GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

Playback Listening
Topic: Comfort zone

Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 »

Posted by Romy the Cat on 08-04-2007

Whatever we say or do the dynamic range is still that most challenge aspect of audio. A dynamic range is a derivative from dynamic capacity of our sources, dynamic capacity of our amplification, quality of our electricity and dynamic capacity of our acoustic systems (implying speakers + room).

Everything is simple. We use a higher dynamic range frond ends, we use higher dynamic range amplification, we fight our endlessly-losing battles with electricity and we use acoustic system which convert one Watt of electrical energy into one Watt of acoustical energy with near a hundred percent of efficiency. Still the mysteries about artificially-produced within out playbacks dynamic range exists and the dynamic range problem is the most common.

How come that some of our frond-ends with tremendous dynamic range subjectively sound less dynamic than the frond ends with 70dB of dynamic range? How comes that some speaker manufacturers using the identical technologies are able to demonstrate such a drastic distinctions in their speakers dynamic ranges? What is responsible for acceleration of dynamic range in our playbacks? What are the true rules of dynamic ranges projected to the listening volume? Why “live” sound has no such a listening property as “dynamic range”? Is dynamic range the final category or the dynamic range it's just simplified version of something that we invented for ourselves in order do not look deeper at the most prominent things? Where is that bottleneck of dynamic range in audio? What can we do about it? Is dynamic range static or dynamic parameter? If a person recognizes existence or multitude of stratified dynamic sub-ranges then how those sub-ranges associated with everything else? What characteristics are responsible for masking out, improving or challenging the dynamic range characteristics? And so on and so on….

I can throw many other questions but still the subject of dynamic range is the more talked and at the same time it is the last subject practically understood and one of the worst successfully implemented audio requirement.

Rgs, Romy the caT

Posted by Paul S on 08-04-2007

One funny thing about "dynamic range" is that different audio camps claim to desire and get some form of "improved" "dynamics" from their respective, widely differing topologies, from panels to single drivers, to plasma, etc.

Maybe they don't claim to offer the most grunt, but there are plenty of claims out there that purport some sort of "improvement" over other [speaker] types in terms of some "part" of dynamics, such as "micro-dynamics", "transitent speed", and other terms for what I have always thought of as various ideas relating to the general notion of "dynamics".

My own experience has been that no particular topology, speaker or electrical, offers the "whole package", including absolute SPL along with all of the "sub-sets" one might include in thinking about the larger concept/context of "dynamic range".

I actually started thinking about this a little while back, when the subject of "dynamic sinking" of ribbons came up, and I was wondering about why the so-called increased dynamic capability of a compression horn does not according to my experience produce the "dynamic acceleration" of the ribbon, yet it appears that it may yet exceed a ribbon in terms of what some might call, "dynamic range" or even, simply, "dynamics".

And what of the Cult of Dynamics, whose members pursue some mutually-held notion of dynamics pretty much to the exclusion - as far as I can tell - of pretty much everything else. Yet when I have heard some of these Dynamics Uber Alles systems I have found them - ironically - mostly lacking and/or strangely uneven according to my own sense of dynamics, or perhaps I should say, my own sense of dynamics priorities.

It seems like this has to be broken down to address it, if only because no one solution exists.

Best regards,
Paul S

Posted by rowuk on 06-27-2014

I had a business lunch this week at an upscale restaurant. They served some german specialties like I never had them before. With each bite there was a "taste explosion" in my mouth - but none of them wasted my tongue, so the next bite, the next course could still be enjoyed.
With good playback, I think it can be similar. Each instrument, each musical thought before recording was full of color and richness - generating interest in what could possibly come next. Even the geometry of playback can intensify each aspect.
The problem with the playback words dynamics and micro/macro dynamics is that they have have no relation to richness, rather just to the leading edge, difference between soft and loud.
With speakers, it gets even tougher because the concept of dynamics as related to richness has at least 4 dimensions: space, time, magnitude, intensity. If we talk about acoustic music, the instruments change their sound, relation of fundamental to overtones when played more loudly. This makes resultant sum and difference tones part of the "dynamic" behaviour.
Perhaps the concept of much better "measured" behaviour the earlier in the reproduction chain simply creates more problems later on. Perhaps this is why a tuner with limited HF performance by todays standards can still deliver exemplary dynamic performance.

Posted by Paul S on 06-28-2014

Robin, good point about instruments shifting harmonics according to loudness. Of course, hi-fi components (especially speakers) also "shift" with varying loudness, but the way a given component/speaker shifts does not necessarily correspond to how a given instrument does it. So, even if the hi-fi practitioner is a "critical listener", yet practical compromises must and will be made when assembling and implementing a pile of hi-fi components. With this as a given, it remains amusing to me how widely differing topologies can be used to "get to the Music", or... not. The 2014 Newport Beach show is my latest vivid reminder that the "industry" still consistently aims and winds up well wide of the mark; yet a local hi-fi friend uses generally-misused high-end gear to home right in on the Music he listens to.

As for the "front end/tuner idea", I'm not sure what you mean by "exemplary", but I still have only vague notions why FM "works", at all. Generally, I understand it as being somehow "less screwed up" than some other sources, without knowing why. For me, the ultimate example of this is the 78. One way or the other, at some point, the theories must subordinate to the results.

Paul S

Posted by steverino on 06-28-2014

We are so overly familiar with the music of the Romantic era (and to a lesser extent with some 20th century orchestral music) that we tend to overestimate the importance of dynamics overall in music and in listening. Obviously, abrupt and frequent dynamic changes are used to increase tension and excitement. Beethoven made them a much more central part of his music and many later composers followed his lead apart from Debussy and a few others. Prior to that there were what I would call plateaued dynamics (soft loud alternations in Baroque music) or simply a dichotomy between soft and loud music pieces that existed from the Middle Ages. Pop music has always avoided that kind of dynamic contrast and simply playing louder constantly is not dynamics. I think many listeners who aren't fans of large orchestral works find frequent dynamic contrasts to be unsettling and tiring over and above overall sound levels. Mild dynamic compression on recordings often makes them seem more listenable, not less.

It is not only that musical instruments change their timbre and overtone structure at higher decibels but also that human auditory and emotional reactions change too. We simply do not hear loud passages the way we hear softer ones. Then of course speakers and amplifiers are stressed by sudden changes in output as a car or plane would be if you sped up and slowed down constantly. Sudden transients can easily overload an amp or speaker for a split second before the steady phase of the note commences. I am always struck in the concert hall how much large dynamic shifts are minimized compared even to the best audio systems. The complete lack of system distortion rather masks the change of dynamics except at extreme sound levels.

Posted by rowuk on 06-28-2014

As I originally posted, audiophiles would like a convenient term for something that relates to moving air. Unfortunately it is not that easy.
The noise floor for events with substantial acoustic output is much higher than other types of music. Even 100 people in an orchestra make "noise" just by being seated. That of course changes the audiophool definition. If our noise floor at an "event" is 40dB loud, the 110dB peaks at the listening seat are merely 70dB louder.
In a more intimate chamber music setting, the dynamic behaviour - especially on recordings can diminish into nothingness. The attack of the quill on a harpsichord string requires extraordinary dynamic behaviour from the playback to insure "enough" but not "too much" bite. Characteristic noises that identify the instruments to the trained listener are present during the attack. On the harmonic structure of the instrument alone, we have problems. This part of reproduction IS dynamics and is sorely lacking in many recordings and playback systems alike. To get playback right, all of the drivers must do their "dynamic part". If the woofer is slower than the signal or tweeter has a different dynamic behaviour, the tonality of the speaker changes depending on the mean volume.
To hear the differences between a "quality MPG" and a recording without data reduction, we need "dynamics" to insure that enough tonal discrimination is present to resolve what the process leaves out. MPGs DO retain the proportions of soft to loud - but do not sound as dynamic.
When I practice my trumpet in a room "too small", it overloads the sensory perception - I practice differently. When we shoehorn a symphony orchestra into a small living room - an uncompressed recording would pressurize the room in a much different way - in addition to the standing wave pattern of the room not being present to "condition" our expectations at higher volumes.
I think that there is an overestimation in "headroom" not dynamics. Dynamics in my opinion is one of the major factors wrong in most playback. We have exaggeration of certain aspects and underrepresentation of others. Headroom is not only the capability of the source/amp/speakers to capture the min/max in an undistorted way, but also the room being capable of dealing with the pressure.

Posted by steverino on 06-28-2014

We do distinguish between micro and macrodynamics because they rarely cohabit the same musical environment, except possibly for the performing musicians. If I am close enough to be continually aware of microdynamics I don't want to hear a sforzando or double forte. Conversely if I am far enough away to enjoy orchestral fortissimos the only microdynamics I can hear are the creakings of the seat or breathing of the person next to me. Only a very artificial recording can get both micro and macrodynamics to coexist in any rough balance via close and distant mic'ing, equalization/compression and volume adjustments on different tracks. Yes the sound floor will affect microdynamics the way headroom affects macrodynamics. But the soundfloor is also in the recording and the media as well as the electronics and speakers (not to mention the listening environment itself). By appropriate recording adjustments microdynamics are no big deal to capture as long as you don't have to contend with loud soundlevels elsewhere. However microdynamics are more musically disruptive than supportive. Composers do not assume that listeners will hear microdynamic changes unless they mark everything down to shades of pianissimo like Webern and assume physically proximate seating. Composers assume only that various levels of macrodynamic shifts will be audible and write accordingly.

Posted by rowuk on 06-28-2014

The thread specifically started with the subject of dynamics - not limited to any one type (I do disagree with the principle of macro vs micro dynamics, as understood in audio as live they are never exclusive of one another - it is possible however that in the worst seats of a concert hall, the attacks are buried in the ambient acoustic). A musician generally has a different understanding of microdynamics being part of the flow inside of an individual musical phrase and macrodynamics being the range of loud and soft in the tutti ensemble. In the audiophile world, the terms are thrown about however the person thought that they understood the concept. I have never thought of the "attack" of an instrument as microdynamic - it is exactly the same technical thing as "what is called macrodynamic" here: the amplifier accurately following the signal up and down, fast and slow - unleashing more or considerably more when the music calls for it. This dynamic behaviour is not only specific to volume, but also frequency when we talk about audio. There is no such thing as "fast" bass in the acoustic world. There is perfect integration of the (ever faster) overtones with a live instrument and this integration requires proportional behaviour when the music is to be played back in a dynamic way. Spreading fundementals and overtones over multiple channels requires an additional intelligence to piece the integration back together with some semblance of the original. It is very possible in a live venue that the fundemental of a note is received by the ear later than the overtones, our brain fills in the detail. A good example is a tympani or bass drum - the attack is spectrally followed by the "body/pressure wave". We never "hear" it that way though.

Romy asks in the original post, why a preamp with only 70dB dynamic range can sound better than a "technically" far superior one. The audio world has been through microdynamics, macrodynamics, transient behaviour, TIM, THD, Headroom, slew rate, Carvers out of phase power supplies and many other things to "improve" the dynamic behaviour of the audio chain. There still is no common terminology or understanding of the terminology used in relation to the dynamic behaviour of a preamp for instance. To answer this question, much more detail must be evaluated: is the 70dB due to a high noise floor? High distortion at the top? Slow electronics?

Your comment about composers only thinking macro assumes quite a bit and in my opinion is plain wrong. The percussive behaviour of certain instruments (piano, brass, percussion), use of things like "Pizzicato" (which can also be dynamically played), orchestration with instruments like a Cymbal, chimes, triangle all have a great (micro- in your terms) dynamic effect and are very much part of the "early reflections" part of hearing/interpretation. Baroque and other early music performances are far more intimate and the "articulation" of practically every period instrument requires a great dynamic performance from any piece of audio gear. The vast literature for the various generations of piano alone demonstrate the composers understanding of what you call microdynamics - it is called articulation in our world. There are worlds of solo literature that specifically highlight the extremes for many instruments and present great challenges when recording.

In any case to evaluate dynamics in audio, we first need to define the terminology. Audio must retain its composure even when the musical signal is "extreme" in any sense of the term. We can "compress" or "limit" the peaks during recordings to fit just about any situation later. Unfortunately the limiting is still not intelligent enough to fool trained listeners.

Posted by steverino on 06-28-2014

I never equated transient information with microdynamics nor did I say it was articulation. Microdynamics is not simply piano and macrodynamics is not forte. Transient (onset) noises are what give different instruments their timbral character. Of course they are audible to the extent the instrument is audible and can be loud or soft. The composer indicates such articulations as seem important to him/her and then the performer adds such others as they find "musical". Microdynamics is an audiophile term not a musical term is my point. They are an artifact of close mic'ing. I caveated my comments by saying that musicians are probably the only ones aware of micro and macrodynamics. If you read the audiophile press they constantly marvel at hearing an intake of breath or myriad little shifts of the drum stick on the skin etc. The composer cannot assume that these kinds of noises or sounds will be audible or even performed unless they specifically notate it. Once they notate it the performer is expected to incorporate it into their musical performance, in other words make it macro and convey it to an audience. The exception is limited to performers in a small space with the listener or, I guess, heavy amplification which would pick up the noises and tiny little "microdynamic" shifts and sounds and make them audible at a distance. But of course such amplification is in principle no different that a recording with close mic'ing.

As for the preamp, realistically 70db is a very large dynamic shift for most music as you note. A preamp that could do 70db perfectly would be much superior IMO to one that did 90db in mediocre fashion.

Posted by Paul S on 06-28-2014

If we think of "all differences" that might be said to "define" a particular Musical performance as making a full circle, then "dynamics" as we struggle to think of "them" might be said to be only "part of that circle". I think Steve mentioned Debussy as being [relatively] "less dynamic" than, say, Beethoven. So my mind immediately conjures Gieseking playing Debussy (even the Etudes), and I am thinking how understanding/playing that music requires a certain semi-elusive iteration" of dynamics, fine gradations that somehow exist "inside" and thereby illuminate what might otherwise be considered "dynamically limited" music. On a similar but "grander" scale, I am reminded of the Solti/VPO performance of Bruckner 7. Here is a piece where the outright "volume" might be considered "loud", yet the musically significant "dynamics", in order for the piece to "work out", must somehow be rendered "like the Gieseking Debussy", but on a "grander scale". Different-but-similar to the B7 idea might be Debussy's own "La Mer".

Paul S

Posted by steverino on 06-28-2014

Debussy or any good composer not using loud dynamic shifts to generate tension has to compose so that the music works without it. Also they have to score it differently. But Debussy is not notating microdynamics just to be clear. And Gieseking's microdynamics are audible not in the concert hall but only from a close mic. Gieseking had to find a way to articulate phrases and notes without using the crutch of loud volume changes. In the concert hall he would have to perform those articulations so that at least front seat listeners could hear it otherwise it would have no musical import except to him.

The Romantics starting with Berlioz but more obviously Wagner, Mahler and Strauss wanted to combine softer delicate music with explosively loud music. What they did is still beyond the capacity of an audio system to convey accurately IMO whereas more limited music is often conveyed rather well. We just accept the crayon version of the Mona Lisa because we can't do better yet.

Posted by Paul S on 06-28-2014

Interesting thought, Steve, that Gieseking "played for the microphone/recording/broadcast" rather than "just playing it" "for himself". Of course, this might well be true, just as some of G's era +/- eschewed the recording process. But now I am left wondering about G's very-audible-to-me chromae and "dynamic capabilities", whether only those of us who hear him only via his recording have heard these "signature" qualities. I suppose it says something about my own listening habits that this idea never occurred to me before you suggested it. Does anyone know how critics reviewed Giseking following his earlier live performances? Any mention of the "special" qualities apart from broadcasts/recordings?

Paul S

Posted by steverino on 06-28-2014

Someone would have to be at least 80 years old to have heard Gieseking in concert at an age when they could assess such things. I think he was always known for his delicacy and softer playing. The recording sonics of live concerts in those times were obviously pretty coarse. However, the notoriety of his recordings suggests that even people familiar with Gieseking heard a wealth of new detail from the Debussy recordings. Otherwise they would have said it simply represented a good preservation of what was often heard in concert. But a definitive answer, if possible would require careful research. Of course some performers either cannot or will not adjust their technique for the mics while others play differently depending on the circumstance.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-29-2014

That all interesting though but the problem is that they have no way to be absolute valid. Yes, we as a humans, have a lot of masking effect build in us that prevents up to get complexity and color of sound with dynamic range rises. Yes we do in many instances misguided about true dynamic range if sound is ornamented with colors. There are many other “yes” but they do not lead to anything. I think, in audio a definition of dynamic range is not the same as in live sound and all problems that we have with dealing with dynamic range in audio that we presume that they are the same. In life music there are no reasons why dynamic range different. I mean there are a lot of reasons for compressions in live sound and we see it all time but any change of dynamic range live sound happen become the only one reason – acoustic reasons. We as a human are tunes to this reasons and we perceive those dynamic range fluctuation as something natural. In audio however, the dynamic range fluctuation is not acoustical but have mechanical or electronic nature and those abnormal compressions have a lot of adverse impact to our psychic. Here is a good illustration where we have near live perception of dynamics in audio - the pre 1923 made 78s records – it is because they had one single mechanical description of reality with no transformations.

It is not to mention that live sound is reality but audio is depicture of reality. 80dB event in live sound is an event that have reference to everything in a world, literally. The 80dB event in audio is an isolated even in a value of reality that has only relation to acoustic pressure that was built upon ears of listener. It is ironic that in audio we perception of higher dynamic range when we add noise to sound.

Anyhow I can go endlessly describing paradoxes of dynamics but I think it would make sense if we in audio had some kind of new quantification of sound that would describe dynamic even but would factor in the method how this dynamic even was created and would not be applicable or available for comparing in dynamic event of other methods.

Posted by steverino on 06-29-2014

Yes it would be good if our terms weren't colored by specific circumstances. Physics had to move beyond weight and define it as mass. But if we step back for a moment, we have to acknowledge that much in audio is based on fooling the ears rather than replicatiing the sound event directly. We can start off with the stereo effect. This isn't something that happens in the real world or any music. It is an auditory illusion which audio designers use to capture a central image along with the lateral sounds. Dither is added to create an illusion, resonances are added to create an illusion, equalization curves are used to create an illusion etc etc etc. This is just like creating a picture based on visual illusion rather than accurately representing it. For example if we arrange ten bulbs in a row and then turn them on ond off in sequence we see a moving light, not each bulb turned off and on, one by one, statically as it really is.

Do we really think we can accurately capture musical events by jiggering enough auditory illusions together? It's amazing the ears can be fooled as much as they are but there is a limit how well a mask can substitute for a face.

Posted by Paul S on 06-29-2014

Would hi-fi change if more people listened to "good" 78 playback? I like to think it would. Unfortunately, the media wars have long drowned out serious considerations about "sonics", and it appears that access to popular "music" will continue to be the main driver for a while yet. Meanwhile, there may be more acceptable components out there now than ever before, including used, except I think this is not exactly the case with speakers. Speaking of speakers, the idea of 1:1 does argue for horns, at least in terms of dynamics.

Continuing on the subject of playback dynamics/78s, Clark, what cartridge or cartridges do you use?

Paul S

Posted by clarkjohnsen on 06-29-2014

"The problem with the playback words dynamics and micro/macro dynamics is that they have have no relation to richness, rather just to the leading edge, difference between soft and loud."
No, it's way more than that. Musicians are highly attentive to dynamics; for one thing dynamics are spelled out in scores. And then consider trills: the musician thinks carefully about how loud or soft to make them. And swells: Again indicated in scores, but how fast, how loud? (All relative to the rest of the orchestra etc., of course.)
These are things that recordings and playback must capture to create an accurate rendition of performance.
Have you heard the phrase, "studio mezzo-forte"? It refers to the tendency of players and producers alike to go for a uniform volume in studio recordings, or at any rate a low dynamic range. It's easier for everyone that way! And I for one (there are many) deplore the practice.
Not even digital recording with its vaunted (but rather useless) dynamic range has discouraged this practice. Who needs compressors when you have tractable musicians doing duty?
clark

Posted by clarkjohnsen on 06-29-2014

"As for the preamp, realistically 70db is a very large dynamic shift for most music as you note. A preamp that could do 70db perfectly would be much superior IMO to one that did 90db in mediocre fashion."
Bingo! And therein lies the problem with digital (CD) audio. At the soft extremes it suffers from "bit strangulation". Good producers know that and employ a volume range that does not -- but then that tends towards "studio mezzo-forte". Feh!
clark

Posted by clarkjohnsen on 06-29-2014

Some of the greatest performances ever recorded are on that "limited" medium, yet people return to them time and again for musical satisfaction, seeming not to miss "extended frequency response and dynamic range" or "noise-free reproduction".
Let me put a further word in. Many or most of the dubs/transfers available today on CD have been processed up the wazoo (mostly to "reduce noise") and thereby have been robbed of the musical expression a listener who simply drops a needle onto a 78 will hear and enjoy. It's a crime; and ought to be a hanging crime.
clark

Posted by rowuk on 06-30-2014

Studio mezzo forte is the requirement to play in ones comfort zone to get done on the first take. Even the instruments that we use in the studio have a lighter sound, trumpets often have a thinner bell to increase acoustical feedback as the venue does not promote communication. The lighter sound "prints well" to tape..............

clarkjohnsen wrote:
"The problem with the playback words dynamics and micro/macro dynamics is that they have have no relation to richness, rather just to the leading edge, difference between soft and loud."
No, it's way more than that. Musicians are highly attentive to dynamics; for one thing dynamics are spelled out in scores. And then consider trills: the musician thinks carefully about how loud or soft to make them. And swells: Again indicated in scores, but how fast, how loud? (All relative to the rest of the orchestra etc., of course.)
These are things that recordings and playback must capture to create an accurate rendition of performance.
Have you heard the phrase, "studio mezzo-forte"? It refers to the tendency of players and producers alike to go for a uniform volume in studio recordings, or at any rate a low dynamic range. It's easier for everyone that way! And I for one (there are many) deplore the practice.
Not even digital recording with its vaunted (but rather useless) dynamic range has discouraged this practice. Who needs compressors when you have tractable musicians doing duty?
clark

Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 »