TOT music in pubs

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article ,
bugbear

Jim would be the first to point out the very poor nature of acoustic
memory so I can't see how listening to classical or acoustical can
help much unless you've just come out of a concert and even then...

I certainly agree that our 'acoustic memory' should be treated with
great caution as it can easily be unreliable or misleading. However it
isn't as simple as that. There are differences between free recall and
prompted recall. And having heard something many times whilst paying
attention to details is different to an occasional hearing.

So for example, you may not know what some things sound like until you
hear them, and then recognise them.

So basically if you use acoustic memory it's OK, If anyone else does in
a counter argument it's not reliable. Cake and eat it?

Sorry, Bob, but we seem to be at cross-purposes here. You seem to want to
make this a personal argument or point-scoring debate. I am simply trying
to be open-minded about the variability of situations and requirements.

I've not be saying your system was "inferior", etc. Those are reactions
you have made.

My point was to the effect that I hadn't expected to ever hear from a
stereo the kind of imaging I found I could hear. But when I heard that
quality I recognised it as a convincing preception of the sound in the hall
or venue which I had sat in many times. In essence hearing the reproduced
sound was a prompted recall, not a free recall of what I was expecting to
compare.

There is a distinction between

1) side-by-side comparisons where you try to detect any audible
'differences' and which you prefer.

and

2) Realising when listening to something that you recognise an aspect
or feature of the sound that you had not expected because it
reminds you of what you have heard in another context.

In neither situation are any conclusions bound to either be 'right' or
'wrong'. In neither case is any preference of one person certain
to be shared by all others.


Taking imaging as an example, I was initially stunned when I first
heard realistic imaging by a stereo system of a broadcast from
acoustics I had repeatedly sat and listened in.

Of course the images I hear are inferior because they are not real. To
be expected.

The images I hear aren't "real", either. You don't need to react in such a
defensive or upset manner.

but it was only when I used better systems (particularly speakers) and
a decent room I discovered that the stereo imaging could indeed, give
a clear perception of depth and 'solid' location with good
broadcasts/recordings that really did faithfully convey the acoustics
you heard at the venues. Once you hear this it is amazingly clear. But
it can be very elusive to get at all unless you have excellent (in
this respect) speakers *and* a decent listening room arrangement.

And my system is inferior, I'm so shocked.

Sorry, Bob, but you are the one who is making the assertion that your
system is "inferior", not me.

The reality is that any real-world system will have its advantages and
weaknesses, strengths and limitations. So we each choose what suits
us best in our circumstances and according to our preferences. I like the
ESLs as to me they give superb images and a very natural sound. But they
do have limitations that happen not to matter for me. The most obvious
example is that they can't output high levels into a larger room,
particularly at LF as they can't physically cope. Not designed for it.
This is one reason why many pros don't use them and choose something
else. This isn't a matter of what is "inferior" in any absolute sense
but of what suits in a given case. You have what suits your taste and
circumstances, so do I. Job done in both cases. Enjoying music isn't
some sort of competition.



Fundamentally I use my stereo for pleasure not technical accuracy, I
think Jim and I differ there.

Wrong.

No. Really?

You like nothing better than being Mr. Superior and putting others down
don't you?

Nope. I don't like you misunderstanding both my meaning and my intent in
this way. Sorry you have done this as it doesn't seem necessary to me and
is just a misunderstanding.

I use my audio systems for pleasure not technical accuracy. So on that
point and on your own assertion we do not "differ".

The point of the music is the 'pleasure' it gives. The 'technical
accuracy' is the means to that end. Understanding the 'technology' is
a means for being able to improve and move towards really hearing all
the details as close to the original as possible.

Not how it works for me. I get two different pleasures. One is the music
which frankly I could get 99% of the pleasure played back on almost
anything. Second is the sound, I enjoy the sounds and images that my
chosen system produces.

That's fine for you if that is what suits you, as I have already said. But
I've just been pointing out that a professional reviewer isn't just there
on the same basis as you or I as individuals might choose for ourselves
alone. His job is to produce some results which will be useful for a
wider audience than himself alone.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Jul 1, 9:10*am, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bob Latham [email protected]
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
Is your hearing all that it might be ?,

Half past three.

Bill

On 01/07/2010 09:13, tony sayer wrote:
In , Rob
scribeth thus
On 30/06/2010 22:07, Bob Latham wrote:
In ,
tony wrote:
I'm quite happy to accept that I would not be suitable to offer much
advice regarding a product for classical listening. However, it would
be IMHO no worse than me buying a product based on your classical
evaluation of a product. For example, you use ESL63s I believe. I am
aware of their merits and I appreciate their clever design. Never the
less, they would be totally unsuitable for me, something would go bang
in a week and the last time I heard a pair I was expecting a sound on
the thin side with no deep bass, not a bit of it. What I heard shocked
me as it was the top end that I found difficulty with - I didn't think
there was any.

Its about one of the flattest speakers around and yes there is top as
well as very other audible frequency..

Do you mean they were "lacking in top"?...

That was my perception.


You have to sit bang on axis to get treble - then they sound just about
right IMO.

No you don't, there might be a bit of image shift but the room might be
influencing it a bit but they should be just as good as far as audio
balance is concerned more or less anywhere you'd normally listen to any
speakers..


Well, you don't but I do :-)

On image shift, the image doesn't so much shift off axis as become
blurred - nothing like as solid as on-axis. Again, my experience with
ESL 988s.

The sound isn't unpleasant off-axis; indeed, I listen that way most of
the time. Just very different in the 'hot seat'.

Rob

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[Snip]

BTW You (and others) might find it interesting to read Floyd Toole's book
"Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms" (Focal Press paperback). His
work is very good in this area.

I prefer Flanders & Swan's "Song of Reproduction" - "I had a little
gramophone .......

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

[Snip]

BTW You (and others) might find it interesting to read Floyd Toole's
book "Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms" (Focal Press
paperback). His work is very good in this area.

I prefer Flanders & Swan's "Song of Reproduction" - "I had a little
gramophone .......

Yes. Ideal if you have flutter on your bottom. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 30 June, 02:41, "
wrote:
Just sent:

Hello there,

We greatly enjoyed our stay last week. We liked everything about the
place except just one thing, and that was the music system in the pub.
There’s something wrong with it. The bass just thuds relentlessly, and
it is very annoying. It’s like trying to have a quiet pint near a
large noisy machine.

I pay good money to have a pint near a

VOICE - JULIAN CLARY: "thudding machine",

when I go to diesel events on the Great Central Railway! LOL! :-)

Check this out:

http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/Events.aspx?ID=270


This is not what we expect from a grown-up
country pub. In the front room the midrange and top are more-or-less
inaudible, but the bass is there thudding away.

They should come and do a swap with some of the pubs in Leicester
then, as they all have the opposite problem of no bass and all top,
probably due to mis-connections of bi-wired cabinets. A lot of music
just doesn't work without the bass.

Bob Latham wrote:

Funny I thought most used B&W speakers.

Is there something about B&W I should know? (If it's lack of top end...
matches my ears...)

Andy

In article , Bob Latham [email protected]
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

That reaction is quite common for people who mainly listen to rock/pop
and who use conventional dynamic speakers. There are various reasons for
it. However it can change with exposure.

Many conventional dynamic speakers have quite uneven treble responses
which also have wildly complex frequency-dependent directional patterns.
This means the HF responses you see plotted 'on axis' (curious term for
multi-unit systems) are quite misleading. The measurements are also
often frequency-smoothed.

Peaky responses of that kind are quite 'attention grabbing' when you
play a lot of pop/rock music. Bear in mind that to a large extent rock
and pop have developed to 'sound good' on conventional speakers and
there often is no 'original sound' just the need to impress the listener
using speakers.

The 'lack of treble' is actually a flatter treble response, taking away
the peaks you are accustomed to. Just like the start of this thread
where 'boom' is used as 'bass' so conventional speakers tend to use
'ting' resonances to fill in the treble in their uneven responses (in
both frequency and direction) and this makes the sound more noticable
even at the same frequency-averaged level.

I should have guessed really, my speakers are are a faulty design, I
listen to the wrong music and my perception is faulty as a result. I'll
tell KEF and while I'm on I'll ask why their graphs say otherwise.

People recording/broadcasting classical acoustic music tend to use
flatter and better controlled speakers equivalent in this respect to the
LS series and the ESLs.

Funny I thought most used B&W speakers.

Well there're commercial ventures, and nowt wrong as such with B&W
speakers but sometimes they need to impress their punters and remember
some of them involved in the industry have hearing loss because they
work in high level environments a lot of the time.

I just couldn't picture a pair of ELS's of any sort in a recording
studio.

I believe the BBC used to use them for "quality assessment" once, they
might sill do, but you won't find them in yer average radio studio.

Last classical recording I saw was at Ely Cathedral and they were using
headphones for monitoring!..


These people , now I wouldn't call DT100 cans or Tannoy Reveals that
accurate but perhaps they deem them good enough for purpose;!..

http://www.lantern-productions.co.uk...ical-equipment



Bob.


--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Bob Latham [email protected]
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

People recording/broadcasting classical acoustic music tend to use
flatter and better controlled speakers equivalent in this respect to
the LS series and the ESLs.

Funny I thought most used B&W speakers.

Well there're commercial ventures, and nowt wrong as such with B&W
speakers

Indeed. And their (expensive) pro models do tend to fall into the category
I described. They tend to have well controlled responses with well
controlled dispersion patterns, etc. They and other serious kit tend to go
for a flatter response *where* this is what producers want.

but sometimes they need to impress their punters and remember
some of them involved in the industry have hearing loss because they
work in high level environments a lot of the time.

I'd suspect that is more comment for rock/pop producers than those who
specialise in classical or small scale acoustic types of music. Similarly,
I'd expect rock/pop producers to tend to use different types of monitor and
set them (and the room) differently.

I just couldn't picture a pair of ELS's of any sort in a recording
studio.

Agreed. The main problem here is that they are fragile (in pro terms) and
won't deliver high levels into rooms larger than a modest domestic UK
living room, particularly at LF.

I believe the BBC used to use them for "quality assessment" once, they
might sill do, but you won't find them in yer average radio studio.

IIRC some others like DECCA did use them at a time, but moved on to other
speakers when they could get equivalent behaviour without the limitations
of the Quad ESLs. The Quad designs are really aimed at the domestic living
room market, not at studio use. And PJW was rather more interested in
acoustic and classical music, not pop or rock. So far as I know he took his
usual approach - designed what suited him and then sold to others who had
similar requirements. :-)

Last classical recording I saw was at Ely Cathedral and they were using
headphones for monitoring!..


These people , now I wouldn't call DT100 cans or Tannoy Reveals that
accurate but perhaps they deem them good enough for purpose;!..

http://www.lantern-productions.co.uk...ical-equipment

I suspect that "the computer" and similar electronics has had the same
effect in the area of music as it has in writing. People now have available
to them a range of 'DIY' creation and production tools that can give decent
results *if* used with due care and skill and talent. The printer and
having loads of fonts has produced a lot of printed material that is rather
'enthusiastic' in its layout and graphic design, etc.

Would not surprise me if a lot of pop (and other semi amateur) production
is done using simple kit and very basic speakers, etc. However this depends
on the type of music and the intent and skill (and backing) of those
involved. Ranges from the big international companies and world-famous
studios, etc, down to garage band setups and 'recording studios' in
bedrooms with matresses on the walls. Used to be Atari IIRC, but now I
guess it is Apple that rules... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Rob wrote:
On 30/06/2010 22:07, Bob Latham wrote:
In ,
tony wrote:
I'm quite happy to accept that I would not be suitable to offer much
advice regarding a product for classical listening. However, it would
be IMHO no worse than me buying a product based on your classical
evaluation of a product. For example, you use ESL63s I believe. I am
aware of their merits and I appreciate their clever design. Never the
less, they would be totally unsuitable for me, something would go bang
in a week and the last time I heard a pair I was expecting a sound on
the thin side with no deep bass, not a bit of it. What I heard shocked
me as it was the top end that I found difficulty with - I didn't think
there was any.

Its about one of the flattest speakers around and yes there is top as
well as very other audible frequency..

Do you mean they were "lacking in top"?...

That was my perception.


You have to sit bang on axis to get treble - then they sound just about
right IMO.

Yeah - they're the perfect speaker for a "bobby no mates"
hi-fi enthusiast, since two people can't use them at once;
the sweet spot is very perfect, but very small...

BugBear