Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Horn-Loaded Speakers
In the Thread: Macondo’s lowest channel.
Post Subject: Wrong? Actually, our actual positions differ very little, surprisingly enough.Posted by oxric on: 3/3/2011
fiogf49gjkf0d

Romy:

Wrong? I am every now and then wrong, as most people are, and I am always grateful for any chance to gain a better understanding of anything that has my interest. But given how I now understand your position, I don't think there is a real disagreement in our views.

If the issue is merely to recreate a better sense of the live performance, then I completely agree, and most people would, that we should try to use all the means at our disposal to achieve just that, inasmuch as the quallity of the recording allows us to do so. No real disagreement there.

As for the use of the multi-cell, I understand why you did not go for it much better now. It is interesting to note that aesthetic considerations can sometimes preempt something that was nonetheless deemed beneficial in other respects. Life, even our pursuit of perfection in our audio systems, has to be a balancing of priorities after all..


 Paul S wrote:
Rakesh, if Romy's ULF is "faultless" at this point, then he should play the lottary - once.  Perhaps part of the quandry stems from confusing "bass" with ULF.  Once you let go of that, it better falls into place.

As for the pops, clicks, tape hiss, etc., in the best cases they are present without interfering with the music.  Ideally, all extraneous noise can be minimized and/or "set aside" from the music, and there are actually rote ways to facilitate this, and Romy has either included his observations about ULF in this context or he has included the noise issues in the context of "ULF" features.

One more thing is the "groove echo" foreshadowing of change that may make us at least appear to be out of sync with our own manifestos.  And every so often, a change makes the need for it clear.



Paul:

If it is a question of playing the 'lottery', then of course it is perfectly fine as long as one is clear that that is what one is trying to do. Nonetheless, I do not think that is what Romy meant, although his meaning was not too clear initially.

As for your comment on pops, clicks and tape hiss, that corresponds pretty much with my own view. I cannot see why you felt that I thought differently.

Within the limitations of my system, I look to recapture that sense of being there, as far as it can be done, from looking at the whole spectrum rather than focusing on the bass frequencies. This CANNOT be a bad thing. In fact, it is rather amusing that this discussion takes place just as I am learning about a very different presentation of the musical performance, using only a pair of recently acquired Beveridge speakers which have an interesting dispersion pattern, creating a cylindrical wave of 180 degrees. I am presently only using one channel though (they are very old speakers and I need to have the other one checked). In due course, if that is of interest, I will let you know what THAT peculiarity of the Beveridges does to the overall presentation when it comes to capturing the ambience of the venue, as captured on the recording. My experience though is that the ability to recreate the ambience of the venue is so dependent on the quality of the recording, that one can only hope to effectively achieve that sense of being there with only a small proportion of the recorded works available to us.

Regards
Rakesh

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site