simultanely double or triple occasions because of the vibrations.
Wood transmits vibrations at approximately x15 -20 times the speed of sound, so it can radiate quite uniformly through a large surface.
While we have this issue of simultaneous vibrations, the live cabinet radiates in an omnidirectional pattern. I think this omnidirectivity is a benefit that far surpasses any disadvantages the technology offers.
@@realworldaudio Hi Janos, so through a given panel, resonating and retransmiting the vibrations of the driver, we have only an amplification of the said vivrations, expended to more surface, with a little real time unphasing of some degrees. with the omnidirectional parameter, we finally have something that improves the 3D sound staging, helping to bring volume and placement to the sound.
but it could also be a false 3D imaging process vs the recording.
thinking about the tone and harmonic reconstruction, it's again a reason more to take advantage of the design.
that been said, i would see the global structure as you made, but the distribution of vibrating panels made in a incremental way for the surfaces engaging their proper mass and size properties to tranduce different ranges of frequencies in a complete way, so that any panel couldn't enter in resonance with the opposite or the neighbour panel.
with the VOL global goal, it would be a very interesting improvement? what do you think?
Maybe cabinet resonating is similar to a passive sub? The cone can also play more freely or faster?
The cabinet is a high mass passive radiator. Did an experiment yesterday, placed a stethoscope on the Voice of Lancelot's cabinet and listened. It was just like listening to a woofer, I could follow the dialogues and all the bass instruments crystal clear. As I pressed the stethoscope harder, it played softer, and when pressing with approx a few kg strength, it went totally quiet. ;
I know that there is a so called "hi end" speaker ( about 10 grand a pair ) that are made out of solid wood and are made to resonate. They also designed to sit against the back wall of the room to take advantage of room gain for the bass. Two way design. Simple, elegant to look at. Unfortunately I have never listened to them. I wish I could remember the manufactuer.
he mentions the brand towards the end of the video: Audio Note
Would Spendor fall into that category of speakers designed to resonate?
Wow... i thought i was crazy! I too build speakers to add more to the music, because it just sounds so much more realistic! I use other specific materials and port designs... Once you build such speakers, you triamp and build custom crossovers for each driver. The synergy is just way better than commercially sold "expensive" speakers...
Hi Al, it's so refreshing to get actual experience as feedback. People just theorize on "what if", and "we know it better because textbook says so", but almost nobody takes the effort to actually try things, optimize and listen for themselves. :)
@@realworldaudio I let the manufacture provide measurements. After that, its all 100% listening test, using golden ears and experience! Cabinet construction, tryouts are all based on ear. The use of all electronics custom tuned is a must, down to the very special wire technologies... special alternative crossover methods are a must! Using metallic screens and over sized ports add so much more realism as well as usage of huge 4" driver pro horns and a well balanced pair of super tweeters tuned by a finely calibrated set of both electrolytic and wima caps with a drain load in the center... by the way, im a Electronics Engineer with an open mind...
Interesting take on the topic of speaker cabinet resonance and why to use anti resonance techniques in speaker building. Actually, I agree with most of what you said, including being in agreement with Danny at GR Research, as well as the benefit of anti resonance application for mass market speakers.
To some degree, I think you're on to something, in that recorded music is not the same as a live performance, but I'm a bit fuzzy on how one can determine with any certainty what was missing vs what was picked up by mics and recorded, then studio edited. And... Even if there's a way to differentiate it, how would one design a speaker to transfer that missing information to the cabinet? The only thing that will cause resonance to the speaker cabinet is whatever's played back through the transducers, and the only thing they'll playback and potentially excite the speaker cabinet with, is what was recorded and edited, then played back. If a recorded track has a lot going on in any particular region of frequencies that translates to and audibly exhibits the natural frequency of that cabinet's material construction, it's difficult to quantify, impractically difficult to measure, and any intended built-in design work would be at best very hard, if not impossible to predict and equally as difficult to make resonate loud enough to audibly sum into the overall response characteristic of the loudspeaker system with any consistency.
I would venture to say, that if a completed loudspeaker assembly exhibits less than a perfect response in some area, (for example a 400 Hz minus 10 Db suck-out), it would take an enormous amount of natural panel resonance to fill in that void.
Again, very hard to predict, calculate, or design into a cabinet. About the only way I can imagine it would help, is if the void or drop in frequency was minimal and the cabinet resonance was tightly controlled to only resonate within that narrow window, and at a sound pressure level that was sufficient to supplement that inherent shortcoming of that particular fully assembled loudspeaker. For example, if your finished design exhibits an area where the response is down by 1 Db between 200 - 600 Hz, and you can make the cabinet resonate in that region loud enough to compensate for that.
That being said, I would say it's a stretch to attempt to incorporate panel resonance caused by a traditional transducer, in such a way it would benefit the overall sound and measuring it would take an extremely well built anechoic chamber and seriously accurate measuring to distinguish.
I do think it's a plausible idea however, but it would need something more like a hybrid DML and traditional design to accomplish.
I'm guessing that if you're hearing audible differences between what you refer to dead cabinets and live cabinets, it's likely not external panel resonance you're hearing but potentially it could be reverberation, standing waves and echo inside the cabinet, (especially if it's not damped), coming through the woofer cone, bass reflex vents or ports if equipped, and the cabinet walls.
My two cents anyway. Excellent observations, but the theory of cabinet materials transferring resonance from the absence of recorded sound that doesn't exist, loud enough to be heard has some giant holes. Any resonance of your speaker cabinet construction is more likely from the recorded signal causing a natural resonance at particular frequencies from the external source e.g. recorded sound playing through a transducer intensely enough to excite the cabinet materials, something inside the cabinet, or the woofer cone itself.
I'd be interested to see how you plan for, measure and control your cabinet resonances. Do you have certain videos you could recommend that demonstrate that speaker building technique? Thanks
I have a pair of original Altec 817A(that’s the installation/indoor version) and at first they look kind of “flimsy” compared to todays high-end ultra expensive models. They are only made out of 18 mm. material! But bare in mind they are still app 115 kg. with the 515 s. I have never been able to physically fell any vibrations at normal listening levels, by the time you are able to fell some vibrations the sound level is so high you have left the room! I added some app 10-15 kg of extra damping just for the sake of it but honestly I am not able to detect any improvement or different SQ. So now I am left with a cabinet that is almost impossible to move as the total most be in the 120-130 kg. range… and that’s just the mid-bass cabinet.
Thank you Klaus! :)
No replacement for mass in cabinets !!
Do any commercial speaker manufacturers build a "live style" speaker?
Another great video, so much info on this one!
++1 for properly designed live cabinets, Indian instruments & Ustad Zakir Hussain! Greetings from a very wet Bangalore, India, rained so heavily last night I could hear the rain through my closed back headphones!!
I've been fortunate enough to listen to several Indian maestros perform live from up-close, most speakers don't really do justice to their ability to manipulate their instruments in ways that shouldn't be possible!
Also had the privilege of watching Iron Maiden, Guns & roses, Metallica & Amon Amarth (among others) perform live in Bangalore, those giant monster cabinet arrays these pros use aren't really comparable to anything in home HiFi audio. It all feels very surreal (not realistic) up close, transporting our minds to another dimension like you mentioned :)
It's not very realistic to expect live performance levels inside any enclosed space mainly because of room reflections & resonances. The absolute best realistic hifi design in my opinion is still a full length open baffle line array, still not available for purchase anywhere in the world!!
Thank you Vikas! Seeing Ustad Zakir Hussain in person, working his magic on he tabla was pure rapture. His playing is something that is not happening at the human level, it is completely transcendent. I have a little drumming experience, with dumbek, and also started learning the basics of tabla, and have seen several fantastic tabla players up close. (And have Western drummer friends, and heard and seen some of the best Western drummers work their magic.) Yet, Ustad Zakir Hussains playing seemingly defies all human logic, he makes the impossible happen. Even though I heard him many times on recordings, seeing how fast his hands move, and create seemingly endless rythms waved together on just two drums, and how is he making the sounds with incredible timing defies all logic. I just cannot emphasize the level of his mastery. If we compare the skills of even the best Western drummers, they are like children in comparison. And that's not belittling the best of drummers. It's how elevated Ustad Zakir Hussains skills are. Also, in general, classical Indian music is about 500 years more advanced (both instrument technology and mathematics of the music) than Western music, and requires an entirely different level to master.
Hey i have just stumbled upon this concept of live cabinet ...can you suggest some more videos on this " live cabinet" and controlled resonance concept!
Hi, what do you think of using sound deadening material for cars? It seems to add mass
Hi Ramon, very tough issue as the main resonator in cars is the metal frame & chassis itself, and we cannot add enough dampening to affect the resonances of half a ton of chassis and frame. : ( If we want a lot of low frequency extension in a car, perhaps the only way is to use DSP to avoid the hyper-massive resonance modes of the frame and chassis.
My approach to car stereo is to have bass down to 60Hz or so, and do not force it below significantly as the interior of the cabin does not allow formation of lower sound waves. It would be just a massive pressure zone creating massive listening fatigue, and the ones who can hear really the bass are the poor victims outside the car. (The waves of deep frequencies can form only outside the car, they are largely inaudible inside, just felt as violent pressure-changes in your chest). So, instead of forcing what would always be a compromise, I let the car be the vehicle of beauty in the midrange. Every day I commute in the car, and on highway speeds the 10-40Hz frequency range is already 80-100dB, super loud from the traffic and road noise.... if I want material in that range to be noticeable, then I had to crank it quite above 100+dB. After a few weeks my hearing would be already compromised.
Sorry, I didn't explain myself. Some people use car sound deadening material that looks like black heavy tar to stick on the inside of the cabinet
@@ramongomez6720 Ahh, the elusive black goo! (The automotive adhesive for windshields). My mentor Stu LOVED it to death, although not as an all-out dampening material to treat the inside, but as a moldable material to break up surface sound reflections. That's the only tweak I viciously hate because it stains everything, ruins every surface it touches, and it's impossible t remove from clothes / carpet / any surface without the harshest solvents (acetone). So, I use blue tac instead (80% as effective, yet leaves no stain). Will dedicate a few videos to it, as it's an incredibly powerful tool and removes practically all issues associated with reflections / diffraction with wide front baffles. (Brielfly, when properly applied, it can bring an astonishing improvement in the three dimensionality of the sound stage).
Look up sound deadening material for cars on Amazon. It comes in thin squares that you peel off the paper backing and you press on the aluminum side with a roller. It's thin and heavy
@@ramongomez6720 Ah, I see. That's self adhesive a butyl sheet, fulfills same function as no-rez, mass-loaded vinyl and similar dampening sheets. The real gem from the car industry is the windshield adhesive tacky black goo. Audio note uses it to couple the drivers to the cabinets & its use on the baffle surfaces to prevent reflections / diffractions will elevate any and every cabinet. Essentially you can use it to elevate good / great speakers to greater heights. The damping sheets are of very limited use in comparison, to fix compromised cabinets which were voiced poorly. If you were wondering if the butyl sheet or mass-loaded vinyl could be used instead of no-rez - the answer is yes. ;
2 words: Open Baffle. 2 more: 4way
he is financially motivated , you are not , plus how do get passed the small size of tone wood , do you think if I use clamps and join a few pieces would it be similar to using a one large baffle as the lumbers are quite long but not wide enough for 15 and 18 inch drivers from pro audio
if u need anything from India let me know ill go out looking for something , do you have a wish list
Yes, you can clamp together several narrow pieces to form a wider one. Just make sure that the grains run the same way (longitudinally), and it will act as a single wider sheet. They use this technique for piano soundboards, which are too big to make from a single piece.
@@realworldaudio thanks 😊
@@IDontExist14 Thank you Brother, much appreciated! ;)
@@cobar5342 he is claiming it is the best period plus he has been giving out reviews these days , audio is a dirty business , u follow him and u will end up with a flat boring speaker and the room also adds to the sound , all he does is put better crossover parts , I would stick with original crossover with better quality
wow ! thanks Janos, 🎉
It sounds great to me - It just depends on the recording to be honest.
Cello/Counter bass can sound like... I mean, I go to the church to listen to the performances, and the way the notes are clean and you sort of have this physical impression from them. And I hear that coming from no box, no place, like, a ghost playing in the room. The moment you add speaker resonance, the boxes are there, and this "meat" becomes a distinct boomy thickness that I personally find distracting and sounds nothing like reality neither. Death boxes sound far more real to me.
I do not think we can reach real life dynamics anyways, so we are bound to what we have.
Thank you Bastian! Indeed, box sound can be so obtrusive, and in best cases just plain unnatural. That's why I do not build "speaker cabinets", when I build them I build them as music instruments, with design goals, criteria and solutions used by luthiers (of course, with limitations to practicality). Cheers, Janos
BTW Janos, Tabla is not exactly indian drums if you really wanna hear the insane indian "Drums" you have to listen to Dhol which is possibly the biggest instrument in the world. You can the Dhol instrument in like say the video song called "Nagada Sang Dhol "
Why not taper your "tone wood" panels like an instrument to avoid strong single note resonances.
It would be interesting for you to publish accelerometer readings from each of your panels to see which notes are added. What about quarter notes for Indian music?
To my mind "High Fidelity" implies a different approach..... sorry
🎶🤫🎶
I think you make a very good point & I have thought the same for years, the speaker cabinet is no different than a musical instrument, I may make my ports on my next project shaped like f holes, just because why not
Great video I just saw this two years after you did it.
A way I’m able to get some of a great vibration sound is with my or anybody with a Yamaha receiver there are a couple dozen modes of theaters, jazz clubs, churches ECT. Most music is best straight out but certain jazz and blues in some of the jazz hall pre-sets you feel like you’re all of a sudden there. Most of the church modes have too much reverb but some classical recordings in the Hall in Munich mode close your eyes and it feels like you’re about Dead Center, First row of the balcony. It puts you there it’s crazy.
Unfortunately, when being reviewed, they probably don’t have the time to experiment and figure out how to make it flow.
I believe the gentleman missrepresented Danny Richie's comment. He said "some designers".
Hello Eugene, can you clarify? Not sure what you are referring to, but certainly I do welcome corrections. Thank you, much appreciated, Janos
First off, that's jacked up placement for those large speakers. They're much too close to room boundaries and obstruction objects. Your stereo imaging and soundstaging must be pretty bad - I bet they sound pretty boxy and are able to be easily pinpointed. Generally, you'd want your speaker drivers to produce the sound, not your speaker cabinets. I have grave doubts on the SQ of your system and it's ability to produce accurate sound. Do you though - if you like it, I love it.
I want my cabinets quiet. I don't want piano sound added to non piano music.
I am far from an expert, but here is my understanding of the „resonance matter“:
There are two types of cabinet distortion (or distortions in general) to consider: (a) additive and (b) subtractive. Speakers that try to kill all resonances run the danger of removing too much energy from the sound. They often sound much less lively and natural than my own Audio Note AN-Es to my ears. I interpret this as subtractive distortion. Instead of looking at cabinet resonances as a separate thing, I would look at the sound a speaker produces as a whole. It‘s the interplay between the drivers AND the cabinet. Dead (and heavy) cabinets don‘t just kill resonances but sound. You said it, the key is „controlled resonances“. My thesis is that one cannot get rid of cabinet resonances without sacrificing musical energy. Just because a speaker has cabinet resonances does not mean that it will sound colored. Resonances can aid the drivers and make the whole speaker sound more faithful to the recording. Just my 20 cents…
Regarding the subjective side of things, Audio Note AN_E Speakers to me sounds very distinct, and for my wife they "sound horrible! Who would be so dumb to pay that much for them" - her words. I play from Metal, to salsa, to EDM, to Paco de Lucia, to Dvorak and I expect everything to sound great. It is not that they sound bad, but they sound EXTREMELLY colored and congested by comparison to a solid design. How loud do you play? The louder you crank them, the worse it becomes! it does sound coloured and I can not only hear the coloration, and with it, how congested and thick the sound can turn in certain frequencies, but It is also easy to see the ringing on the box in the measurements.
I feel AN is far more an instrument, a taste, than a hi-fi tool. It presents music under their light, and glad some folks like it. To me? Hm... It really gets me that this guy has the balls to charge that much for a sub optimal tool, or for other to try his taste. Here comes a Japanese brand that uses the same principle with cheap plastic to enhance the psychoacoustic experience in cheap systems, because this guy is not reinventing the wheel. But there is this big consumer monster selling the same principle on the cheap (because it is a cheap trick) and we call it NOT hi-fi, we trash them, and state how unbearable is to play music with 10%+ harmonic distortion, but then a guy in the UK words his marketing differently, applies veneers to boxes and now it is proper hi fi? No, I am having none of that. We are paying for a boutique development of someone's view of sound, and sure... let's leave it then to the "Connoisseurs" of "high end" sound, so they can forever eternally swap cables and fuses trying to make those boxes sound reasonably good.
I am a simple man, and much prefer a copper cable, and a predictable and proper made speaker that one can work with to address reasonable the issues it might represent in the room they have been installed.
@@BastianUllr Hi Bastian, did you try the AN-E in a full AN system, or in a non-AN system? When I heard them it was in a full AN system and they we so remarkably colorless that to this day it was the only commercial speaker / system I heard that had no noticeable coloration. I have no recollection of the system's voicing at all, there were no noticeable colorations that could be attributed to the speakers.
When AN-E speakers are plugged to different systems, they let the colorations of the system come through unfiltered. Plug the same AN-E to three different systems, and it will sound with drastically different colorations reflecting the gear.
The AN-E line has dozens of speakers, from mid-level to extremely high (Toyota Camry to Bentley), so experiences may vary greatly depending on which one is in question. My experience with AN-E came with the top of the line model 20 years ago, in the top AN system, so might not represent the lower end models behavior so well. There I defer to the accounts of the users of these speakers. In general, AN equipment are strictly voiced to match each other, trying them in different systems leads to spectacular failures - not because the speakers or amps etc have problems, but because of extreme mismatch.
Digging in my memories the entry level Audio notes do have strong coloring, but the top models are the most colorless and natural, highest fidelity one can find commercially. This was my impression when I heard them 20 years ago when I lived in Europe.
One doesn't have to be an " EXPERT " ...................to listen and feel neither to appreciate a good wine...........
@@BastianUllr the beautiful thing about our hobby is that there are plenty of choices. If the sound of AN-Es is not your thing, then buy whatever else floats your boat. It’s a good thing to have diverging opinions and to be open about them. However, why do you proceed to barrage the whole brand?
@@realworldaudio it was a full AN system, we were not impressed. Classical sounded let’s say, pretty and thick, grand at a volume regularly I’d expect to sound thin and yeah. Some folks might benefit from this, I’m sure. Different listening habits. But for me was Simply underwhelming, and the price tag was hefty. I guess I’m in the look for something different.
However, see the comparison you made. We are placed on very different sides of the spectrum as people. I would NEVER trade a Camry for a Bentley, unless I would want to sell the Bentley, buy a Camry and who knows what more with the money left from the sale. Not that I don’t respect motor sports and its history. It’s just that I would appeal immediately as to which one is the best tool from both of them to transport myself, I need no style, I care none for pride of ownership. Much less I have a chauffeur to send to leave and pick up the car from service the countless times I’d need to do so.
Not strong colouring. The amplifiers are great for a tube amp, no doubt. The issue to me is how the speakers sounded. But no doubt a person looking for that kind of bloom would hear my system and likely think it’s sterile and lifeless, since it sounds so much more like headphones over a neutral amp. I’m a solid state guy, my speakers are braced to the bones.
Anyways, I sort of know a folk who collects music from the 60/70 and he swears by AN, yet his concern is not linearity nor he cares for the chase of fidelity, but of the most emotional rendition of his records. Whatever that means, he seems to have arrived close to where he wants to be.
I have helped my speakers get a better life Like, live sound by putting a speaker upward as you have done. If you want dead sound make them out of concrete I guess LOL
Indeed! A good friend of mine actually has a pair of speakers made of concrete! Recently helped him move, and WHAT A ROYAL PAIN IT IS TO MOVE CONCRETE SPEAKERS!!! Talking about breaking your back! :) He said they have great bass, but I've never heard him play them, so cannot tell much. He's playing around with FR speakers, and the concrete speakers are in storage. That sums it up. LOL :)
before to continu watching the video ...........it is clear that'd there is much confusion about and between the different approaches of reproducing music ...........Danny is focussed on regular industrial audio speakers for ( today's high end / commercial audio ) and Janos has the approach of musical event /reproduction versus the actual audio industry.
One's goal is commercial benefit uner the label off perfect pure sound , the other is living music to identify as a believable musical event......................the illusion of an almost perfect technology versus a human musical experience ( for the human soul )
A piano sounds different at any moment, place , temperature ( climat ) , the piano player ...........and the position and the mood of the listener...............but it's still and always a piano...............this is NOT the case with high end audio.....
Distortion figures are valid with fixed frequencies and thier importance is quite different and variable as an audible experience..........if it measure good or perfect than it sounds like that ............WE KNOW BETTER FOR A LONG TIME !
The problem is that in many cases one CAN NOT argue about it ............people are totaly brainwashed with beliefsystems ( and not only for audio/music reproduction )
Very expensive systems in shows like Axpona .......................they sound nothing like real life but may be very impressive , i have to leave after some minutes because they hurt my musical feeeling and creates almost instantly listening fatigue ( in my case ).
So there's an enormous GRAND CANYON between those two different approaches and most pêople are not capable to imagine a bridge from both sides off the canyon.
Thank you Frank! Indeed, my goal is to hear the HUMAN behind the instruments. To feel what the musicians feel. To GET what they want to SHARE. It's uncanny how attuned we can get to the musicians intent.... to me, that's all that matters, music as a "tool" to CONNECT to a bigger reality, to receive the intent, the message. Shows are empty and pointless, it's just the wrapping paper. Sure, one can appreciate a nice wrapping paper... to me what matters is what is in the "box" .
@@realworldaudio precisely my point. So you guys are saying my system lacks soul? Every time I play Dvorák I have my heart in my hand, but it’s just my poor taste because I like wrappers? And not because my system is a number chaser (what’s the point of a 360kmh car when you would never take it off the street to go to the restaurant? In practical terms, to certain margins, things can be sufficient and even preferable.), but then the problem is, it does actually measure bonkers good, and I don’t think it lacks soul. I have listened to the difference, and I did not prefer it. But I don’t say it’s not good. I say, why you guys think Is simply better and the one who actually connects? I don’t connect, I didn’t like it. It doesn’t get me, it sounds more like a stereo to my ear than mine. Would I dare to say that mine has more souls than yours? Heck, I’ve cried to a song in a sweet afternoon using headphones of 15 bucks with a disk man Panasonic in my lap. I don’t need to be a snob to hear the soul of the music maybe?
And hence I call the whole thing out, stating, why psychoacoustics works only good when is used by certain brands and certain pseudo principles. I can use DSP and lift the area that the box tends to enhance. It sounds even cleaner and provides the lift in the chest area. What gives? But I don’t even feel I need to because it’s placed so it measures accordingly to where I sit and my habits of loudness. So, different approach? Sure. But to the extent that I don’t have taste or cannot get to the musician talking to me because my system has inert speakers? Two different pairs of inner speakers that don’t sound like each other by the way. Nah… not having any of it.
@@BastianUllr Hi Bastian, you have brought up a super important aspect of audio system choices, that it always comes down to execution of individual systems. We cannot universally generalize that a system would work or not, as there's always room acoustics and personal preference to take into account. Every single audio chain (no matter cost or refinement) has issues, and it is up to us to pick the one we can live with, that resonates with us, that matches our room. The weaknesses of other approaches always strike us as major roadblocks, so I do not think there will ever be an audio system that is accepted equally by everyone.
I have noticed that whatever audio gear I started fiddling around with, I could always make it sound in a way that caused me joy and happiness. The crucial difference to me was the amount of work put in to reach that level - it comes to me naturally with purist approach, I understand that road very deeply, and was urged by my friends to share this experience with the world. That's what this channel is about, and I describe its possible advantages because this road is almost unknown, or has very little attention in the general audiophile community.
Nevertheless, it should be possible to create a system with inert speakers and DSP that can give a deep emotional response and a full experience. I have no experience with achieving that (because I have not tried), so I cannot share pointers on how to get there. However, I am more than happy to hear you made it work, verified by your friends who heard your system, and that there are more than a few way(s) to reach deep appreciation of music.
It's been 20 years since I heard AN, and at that time I thought that the lower models were indeed colored sounding but they each suited a specific genre perfectly. The Ongaku - M9 pre - IO TT however was extremely neutral, as close to sitting in the concert hall as possible. I'd be curious though how I would interpret the AN sound if I heard it again after 20 years of my transformational audio journey... as I understand PQ made a lot of changes since, and I cannot testify to what direction.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences! Your sharing is very important to me, as you cover part of the audio journey where I have only passive experience, only listening to other systems - some on the budget level, some on the dark side of the moon as far as expenses go.
If they would build thicker / solid wood would be better.
Thicker solid wood gives a darker / deeper tone, with lowered dynamics compared to a properly built live cabinet. Ultimately it's a question of taste, which is one's preference and what music one listens to.
It looks weak to blame the recording equipment when it is just your own and preference and bias that are at play here.
Then speakers that omitting the cabinet issue all together like some of Danny Richie top of the lines open baffle, Clayton Shaw Spatial Audio, Linkwiz LX521, PureAudioProject quintet15, Jamo R 909, magnapan, Gunnar Hildén - Oido Audio Oido 12 OBEM, Martin Logan, Quad and so on and on to mention a few.
I think that MAYBE it is NOT that the microphone is not able to pickup the colouration and added distortion that you and some of your friends may like.
I think that is MORE likely that you like that colouration and added distortion.🤔
IF the the microphone is not able to pick up some mystical/mythical sound from a performance you have been in a particular good mood yourself when listening (nobody as you said sneezeed, farted or fighting traffic and so on at that particular event.) And the way to go is to add back that mystical/mythical "lost" sound by a vibrating some box/panels.
Then all the buyers that spent their hard own money into a open baffle/dipole speaker as some of them mentioned that has NO cabinet and 0% box colouration and distortion from the same when there is NO box at all..
So the bottom line you think that ALL of those many thousands of dipole speaker owners CAN NOT EXPERIENCE what a live event sounds like when the microphones can't capture "all" the sound!
It is MORE LIKELY that you my friend like and have a individual bias of what you think it should sound like than that is something inadequate with thousands of different models of microphones. (And it doesn't matter if you bring a hand full of friends, I think the dipole owners has also friends. So that doesn't prove anything. 😉)
Is it so hard to say:
"I like colored sound that has nothing with what how it actually sounded like when it were performed that I am able to create with some extra added distortion."
Or is it better to say:
"I recreated the sound that microphones can't capture with vibrating little bit extra with some panels so it add back what the microphone were not able to capture!"
Yeh, the last statement is better because then YOU feel good and are superior to all recording engineers, microphone developers and all other engineers out there in the world that over many decades and lifetimes of work that were dedicated only to music. Were not able to fix..
Sorry it is not my intention to sound harsh but I just trying to determine logically if there is any valid point with flawed microphones and that a vibrating box is needed. And I am not convinced of that is the case.. 🥰👍🙏🎶🎵🎼
I love your comment, that you bring up so many new aspects. Actually, I love that there is so much diversity, and that engineers are employing so vastly different techniques and solutions to solve the compromises we have with our recording and playback technology. I don't think there is a serious flaw in the recording processes used. Yet, a number of recording engineers/ professionals are adamant that the process is flawed, hence, I'm also obliged to point out the imperfections - not because I diss these people, but because I respect them enough to heed and share their warnings.
I enjoy and love pretty much every audio system I hear (unless it causes significant listening fatigue), and I do appreciate their strengths more than I fault their weaknesses. Yet, if I were not to point out weaknesses, I would be simply giving garbage on my channel as everything is filtered rosy and peachy, and I'm would not be sincere just a grinning bobble head.
I feel I have the obligation to tell my subjective impressions (as subjective as it gets) as I do not see this happening in the audio world. Most speaking on the matter have financial interests that require careful wording. I have none.
When someone is already happy with their system or recordings, that's the best news for me, I do not want to convert anyone to any approach..... just sharing my experiences, so those who are unhappy can learn from it and perhaps find what they are looking for, in case what I share resonates with their own experiences.
I hope my unusual sharings will help that process. Of course not every single person (sadly), as we are all so different and often want to reach diametrically opposing goals, and I cannot word every sentence that it triggers the right subsocnscious associations in every single viewer (as the same sentence elicits vastly different reactions based on the viewers mind frame - which I have no control over at all.)
Back to the mikes: what I said is based on physics. Because of directionality the microphones capture less reflected sound VS direct radiated sound. This is a fact, that is the consequence of the technology used, and was already reported in the 50s by audio professionals that it significantly skews the tonality if the recording. (Since, we have been developing / using microphones with much higher directivity then back then, so this is perhaps an even bigger issue now in general than it used to be.)
I'm not blaming anyone, nor trying to establish superiority, simply reminding everyone of what's always been in front of us. Employing a well-designed live cabinet to me renders the tone and harmonic nature of wooden body instruments better than using a deadened cabinet. Is it more "correct" than a dead cabinet? No. Does it sound better to me subjectively? Definitively yes.
There is an observation that is made by all (who participate in the test): when you have a guitar, a piano, or a cello properly setup in the room, it will make the piano, guitar, cello, etc on the recording sound more natural (regardless the system / recording). It always makes the instrument sound more natural. The live cabinet strategy is to turn the cabinet into a music instrument, so you always have at least one music instrument in the room.... Of course, I agree that this might not be what you want when one listens to music that does not involve a violin, a piano or a cello, or when one desires the absolute leanest studio sound. No technology of "perfect", this is just my interpretation that I find subjectively way more desirable than others, and as such, I refer to it as "better", for lack of a better word.
We are all forced to pick a design goal, and mine is to render violin, cello, guitar, sitar, tabla as NATURAL and REAL to my perception as possible. So, the approach I show might work if that's your goal, and will not when one prioritizes others (such as pure studio sound).
Just because things can be ALWAYS improved upon is not reflecting badly on the people who were involved with the design of microphones, recording system, engineers, players, luthiers, etc... it's just a simple fact of life.
We can always do more, the road is never at an end. I'm just pointing at kinks in the road. This does not make me smarter or better. My aim is to HELP so you can go further than I did.
Bro this channel is not for you if u think gr research does anything to u speaker u are a fool the way to change the speaker is by changing cabnit material , cabnit volume , cables used , crossover parts , he only does one thing, plus making everything flat is the stupidest thing he does and I know whe he does it show people like u that ur little audio knowledge is valid when u don't no nothing , make a few speakers and then come here fan boy
@@realworldaudio Thank you for your reply. 💖
I do not understand what problem there is with microphone directionality we call it pickup pattern and there is several of those and a microphone is not only picking up sound from the point to were it is aiming towards the pickup pattern can be wider than that. So it is again up to the recording engineer to pick type and pickup pattern on the microphones and choose placement of it. To paint the sound picture that he want to present to you during the sound reproduction.
If I understand it correctly you like classical music and often that is big orchestral pieces. Then the microphones are further away and from example string section of a orchestra.
In that situation when:
x Microphone is greater distance from the individual instrument
x Microphone is picking up several instruments at once
x Microphone is picking up more reflections of room than the instrument because of distance above
Then I understand that the details you are talking about is lost and you want to put it back into the performance during your reproduction of the event. (Nothing wrong with the microphone it is the placement of it you dislike.)
But that is decisions that the recording engineer have done and robed you THAT detail (vibrating wood) of experience. Due to traditions, impracticality to put a microphone in each instrument of a big symphony orchestra and mix it together. That would give you a TOTALY different experience and nothing you are able to experience in the auditorium when your ears are not for example IN the cello body when it is like the microphone many many meters away from it.
So you want for example put back the cello/instrument 2-3 m in front of you.. That is cool.. That I can understand.
So when a violin, piano, cello, guitar, mandolin and so on hit the frequency/ies that your speakers are tuned to and excite it so it vibrate and make a sound. Then all of those different types of instruments at X Hz will get the same added sound TONE from your active cabinet. So in principle the same tone for all the instruments at same frequency reproduced.
I am a sound stage guy and likes to listen to placement of instruments and their body. When not listening to orchestral music.
Let say we are listening to a trio and the cello performer is on the left of the phantom center. why would I want a wood cabinet on the right if the drums is there.. that don't work for me anyway.
So I see that your active vibrating box speakers is great/nice to get some intimacy/closeness added on far placed microphones there sound stage is of lower importance and more of importance is the total energy and dynamics of the whole orchestra!
Regarding orchestra music I have a anecdotal story.
I listen to all kind of music and I buy orchestral recordings on LPs especially for example 1812, Beethoven 5, Bolero, star wars (London philharmonic orchestra) and so on. I have several versions of each just to compare different productions and orchestras and so on.
But for many years I have been disappointed of that I never heard the "fullness", big impact and I impressive BIG orchestral performance using conventional box speakers. Each time I stand there with my new LP and think wow now I will hear something big and impressive that will overwhelm me... and then I only get "mehh"..
Yes, I hear all instruments, placement, performance and all that good stuff but I never got the big impact form a big orchestral that I thought that should overwhelm me as I were expecting a big symphony orchestra should/can do.. I were always disappointed in that department.
But when I got my dipole magnapan speakers I found that suddenly got that qualities that no box speaker has done before! And my enjoyment factor took a big leap for just orchestral playback.
I do not know why the reason is but I guess that when the magnapan is a dipole and plays as much backwards as forwards then I will get bigger and more "GRAND" presentation of a orchestra as I were expecting to get. My speakers is ~1.5 m away from the wall behind it so the sound that are going backwards toward the wall behind it and then bouncing back towards the speaker. Then the sound has travel 1.5+1.5 m at 22 degree C the sound speed is 344.31 m/s. That gives that the reflected sound is delayed by 8.7 ms and when it is greater than 5 ms that is the limit for the ear brain can separate the reflected sound from the direct sound.. (if it is lower than 5ms then the brain can not distinguish between what is the direct sound and what is the reflected sound it will get the perception of mushed together and that it is the "same" sound..)
But anyway that added sound of the reflected full range sound bouncing back to sweet spot may be contributing that a full orchestral symphony setup is getting as "BIG" presentation as I expected it to be.. ..that were a pleasant surprise to me and most welcome one.
What I am trying to say is that dipole AND correctly setup can enhance enjoyment of full symphony orchestral recordings as it did for me.👍
@@AmazonasBiotop There was a remarkable study done in 1956 when they recorded and orchestra in the concert hall. Then had both orchestra and the playback system on the stage and played it to the audience, who witnessed it as a very complex A/B test with both open and blinded components. When the stereo was playing, the orchestra faked as if they were playing - the string players used a second, treated bow with tape on it so it made no sound but looked convincing enough as if they were playing. They had about 100 trained spotters mixed in with the audience to observe their reactions and then to interview the rest of the audience in the intermission and after the performance. The majority of the audience could not tell recorded from live playing (unless they were sitting in first rows and had keen eyesight to spot the faking or heard the tape hiss). The giveaway for hearing recorded music for experienced listeners was that the tonal balance has shifted towards predominantly strings, and less wooden tone on the recordings. Yet, even most trained listeners reported that the recorded bits still sounded live. I think this is largely due to the microphone pickup pattern, although loudspeaker dispersion made it even worse.(The narrow dispersion might be the cause why you find box cabinets inadequate to render the scale and weight of an orchestra, but this is a separate train of thought.)
I mentioned that study as it is the only true test for fidelity I know of, with real proportions and scale, with enough subjects involved (from complete dilettantes to golden ears the entire range participating), and keeping the hall acoustics constant in the equation.
While this will probably seem primitive to you, compared to modern recording techniques, yet, the absolute simplicity of a pair of microphones (3 in this case for the concert hall) is capable of rendering a credible acoustic space. Nowdays we have the experience and knowledge and means to use multiple mikes, with multiple patterns - yet. Yet. Huge yet: when musical space is spliced from a number of microphones per stereo channel, then the original acoustic space is lost. As my second mentor noted, the only realistic acoustic space rendering comes from a single mike per channel, and I do agree with him. Fidelity to event exists only with authentic audio space.. of course, we can debate that, and it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Me, both of my mentors, and many of my most experienced audio friends we all have experienced this over and over. On systems that are capable of extremely high resolving power (resolving - not artificially contrasting), the authentic acoustic space is a quantuum leap in experience. (In a home listening setting, which is quite different from a studio session.)
You have a radically different window of opportunity to study recording & playback. However, what you experience is not objective outside your studio. The recording goes through the filter of the monitoring equipment, and the final result / mixing relies on adapting to the colorations of the playback equipment. So, while you experience total neutraity and authenticity, it is not inherently neutral, but mirrors the voicing of the monitoring gear. Accuracy does not exist outside a closed system.
As every recording crew has their own recipe, own monitoring system, every mix is different. What I, the user can strive for is to be able to play a wide rage of recordings with maximized experience. That's where system choices come in, to allow for that, without becoming over-specialized to play only the recordings of a singular recording/mastering engineer. Cheers;
@@realworldaudio I think the the biggest missing piece that I believe the creator of this video is trying to create is the room. I'm certain the mic picks up the resonance of the instrument. That is fundamental to the sound emitted by that instrument. When listening in a concert hall I have to believe you are much further away from the instruments than the mics are ( I could be wrong). Being further away would mean you are receiving a much larger portion of the room sound than the instrument sound. It sounds to me that this is an attempt to add "room" sound back into the recording.
I didn't get a point why you need panels to emit some sound? What are you missing in a music you listen to? Is this about "fixing" a crossover or a motor/membrane?
PS "Piano board" is already recorded and present in a music in a proper ratio..
PS A mylar microphone membrane captures everything. What you're missing may be is a space your two ears capture better than one mic and one sound engineer. I think you try to create some artificial sounds which mimic like reflections captured with two ears simultaneously. But this is a way of an alone person. Because you create resonances only you like basing on your personal live listening experience, and which work only in your room.
PSS You will always miss something cause you use boring electrodynamic drivers ))
Having a Resonance panel would be good for a speaker shortcomings.
If the speakers selected had a dip in a frequency range. Then just like making horn loaded speakers or step baffles or ports in a speaker or any kind of sound enhancement to balance out a speaker.
That means you would have to actually test your speaker by itself find out where it is lacking measure it record it.
Then you’re trying to Mechanically make a particular panel by selecting different materials different thicknesses and different methods of suspension to resonate only in that frequency range that you want.
What you can do and then take measurements again to show and prove that it has accomplish the same thing as a good speaker that doesn’t have that problem in the first place.
Or could have been simply implemented in the crossover design without having to make a residence panel.
But then all the good nice recordings especially the ones that are uncompressed will have a unusually high peak in the band at which that resonance panel is doing its job of enhancing which then would make the recording sound a natural.
And to get a mechanical solid mass of material resonating to where it actually can multiply the signal only happens once you reach a certain threshold of power input where can overcome the mass and start operating more like a speaker service.
That means all music that comes from that speaker with a resonance panel would actually be missing that additional residence from the panel at low power so again it would sound unnatural because it’s its lacking area.
But yes having a floating free resonance panel would work excellent if you want that boost just like a pair of old pioneer BS 52 speakers that were enhanced to me at the bottom end to exaggerate the base and had high sparkling tweeters that were amazing for the first five minutes of listening to music for such a small speaker.
For certain kinds of music and situations speakers like that are fun to listen to for a while on certain types of music .
Russel K speakers no rez
The purpose of a speaker is to reproduce the signal. A speaker is not a musical instrument. To compare it to a piano is ridiculous. Great recordings of great musicians is all in the signal. Let the artist create and you just listen and enjoy. I don't want to hear you singing along with Dire Straits nor your speakers singing/resonating along with them either. Bad Direction buddy.
Thank you for your kind observation, no offense taken. Yet, it is incorrect to assume that inert cabinets reproduce the signal as it is in the recording. They do not. What is called as inert, is actually far from physically inert / neural. It is not possible to just quench out energy, dampening exactly means: smeared and taken out of time alignment and signal coherence. Definitely not my cup of tea as it results in an overly mechanized sound.
You adding Cabinet resonances to every recording is not logical approach to getting a live sound. Buy some klipsch speakers or any horn loaded P.A. type like they use in Live venues. Add a lot of reflective surfaces to your listening room. Don't change the source with your speakers! That is the job of the Artist, Mixer, and Master. Reverb, ambience, and all the extras are already added to the recording. Let the experts do their jobs. Yours is to reproduce and enjoy!
Loudspeakers are NOT musical instruments. Musical instruments PRODUCE music, loudspeakers REPRODUCE music. So if your purpose is Hi-Fi you can't design speakers that work like musical instruments, if your purpose is to have fun and get something you like that's fine as well but it is NOT Hi-Fi. It is a matter of UNQUESTIONABLE definition. The main reason why one would want to have speakers with cabinet sound is that in reality most people do not or cannot have any control on room acoustics and recorded material. These two are the main bottle necks in Hi-Fi. So even millionaire hi-end gear cannot do anything about it and actually is a complete waste of money...things get a lot better if at least room acoustics is under control (which is not putting some thin panels on the walls...).
The reproduction is never passive, it always adds its own character to what is being reproduced. There is no such thing as a perfectly inert cabinet. Resonances can only be transformed, energy cannot be taken away without consequences. Inert cabinets still add their own colors, which are quite nasty and not in harmonic correlation to the music as their level and frequency is altered to an extreme degree.
We all need to pick a type of sound: higher level harmonic addition, or lower level non-harmonic mess....
Is it going to be resembling a music instrument or an industrial dream of plastic and metal.
That type of plastic-taste distortion is not prominent on the most popular genres of music that audiophiles listen to (jazz, pop, funk, pop). Yet, for tonality and timbre, it's as disturbing as a shot of arsenic. (My ears are calibrated to live violin / guitar / piano.) Your hearing might work differently, we all assign different weights / importance to different acoustic cues. There's no perfect solution, only what agrees with us the most. Thank you for your comment! ;
@@realworldaudio The idea is that the original signal gets as much as possible identical to what is recored because there some art in it. The art (expression, interpretation etc..) is put in by the musician. Then you can do whatever you want but you are randomly altering the artistic value of a recording to make it pleasing to you ears. That it is not HiFi. It's a definition. Period. I say that, looking at your pictures, it's not about calibration of the ears! I play the piano and go often to live ( 100% acoustic, too) events. I think, actually I am pretty certain, that you don't like HiFi because YOUR system has a lot of systematic errors in it, starting from your listining room. On top of that, there are a number of them that people do not realize. For some people it is an impossible task to solve so all they have left is make it pleasing, nothing bad in it.
@@p.r.8049 Hi PR, indeed, my room is not an anechoic room, it is a "normal looking" listening room with room balanced, organic sound treatments (and professional highest level wall treatments). Its main goal is to function as a living room, conductive to a productive and welcoming family life, and to allow listening to music 10+ hours a day while we go about working on our hobbies.
My point is that the recordings feel natural to me in my room & system: they come to life with a credible feeling that it's happening right here, and I am partaking of the performance, be it a string quartet, a genuine grand piano in my living room (I was living with an exceptional antique grand piano in our living room for a good many years), or a live rock or Pink Floyd concert. I have voiced my system exactly the way to suit all my needs down to the last T.
It's not just me who finds it natural (yet very highly revealing and transparent). I had professional musicians and movie industry professionals (movie director, actors) point out that the sound in my system is extremely natural & authentic. Talking of piano, I had a professional pianist (student of Hector Villa-Lobos) moved to tears while listening. I find the mainstream ultra-high end solutions to generally sound a little (or a lot) off: they render the resolution but in a very mechanical way. My aim was reproduction where you can feel the presence of a living, breathing human being creating the music. Also, my system was accused to sound as "too audiophile" by someone who prefers colored, dreamy sound (and is an audiophile with very high credentials and experience).
I cannot speak of every recording studio, and every recording chain as I have not heard feedback from all of them, and personally I was not present at every recording session in every studio. Generally though I have heard a lot of complaints about the recording quality from those who had such experiences, so if they were all so high fidelity, then it's a little mystery why there are thousands of reports from both professionals and music lovers all around the world reporting dissatisfaction. I am glad your experience is very different, I consider you very lucky to be working with a great recording crew and recording / playback equipment that mirrors your sonic perception. I know, you are not alone. There are tons of very positive accounts of experiences with very fruitful recording sessions as well. World is not just all extremes (not everything peachy or sour - there's a wide range, and I voice my system to sound natural, and present the event as authentically and honestly as possible with the widest range of recordings.) Thank you for sharing!
A listening room is NOT anechoic. I have never heard of anyone having an anechoic room as listening room. Don't know where you got this idea from. A living room with main function as family room, most of the time is not ideal. But everyone does what he can, I agree and I did not say that what you do and what you like is wrong but the only one on the extreme is you in the sense that what you do only applies to you. I am not in the professional audio by the way but it is true that not all recordings are good. In fact, listening room and recordings are the two big bottlenecks of HiFi (or whatever personal interpretation of it). It's definitely not the expensive gear that will make bad recordings sound better. Quite the contrary, assuming the listening room is not a problem. The only thing a methodical approach with common shared definitions and experience can bring over a subjective idea is avoiding errors over other errors. I do no attempt to give any judgment because it's simply impossible without being there. Good fortune.
HI ! It seems you like « high infidelity… ». Why not… your choice…
It can sound good depending on the content listened to. Depends on the recordings and of course, personal tastes.
Imagine the pure sound of a violin in steel......................with NO-REZ to make it sound better.....(LESS or NO DISTORTION =/= MUSIC for the soul.....)
Really??? REALLYYY??????
We are speaking of an INSTRUMENT. A violin is supposed to have the timbre (harmonics) of a violin! Not of a guitar, not of a car, but a violin. We are not trying to reproduce cleanly the sound of the string even, but to amplify mechanically the sound produced by the string with the enhancement provided by the box and the wood natural resonance.
NOW, if you ask me, can I record this beautiful sound from the violin so I can listen to it every morning home? Sure! ... and what I would try to do is so when you play back sounds exactly like that beautiful violin, not like the F*** boxes you just paid to play back the beautiful violin. I do not want the Rumor of the violin, a sort of chewed up reproduction of it neither. For that, we can get Bose, or whatever speaker in the corner store. Do not come here to tell me that a "master tuner" can make proper resonances on a box. PLEASEE... it would work for some songs, and ring on another. It becomes completely unpredictable as to what would be the outcome.
What a absolutely stupid argument you are coming up with.
Imagine a violin made of wood mic'd nicely, and that you can hear the capture as you would've sitting where the Mic was. Why would I want a box coloration making all the process of reproducing that in my room, which is already a problem, even worse? WHY WOULD I PAY SO MUCH FOR MORE HASSLE!
How many cables and crap have you already gone through to mitigate all the things you feel are wrong to start with? Please...
@@BastianUllr ????????????????
@@frankgeeraerts6243 Oh, your answers said it all.
@@BastianUllr You made me smile .
@@BastianUllr Frank made that comment as a joke, what would a violin sound if we treated it as an audiophile loudspeaker cabinet. I'm glad you are not thrilled with that possibility either ; ). Cheers, Janos.