I have been following this thread wih interest, as I await the arrival of the P-mount adapter for my recently acquired P-76. I will report my impressions on it when I receive the adapter.
I have used MM's as well as MC's for as many years as I have been into audio, and I acknowledge the merits of the better MM's. I own and have used the Audio Technica ATML-170, and I agree that it is a very fine performer, and holds up very well against a lot of the better MC's that I have used. I am not, however, prepared to give up my Vandenhul MC's, yet. I will take a shot at Raul's question:
"What do you think? which is your explanation to those " alarming " differences?"
I acknowledge my limited technical knowledge, and base these impressions on experience with countless cartridges and almost as many various phono preamps.
I think that one of the big factors affecting the perceived sonic advantage/disadvantage of MM's vs. MC's, and one which has not been analyzed nor discussed nearly enough, has to do with output level, and the interaction of the cartridge, as concerns output level, with the phono stage. MM's have, for the most part, much higher output than MC's. This is a huge advantage IMO. I suspect that we don't fully understand all that is coming into play as concerns how the output level of a cartridge affects the performance of a phono stage.
I think that MC's probably have, as a group, better inherent performance as far as speed, and ability to track fast transients in a realistic way, than MM's. However, the actual perceived sonic end-result (speed-wise), is not just the result of the cartridges inherent ability in this area. It includes that, as well as how well it is able to "drive" the phono stage. Again, these are impressions based on experience and some of you more technically inclined may be able to debunk these impressions. IMO, many MC's simply don't provide the phono stage with sufficient output to properly drive it. I oftentimes get the sonic "gut feeling" (when using MC's) that the phono stage is working way to hard to amplify the puny output of most MC's (even when the phono stage has a lot of gain), instead of the cartridge "driving" the phono stage. To my ears, the best results I have gotten have been with cartridges with sufficient output so that there is a sense of balance between the catridge's ability to "drive", and the phono stage's ability to "amplify". Additionally, ability to track fast transients has been linked by many audio designers to the ability to properly soundstage, as well as other sonic parameters. |
Making absolutist generalizations about this stuff is precisely what gets in the way of productive thinking, which would lead to better choices of hi-fi gear.
Audio and music seem to promote very strong opinions about what is good and what is not. Ultimately, if it causes us to feel passionatelu about them, it's a good thing; as long as it does not blind us to other possibilitie, and alternative ways of lppoking at an issue. Flexibility is the key.
It is unlikely that higher output is THE thing that makes the MM sound attractive. It is that and other aspects of the inherent sound of MM's in the context of a particular audio system that is the key. Balance is the key. Wether we are always willing to admit it or not, regardless of price or performace level, we are always balancing one component's sonic attributes or deficiencies with those of the other components in the system.
On the issue of reviewers this is very relevant. One of the most influential reviewers of all time, HP of TAS has always been a fan of MC's. Another prominent reviewer, REG has always been a fan of MM,s. I don't think its a coincidence that HP is, for the most part, partial to tube amplification, and REG a strong supporter of SS designs. I think this is a great example of the balance that I am talking about. IMO. the MM's denser, more corpulent images tend to be a better match for SS amplification's tendency to a drier presentation. Conversely, MC's finer deliniation of detail, and arguably thinner images, tend to be a better match for tube gear's jucier inherent sound. Obviously, these are generalizations, but they help explain some of our preferences and b iases.. . |
Dear Raul:
"but if a type of electronics ( SS or Tube ) needs a specific kind of " sound signature " ( MC or MM. ) audio link like cartridge then IMHO something wrong with that electronics that can't handle with nearer the same quality performance both cartridge designs other that that electronics were designed in specific for MM or MC cartridges".
I completely agree. But, what this says to me is that audio devices are ALL still very far away from being even close to truly neutral. When all is said and done, MM's are probably, as a group, no closer to the sound of the real thing than MC's are. And tubes, as a group, are no closer to the sound of the real thing than SS. It is the balance achieved by our chosen combination of components that gets us (hopefully) closer. Of course we all have different aspects of sound that we focus on, or are more sensitive to. Some of us want tonal neutrality even at the expense of realistic micro-dynamics, some want frequency extension even at the expense of midrange neutrality, etc. We try to balance all this out, and make as few major compromises as possible. |
Raul, thank you for keeping the MM flame alive. I just received a P-76 that I have not mounted yet. When I do I will report on my impressions. But, I have a related question re the stylus guard: what is the technique for removing the stylus guard without also removing the stylus assembly along with it? It seems the stylus guard on my sample fits so tightly that it always pulls the stylus out when it is removed. Also, mine came with no spec sheet. What is the ouput spec for te P-76?
Thanks to all. |
While I am not prepared to declare MC's superior to MM's in every respect, or vise versa, I do think Downunder is correct; to a degree. I made the very same point in one of my previous posts. I do think that, as a group, and generally speaking, solid state equipment does not have the "juicyness", and dimensionality, nor the sense of aliveness of good tube equipment. All, traits of real instruments playing in a real space. SS amplification tends to sound more tonally dry than real life, and with less of that, hard to describe, sense of aliveness. Like a coiled spring ready to explode at any moment. Conversely, tube equipment tube equipment often lacks the precisely delineated leading edge, and ability to sound convincingly nasty when it is appropriate. Live music can be very nasty sounding. In my experience, MM's while having the edge in the "juicyness", and dimensionality area, simply don't have the sense of aliveness, or speed of MC's; when compared to the real thing. It then becomes ovious that a correlation is inevitable. To those that profess to not making those connections or correlations, I say it's impossible; unless the equipment used to make the comparisons can be deemed perfect, and absolutely neutral. I think most of us would agree that no piece of equipment is perfect, and absolutely neutral. Anyone who does think that is simply not familiar enough with the sound of real instruments. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I realize many will disagree, but that is the way I hear it. The intent is not to start a SS vs, tube controversy, but to point out an obvious correlation. I do believe there is as Downunder points out, a connection. BTW, tubes do not "focus" on third order harmonics, and SS on the second. It is exactly the opposite.
I spend several hours every day around the sound of live instruments playing in a real space (I am a professional musician), either in my practice studio, or on stage playing in symphony orchestras. All I can say is that what I described above is the way I hear it. |
Dgob,
thank you for the very toughtful response to my post. If you reread my post, you will notice my liberal use of qualifiers such as: "generally speaking", "tends to...", "often lacks..." etc. Not once did I state that one technology or another cannot provide excellent performnace. Having said that, I stand by my observations; generally speaking.
One of the main problems with the use of the word "accuracy", is that more times than not the user is referring to tonal accuracy. If only it were that simple. In that respect, I mainly agree with you that the venue where the recording was made has a major influence in the perception of such. Tonal accuracy is but one piece of the wonderful complexity of music. If musical accuracy is the goal, and it should be, along with tonal or timbral accuray, we have to consider first and foremost rhythmic accuracy. It is there that the true soul of a performance lies. After that we should look at textural accuracy, and spatial accuracy. Although the last is, to me, far less important.
I completely agree that there is some excellent SS equipment that gets very close to tonal accuracy; just as there is of the tube persuasion. I don't claim to have heard anywhere near every piece of equipment that is out there. But I have heard quite a few of the heavy hitters (my system is not too shabby either), in some very well put together systems, and I can confidently tell you that in just about every instance when I have listened to music on a system that allowed me to suspend disbelief, it was a tube based system. What allowed me to suspend disbelief was not wether the sound was tonally accurate (whatever that means), but the sense that the music was alive; that a good enough portion of whatever it is that tells your brain that it is human beings making those sounds was preserved.
Raul, I have indeed heard the AT 170ML (not the P-76, yet)loaded at 100K, and while this loading does allow it to show more air and clarity, it did not give it the immediacy, and musical vibrancy of my Vandenhul Grasshopper, and certainly not like my old Decca London, which is, admittedly, grossly inaccurate tonally. The AT 170 ML is fantastic at letting me hear, study, and analyze the tone of a particular instrumentalist on a recording; I can't think of any MC thatI have owned let me do that to the same degree. But, if what I want to really dig deep into the trully subtle phrasing nuances of the same player, no MM I have heard allows me to do that to the same degree that my Vandenhul, or my Decca does (of course, I don't need to point out that the Decca is not a MC).
As in politics, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Regards. |
I bit. I guess I needed an audio-toy impulse purchase. Raul, thanks for the heads-up. I will report back when I have a chance to listen to it. |
"It's tempting to think about cartridges primarily as signal generators of varying mechanical ability. Similarly we tend to think of tonearms mostly in terms of geometry and mechanics and not as electrical devices. Tonearm wire is usually accepted a priori without much reflection. Tain't so."-Dgarretson
Having rewired my ET2 three times over the years, I could not agree with Dgarretson's comment more. Since the first time I rewired the arm, I have used one continuous run of wire from cartridge clips to phono preamp; sometimes hardwired to the preamp's board. The first time I did this, the results were nothing short of revelatory. The elimination of several solder joints, or mechanical "bumps in the road" for the cartridges' signal path were fantastic; greater, in positive ways, than any cartridge change I had made up to that time. The improvements in clarity and refinement allowed the differences in the sound of various catridges to be much more obvious, and made the effects of the set-up of these cartridges much more obvious, and important.
The wire harness is always used externally, so no modification of the arm is required. I have done the same thing with my pivoting Syrinx PU3, which I use occasionally, using the same wire harness used with the ET2. The Syrinx's internal wiring remains intact (and not used), and the new wire harness is run along the outside of the arm's tube along the bottom of the tube, with a loop of wire (as with the ET2) over the arm's pillar. The wire is shielded from that point on, to the phono amp.
I have used Vandenhul, Cardas, Discovery, and currently, Audionote, which is IMO the best by far. But this is a different discussion. But I will say that I have always been surprised that considering the legths that many of us go to with tonearm/cartridge set-up, that this tweak is not tried more often. |
Lewm, I have not tried the "Ikeda" wire you refer to, and know nothing about it; sorry. My source for Audionote wire was Audio Federation in Boulder, CO. I always dealt with Neli, and she was a pleasure to deal with. The cost of 1.5 meters of wire, terminated with AN clips, and tinned at the preamp end was $290 delivered. Less expensive without termination. I cannot recommend this wire enough, it is fantastic. I will say, that it is extremely thin, but not particularly fragile. The pricing, as stated in the AN website, is a little confusing. Each run of wire consists of three individualy insulated, braided strands. What AN now provides, for the same cost, is the above mentioned X2. IOW, six strands per run. To give you an idea of how thin this wire is, the net result of the six strands is still considerably thinner than the Cardas. |
No, AN wire is pure silver. In my experience, the beauty of the AN wire is that it has the clarity, and openness that silver can have, with beautiful refinement, and total absence of glare. The silver VDH wire that was original in my ET2 was harsh sounding by comparison. The AN wire has been, along with the motor controller for my TT, the single most significant improvement I have made to my analog set-up. Of course, the respective improvements are of a different nature. I can't recommend it enough. |
|
When using MC's, I have never had any issues with grounding noise of any kind using the wire without any shielding. With MM's it gets trickier, and grounding noise can be a real problem. I solved it this way:
The positive and negative runs of wire for each channel are twisted together for their entire length. The twisted runs then run "naked" from cartridge clips to just beyond the point where the wires make a loop over the arm pillar. From that point onward, each twisted pair of wires (+-) runs through a length of teflon tubing for the remaining length of wire. The teflon tubing is covered in copper mesh for shielding. To the preamp end of the copper mesh is soldered a six inch length of copper wire, with a clip at it's end. The copper mesh is covered with polyester mesh to insulated it. The clips at the ends of the wire harness get attached to the preamp's grounding post. Every system has different grounding requirements, and experimentation is the key. In my system, the above arrangement works great. |
Drewmb1, please read my post above on the subject. I strongly recommend that you first run the tonearm wire through a length of teflon tubing, then cover with the shielding braid. All tonearm wires are fragile, and copper braid can be very abrasive, and possibly damage the wire's insulation. It would keep the twist of the positive and negative legs (which you will hopefully do) intact, and provide better strain relief for the solder joints at the cartridge clips. Additonally, it would give the whole affair a more substantial feel. Teflon tubing is also available from Michael Percy. Good luck. |
Jcarr: "I do feel that modern high-end sound per se has a somewhat different sensibility from vintage sound, and this is true for MCs as well as for MMs, headamps, phono stages, preamp and power amplifiers et al."
No truer words have ever been written on this forum. |
I just received, and installed a NOS Empire 4000D III Gold. I am VERY impressed. I have been somewhat lukewarm about the whole issue of the claimed superiority of MM's relative to MC's; and still, overall, in the MC camp. I own ATML170, Azden PVL 50, Andante, and while I recognize what they do well (very well, particularly in the case of the AT and Azden), I have still been unconvinced. The Empire could change all that.
I am interested in hearing from you guys about your findings re break-in, VTA, VTF, viscous damping, etc., in order to optimize it's performance. Thanks. |
Thanks guys. I have the Empire in a Eminent Technology 2 air bearing tonearm with the high-pressure manifold and pump; on a VPI TNT6 with "the works". So far, initial impressions are: Terrific clarity, with good inner detail. Tonally, a good middle ground between the white/bleached sound of the Andante, and the more romantic/golden flavor flavor of the Azden. Open soundstage with good placement. Sound is definitely weighted towards the midrange, and so far seems a little bloated. That is why I ask about break-in, and damping; a hunch tells me that things will even-out (tighten) a bit after a few more hours. But, in general, so far I like it better than the vaunted ATML170, which in my set-up seems a little slow/slightly boring in comparison. I am going to try fluid damping over the next couple of days and report back. |
Dear Raul, thank you for your thoughts. I find the Empire to be anything but boring. It is, in fact, very alive sounding. That quality (or it's absence) is the most important performance consideration for me. If the component does not allow the music to move as it should, it doesn't matter how great it's frequency extension, soundstaging, or tonal refinement is. That is what I meant by "boring" in reference to the ATML170. It is clearly an excellent cartridge in most respects, but in comparison to the Empire (and my MC's), it sounds just a little bit slow; rhythmically laid back. The Empire, in the exact same system sounds very alive, and lets the music move as it should. The AT has superior detailing of the soundstage, with more stable placement, but also sounds a little closed-in in the highs; not enough natural color. I know "color" is considered a great sin by many audiophiles, but music has a tremendous amount of color, and some components seem to "bleach" the color out of instruments' timbre. Everything then sounds very much the same, with a gray(ish) color; mistakenly referred to as "neutral". I am sure you are correct, and that 100K loading would improve that. |
Dean man: "However I consider the timbral characteristics of these not as colored per se, but as being within the normal/neutral range that one encounters through hearing acoustic music in a variety of recital and concert halls. Within that normal range I find them a tad warmish but completely acceptable in terms of timbre, very much like a recital hall I know pretty well."
That is exactly what I said in my previous post. The term "color" is too often considered a negative, eventhough music is full of timbral color. Whereas "neutral" too often is used to mean lack of the natural color of live music; what, to me, sounds gray or bleached. Many audiophiles simply are not familiar enough with the sound of live music. Sorry, but it is true. |
While some would describe Halcro's post as hyperbole, to me, it demonstates much of what is missing in a lot of the banter on this forum (actually, this particular thread is a notable exception; sometimes): passion, with the emphasis on the music. Refreshingly eloquent.
I have now listened to the Empire for about twenty sides, and it is most definitely losing some of the plumminess in the midrange that I observed initially. Very, very nice; and moving in the right direction. |
Dear Raul: The "color" that I am referring to is timbral color; the distictive SOUND of instruments. While distortions in this area can affect the "soul/feelings/emotions that music can transmit", that aspect (soul/feelings/emotions) of music is something that has to do more than anything else with the dynamic characteristics of the music, or the audio components trying to play it back. I can listen to a live performance, or stereo system, from the room next door, not have a clear sense of the tonal qualities of the music, and still be able to get a very good sense of the "soul/feelings/emotions" of the music; or it's absence. I have heard audio components that get the feeling of the music right, but the "sound" is all wrong. The "gray", bleached sound of some Audio Research components comes to mind. Of course, as we all have found the hard way at some point in our audio journey, sometimes there are those rare components that are TRULY neutral enough to show us that the problem lies in the sound of some other component in the system. The challenge is always in determining which ingredient of our sonic soup is the one to keep. |
Dlaloum. I would like to thank you for the time spent is sharing your findings with us. My comments are not meant as a criticism at all; you did a very fine, and detailed job of describing what you heard. I would like to use your comments as an opportunity to describe what I think, and have pointed out previously, is an overlooked aspect of the sound of cartridges, and all audio components. It is the most difficult aspect of sound to describe meaningfully, but the most important, IMO. I am talking about the subtle, and not so subtle, differences in the dynamic capabilities of audio components. We all tend to focus on the tonal differences of audio components, and overlook the qualities that let (or not) the music move as it should. There is no doubt that tonality affects perceived dynamic detail. But, barring really gross tonal problems, there are things about sound that happen in the dynamics domain that are, if not entirely, mainly independent of tonality. I have heard components that are dark and dullish sounding that let the music move well; and some that are bright and tonaly aggressive sounding ones that sound too relaxed.
When the string section of a symphony orchestra makes a crescendo from "piano" to "forte", there are many (infinite) gradations in between those dynamic targets. It's not a component's ability to play softly or loudly that makes music exciting, it's the ability to get from one point to the other with everything (well, most of it) in between. That's what allows the groove that the cow-bell player in a salsa band sets up to sound funky, and not like the ticking of a metronome.
That is still my main issue with MM's in general. Until I heard the Empire 4000D III, every MM that I had tried, including the ATML170OCC, has sounded too relaxed to me. Not bad by any means, but compared to a good MC, without that essential quality of excitement in the rhythm of the music; like a coiled spring ready to unwind at any moment. I am still getting to know the Empire, and I am still not ready to say that in the dynamics (micro/macro) department it is the equal of my VDH MC's.
It's all mainly about rhythm. There is a truism among musicians that says: "no-one ever got fired for having a bad sound". What is meant by that is that too dark or too bright a sound, or a sound with too much edge, are usually not deal-breakers. But, if a player's sense of rhythm is not absolutely accurate, with really great "feel", all bets are off. |
|
Lewm, the essential consideration which I did not allude to in my previous post, is the need for correct gain structure in one's system. I am not familiar with your amplification components, so I am not commenting on that. However, I have found several times over the years, that if my phono preamp did not have sufficient gain for truly adequate amplification of a MC's low gain (compared to most MM's), and then enough input sensitivity at the power amp, the resulting sound can indeed sound anemic, even when the result is "enough" volume. A MM with much higher output can then sound more rhythmic in comparison. I experience this when I use my extremely inefficient Stax F-81's, as opposed to my very efficient Paragon Regents. My Regents are so efficient, compared to my Stax electrostats, that I can actually use a passive preamp (Audio Synthesis) with excellent results. I am convinced, however, that as a group MC's exibit more of the energy, and rhythmic agility that sounds realistic to me (with my chosen components, of course). |
***02-11-11: Dlaloum
Timeltel....
an observation - usually lower voltage cartridges also have lower inductance. (more coils = more inductance and more voltage)
Lower inductance leads to more extended frequency response especially with low Capacitance.
AND if the electrical resonance is moved further out (preferably outside the audio zone ... ie above 20kHz) then you also get massively improved phase linearity.***
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not a description (partial) of MC cartridges, and their claimed advantages? |
***The cart had a muddy bottom end that drove me crazy, and it was deficient in dynamics. I would switch between Empire and the Azden or the AT 20SS and the differences especially in dynamics were like night and day.***
Banquo363
Very interesting observation, as I find the opposite (particularly as concerns dynamics) to be the case between the Empire and the Azden; in an Eminent Technology 2 air bearing t/a, on a TNT6.
When I read your comments a couple of days ago, I decided to replace the Empire (which I had been listening to for the past couple of months) with the Azden. I was able to confirm my previous impressions: in my system, in my t/a, the Empire is a clearly more musically sophisticated cartridge. It is more neutral in the true sense of allowing one to hear more variablility in color/timbre between recordings, and different instruments in a particular recording. The Azden throws a cast of "sameness" over all recordings, tonality-wise (color). It is a pleasant cast, almost golden, reminescent of some vintage tube equipment. There is an illusion of purity, but some of the inner texture, and some of the nasties in the sound of some instruments are removed. The soundstage is considerably smaller than with the Empire, but well balanced. I will concede that the bass is very well defined and very tuneful; better than the Empire in letting you hear the pitch of low bass notes, and letting you hear bass lines as melodies as opposed to low frequency thumps. It also has slightly more stable imaging than the Empire, which has a little trouble with really stable centerfill, and precise placement of instruments. And it tracks a little better than the Empire, which I am still working at dialing in. The empire is very sensitive to perfect (or imperfect) geometry in the set up of my arm, specially perfect horizontal balance. But, and here is where personal preference comes in, for just listening to the music, perhaps outside the "sweet spot", the Empire has it all over the Azden, IMO.
In the department of dynamics, I find the Empire to be superior in every way, except in the way that bass definition affects our perception of dynamics. IOW, as I said, I find the Azden to be better defined in the bass than the Empire; it is more tuneful. I can see (hear) how someone would perceive the sound of a particular system as being more dynamic with the Azden than with the Empire, particularly if he/she listens mainly to rock or electronic jazz, given the role that bass plays in driving the rhythm of the music. But, overall, the Empire sounds much less like an electronic device.
Both amazing considering the price. Thank you Raul. |
Banquo363, I have no doubt that you heard what you describe. Isn't it interesting? This is what makes analog so fun and so maddening. It's all about synergy. |
Audiofeil, please share your impressions when you can. I would also be very interested in knowing your impressions re the perceived output of the cartridge vs. the actual output spec (mV). The stated spec is .15 mV, which would put it in dangerous territory for my setup. In my experience some cartridges seem to output more (sometimes much more) than the rated spec, regardless of the groove velocity standard used to measure output. In my setup .2-.3 mV output is on the cusp of being inadequate. |
Thanks Acman3/Timeltel for the heads-up. I just purchased the last (I think) of the 420 STR's from eBay/ Italy.
Timeltel, as a followup to our previous exchange on a different thread, I was forced to return the previously purchased 412 STR (eBay/USA), as it arrived with a misaligned cantilever. It was canted to one side enough to make me uncomfortable. The vendor was accommodating. I will post my impressions of the 420 after I have a chance to run it in. |
Thanks Raul. I thought I had bought his last one. |
Fleib, Acman, Lewm, one of Coltrane's most distinguishing characteristics was the hard edge or "bite" of his tone. That characteristic was a huge departure from the softer textured tone that was more common for tenor players before him; even when they were loud and aggressive. This approach to tone was very controversial among players, and many considered this drier and edgier tone to be unmusical. As has now been proven handily, the critics missed the forest for the trees, overlooking the amazing beauty in his tightly controlled tone and little (relatively) use of vibrato. It changed forever the way the instrument would be approached. |
Lewm, not surprising that you have a thing for Dexter. Coltrane credited him as one of his main influences. |
Dear Raul, it's great to have more discussion about music and musicians; it helps to put discussion about audio gear in a better perspective, and gives it more meaning. Much to say about the previous posts when I have a little more time. For now, just want to share some music by the great Wynton Kelly (I too, am a fan) with two of the giants of the tenor saxophone, Coltrane and Getz. Interesting to hear two vastly different, but equally great players. Enjoy. http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=8egSzCBCie0 |
|
A couple of thoughts about rewiring tonearms. The benefits of using a continuous run of wire from cartridge clips to phono pre are tremendous in my experience. I would strongly encourage anyone contemplating a tonearm rewire (DIY, or otherwise) to consider using a long enough length of wire to have the arm's internal wiring extend all the way to the preamp. Proper shielding of the wire where it extends beyond the arm's base may or may not be necessary depending one the particular system and environment. I realize that using arms with removable headshells complicates matters. Alternatively, and an interesting option for all tonearms when using appropriately thin wire such as AudioNote, is to build a "harness" to be used externally. With proper care the appearance of the end result is fine, and with proper dressing the mechanical issues concerning the presence of another set of wires at the pivot point is negligible. |
On the subject of dimensionality (3D) in live music. There is no question that there is a great deal of it in live music; far more than in even the best recordings. Live music also has a great deal of very precise pin-point imaging. In my opinion, those who argue the opposite are looking at (hearing) this issue from a mistaken standpoint. It is not live music that is lacking dimensionality nor precise localization. Nor is it that recorded music adds artifice to create pinpoint imaging and a 3D quality that does not exist in live music. The reason that recorded music is perceived by some as possessing these qualities is that a great deal of very subtle low-level information is not captured by the recording/playback process.
When an instrument or voice makes sound in a real space it radiates energy in every direction. True, more energy is radiated in one particular direction, but there is still a great deal radiated in a 360 degree sound envelope. Additionally, the decay of this energy lingers far longer in real life than is usually captured by most recording equipment. The absence of all this low level information can create the (distorted) illusion of pin-point imaging and "dimensionality", as it is primarily the initial sound that is recorded; not the more subtle harmonic information that fills the spaces
between instruments. Audiophiles have long sought the illusive "deep,
black space between instruments" even though this doesn't occur in live performances of acoustic instruments. Those spaces are filled instead by a great deal of subtle harmonic information that lingers after each note sounds. This is part of what gives live music it's fantastic richness. Composers have long understood this, and took advantage of this as an important consideration in their composition and orchestration. This is the reason that simply-miked recordings oftentimes capture the feeling of a composition better than multi-miked ones. In recordings where individual instruments, or sections of instruments are miked, the sonic richness of many instruments' harmonic envelope blending is lost. |
Dlaloum, tonal realness and spatial realness are, of course, two different aspects. But tonal realness is not the issue; although tonal quality does play a role. I agree that the tonal qualities of a hall can be better suited to certain music, but I find it improbable that when Ravel (for instance) orchestrated Daphnis et Chloe, he believed that the impact of his masterful use of the orchestra and voices, and how individual instruments wold blend would be completely negated if the piece were performed in a less than ideal, but at least appropriately sized hall. I assume that this is the phenomenon that you refer to.
The phenomenon that I alluded to, and one that concerns the issue of 3D in recorded music can be described via analogy. I like food analogies. Think of a group of instruments playing in a hall as the ingredients in a pot of soup. If you cook all the ingredients together, their individual flavors blend together. Not only is the resulting broth (space between the instruments) a blend of all the individual flavors, but the flavor of each individual ingredient now has some of the flavor of all the others. Now, cook each individual ingredient in a separate pot, and simply put all the cooked ingredients in a pot of fresh water. The flavors remain separate and distinct (pinpoint, 3D), and the water is missing the blend of all those flavors (harmonic information/decay). |
Dear Nandric, you did grasp the analogy correctly; and thank you. You correctly mention that two mics "blend all the instruments together". Two mics (two ears) is precisely what we each have; not multiple ears. |
Some confusion re the subject of harmonics in music. Harmonics, in the usual sense of the word, are naturally occurring frequencies ABOVE the fundamental frequency (first harmonic). The second harmonic occurs one octave above the fundamental (f); or twice the frequency of f. The third harmonic occurs one octave and a fifth above f. The fourth harmonic, two octaves above f. The fifth, two octaves and a third octave above f. They continue getting closer and closer together with higher frequencies. It can be confusing because "first harmonic" implies that it lies above the fundamental frequency. Not so, the fundamental is referred to as first harmonic.
The subject of subharmonics is controversial in that it is considered by most authorities to be a theoretical consideration. Subharmonics can be achieved by the manipulation of fundamental tones via playing technique (primarily the violin), and to call it a naturally occurring phenomenon is probably a stretch. The issue of subharmonics is sometimes confused with that of undertones or difference tones, which is a very real acoustical phenomenon by which two frequencies (two tones produced by two different instruments) can cause acoustical excitation and produce a third
"phantom" tone, as if a third instrument (player) were present. This is one of the many acoustical subtleties that give acoustic music it's richness and complexity, and one of the things that reminds us of how imperfect even the best record/playback gear still is; most of this information is completely lost by the electronic processing. |
Banquo363, I understand how my comments may seem to be contradictory. I agree that "3D, as sometimes sought by audiophiles does not occur in live music". The point I tried to make was that although recorded music can have a strong sense of pin-point imaging, live acoustic music has an even stronger sense of it. Let's consider sitting in a hall listening to an orchestra from a center orchestra seat. When the principal trumpet plays a solo, I never have any doubt (wether my eyes are open or not) that the player is (usually) sitting towards the back of the orchestra and at about 2:00 o'clock. My ears are hearing the direct sound of the trumpet, the sound of the trumpet reflected off the rear wall, the sound reflected off every other wall in the hall, the same sound that was reflected off the back wall and then reflected off the right side wall, and then reflected off.... (you get the picture). Add to all that the incredible low-level sonic soup that is all the other instruments (and their reflected sounds) accompanying the trumpet solo. Now, if we agree that much of this information can correctly be called "low-level", when one considers how much low-level information is lost by the record/playback process, and that the recording microphones are most sensitive to direct sounds, it becomes easier to see how the direct sounds picked up by the microphones can be "laid bare" in the absence of a lot of all that other low-level information, and gain a highlighted or "pin-point" quality. Conversely, the presence of all that other information in live music does not necessarily mean less localization or dimensionality, although I concede it can be perceived as a kind of distraction by some, when the goal is sonic "candy". |
Stltrains, you couldn't be further from the truth. I suspect that rather than showing your bias you are simply showing your age. Home audio and it's aficionados were around well before the term rock and roll was invented. Altec, Armstrong, HH Scott, Fisher, Williamson, Ampex, to name just a few of the brands that offered home-audio gear well before anyone had heard of rock and roll. And guess what? Lacking all the fancy and "sophisticated" test gear available today, the designers of such gear had the audacity to actually use their ears to determine if their gear approximated the sound of real music.
And for the record, a pair of Quads driven by good tube amps, playing a good classical LP on a well set-up TT (just one example) sounds more like what I hear live in a concert hall, than any audio gear I have heard playing high-energy rock and roll, when compared to what I hear at a live rock concert. |
David, fantastic post, and exactly on target.
While I take exception with comments made by some, such as referring to audiophile considerations as "audiophile BS", I believe it would be most productive for the audiophile/music lover to put more emphasis on understanding the depth and complexity of musical matters. Gaining a deeper understanding of technical audio matters is great and has obvious benefits, but it seems to me that if there isn't a corresponding depth of understanding re the music, all that technical knowledge leads to simply spinning our wheels since we don't really understand what it is that the
more and more "sophisticated" gear in our audio systems is supposed to be letting us hear. The amount of information available in a live performance is mind-boggling compared to what is actually present over even the best systems.
****So I posit the theory that in actual fact, many audiophiles who prefer their system/recordings to the live events, are doing this because in reality they prefer the "collage" artform over the live performance artform.**** -
Dlaloum
Returning to an earlier discussion: I confess I am mystified by the assertions of some of the posters on this thread that there is no 3D effect in live music. I agree that 3D as a audiophilic term, and as described by some does not exist in live music; not exactly, anyway. Let's first define what it is we are talking about. From wordIQ.com, 3D:
"Three dimensional objects have volume and may be measured and described using three orthogonal directions.
In animation, 3-D sometimes refers to shaded, modeled shapes that have an apearance of depth, as opposed to the "flat" rendering of conventional cell animation"
I think it is fair to apply this description to musical "images". I won't repeat what I posted earlier, but can only conclude that some are using a different definition of the term, as a musical instrument playing live exibits far more of these characteristics than any recorded one. |
Also try Heifetz's Glazunov Concerto (RCA LS) for another great example of his unique combination of virtuosic perfection and passion. And talk about 3D violin sound! :-) |
Dear Raul, I am not sure I understand your question correctly; but I will try to answer what I think you mean. Musical "image" is the aural equivalent of a visual image. We commonly use the term "imaging", no? I am not sure I understand what you mean by an image "permitting" high SPL's and aggressiveness. I experience precisely what you described (horns/trumpets playing 2m from me) on a regular basis, and I assure you that the resulting sound has dimensionality (yes, 3D), great specificity, and of course a great deal of power. As one moves further away from those sources, the "images" of those instruments (and all others, actually) gain dimensionality, as the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound will obviously
change.
If your question has to do with recorded sounds of those instruments, no recorded sound will capture the high SPL's and natural aggressiveness of real horns 2m from the listener. But then, I don't understand how that relates to the original discussion about 3D. Please clarify.
Regards. |
|
Raul, thanks for sharing your experience; and I commend you for caring enough to conduct that experiment.
I think this subject is in many ways a classic case of "talking past each other", as I think there is actually a lot more agreement than disagreement.
Lewm wrote:
"I never thought about a single instrument having a "3D" aspect. I am satisfied if and when my audio system can give me a sense of the space around that instrument, rather than of its dimensions".
I consider that a contradictory statement. "sense of space around that
instrument" is precisely what I have been talking about; it is a classic definition of 3D, in my opinion.
Call it 3D, "sense of space around the instrument", dimensionality (which by the way does not imply giving a sense of the actual measurable dimensions, but rather, the existence of dimensions), whatever. The sound of a live instrument (or group of instruments) playing in space has a tremendous sense of volume (to use yet another possible definition), much more than a recorded one. Were it not the case, and were the recorded sound posess such a strong quality that does not occur in real life (3D), then the only logical conclusion is that our beloved audio gear is even worse than previously thought, as we would then be talking about a seriously gross distortion of sound.
As I said in my original post on this subject, what I believe happens is that the sense of 3D that most audiophiles talk about re recorded sound is a sin of omission. A great deal of lowlevel information that is present in real life is lost by the recording process, and actually creates a sense of a musical image starkly separated from what is, in real life, a much larger sound envelope which has a much less defined beginning and end; the result of much more harmonic information extending in all directions for a much longer period of time (decay). |
I have always felt that the notion that an audio component can be "over damped" is a bit curious. I don't believe that it is possible for an audio component to be "over damped"; in absolute terms. I realize that we have to live in the real world of still very imperfect audio components, and that we need to "manage" and even exploit the various resonances introduced by every component, and every part of every component in our audio system. I think Raul has it exactly correct in referring to this issue in terms of a "resonator circuit". While I admit that my point is purely academic, I think it is of value to always remember that audio components are not musical instruments, and that if the goal of audio is to reproduce as faithfully as possible the incredibly complex sonic signatures of these instruments' own "resonator circuits" (similar mechanical resonance interactions occur in musical instruments), then the very best, and unachievable reproduced sound is possible only by eliminating resonance in our audio systems. Very frustrating, since the best we can do is manipulate these various resonances. |
NOS fish? Yikes! Gives new meaning to the term "stylus hangover". Oh, sorry, I meant "overhang" ;-) |
What finally "sent me over the edge" to try MM cartridges again after many years of MC use was not only the great info on this thread, but an unfortunate experience that I had with Van den Hul's retipping service three years ago. I had been a devoted fan of the sound of VdH cartridges (still am), but the experience left much to be desired. I don't relate the story to cast aspersions, but only because the subject of the length of the cantilever came up while trying to resolve the problem. The gist of the story is that a cartridge came back from retipping riding too low. VdH had recently changed US distributors and neither the new distributor Nor VdH wanted to take responsibility. I sent the cartridge back after direct communication with VdH and agreed to pay a "special reduced price" for the service, and the cartridge was returned to me with a longer cantilever than what was on it originally. My objections were dismissed with adamant assurances that "the length of the cantilever does not affect performance", that the reason for the longer cantilever was purely to meet VdH's "new geometry". BS? I think so, since the cartridge had performed well with the shorter cantilever for a few years. Did it sound worse with the longer cantilever? Can't answer that with certainly. It did sound different. Was the difference the result of the longer cantilever, or was it the new suspension? Who knows? I believe that the longer suspension was used as a way to ensure that the cartridge would not ride low; regardless of the effect on the sound. |
In the last sentence of my post I, of course, meant to write: longer cantilever not "longer suspension".
Nandric, I agree. But, in this particular case I don't believe that receiving a longer cantilever was an accident. VdH (his rep; I never spoke to the man himself) was very dubious about my complaints that the cartridge was riding too low (so low that even .1 gr above the minimum recommended VTF would cause it to bottom out). After much back and forth they agreed to look at it. So, three prior retips with the same length cantilever; now, after complaints of "low ride" it comes back with a considerably longer cantilever. Hmmm, coincidence? |
To quote Nandric, "I am not a technical guy", but years at this hobby has taught me that while we may wish it weren't so, the technical issues and considerations and subsequent choices that boutique manufacturers of phono cartridges make are probably made with a lot more latitude and variability than we hobbyists wish were the case. Wouldn't it be nice if a multi-thousand dollar cartridge came with a properly aligned stylus, on an absolutely perfectly aligned cantilever? On a related note, and as another reference to the issue that I had with VdH retipping, the cartridge came back not only with a much longer cantilever, but the stylus was glued on to it with what seemed like an excessive amount of glue. The stylus was glued on with a glob of adhesive far larger than the stylus itself, giving the appearance (unless inspected with magnification) of a there being an extremely large stylus in place. |
|
Dear Nikola, you sir (as they say here in the USA), are "on a roll"! Perhaps you have located a supply of my previously recommended "Bustelo" espresso roast bean, and are indulging in a bit too much brew. Although, and in spite of your previous references to an interest in the source of certain other stimulants, I suspect your boundless wit does not need any help.
BTW:
car·cass (kärks)
n.
1. The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food.
2. The body of a human.
3. Remains from which the substance or character is gone: the carcass of a once glorious empire.
4. A framework or basic structure: the carcass of a burned-out building.
[Middle English carcas, from Anglo-Norman carcais and Medieval Latin carcasium.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
carcass, carcase [ˈkɑːkəs]
n
1. the dead body of an animal, esp one that has been slaughtered for food, with the head, limbs, and entrails removed
2. Informal, usually facetious or derogatory a person's body
3. the skeleton or framework of a structure
4. the remains of anything when its life or vitality is gone; shell
[from Old French carcasse, of obscure origin] |
Dear Nikola, once again the difficulty of properly conveying the intended meaning of one's written words rears it's head. Please reread my comments to understand that they (as with yours) were intended as humurous and, more than anything, a compliment (in admiration) of your wit and abilities as a wordsmith. There is no problem; I assure you. My inclusion of the "definition" of the word carcass was simply in response to your stated inability to find the definition of "carcas" (sp?) yourself; nothing more. Obviously, my own attempts at wit failed, and I should know better than to try and match wits with you. While I would normally be inclined to simply respond: "lighten up!", I have too much respect for you to be dismissive of your concerns.
Regards. |
Dear Nikola, you sir (as they say here in the USA), are "on a roll"! Perhaps you have located a supply of my previously recommended "Bustelo" espresso roast bean, and are indulging in a bit too much brew. Although, and in spite of your previous references to an interest in the source of certain other stimulants, I suspect your boundless wit does not need any help.
BTW:
car·cass (kärks)
n.
1. The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food.
2. The body of a human.
3. Remains from which the substance or character is gone: the carcass of a once glorious empire.
4. A framework or basic structure: the carcass of a burned-out building.
[Middle English carcas, from Anglo-Norman carcais and Medieval Latin carcasium.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
carcass, carcase [ˈkɑːkəs]
n
1. the dead body of an animal, esp one that has been slaughtered for food, with the head, limbs, and entrails removed
2. Informal, usually facetious or derogatory a person's body
3. the skeleton or framework of a structure
4. the remains of anything when its life or vitality is gone; shell
[from Old French carcasse, of obscure origin] |
