From: tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke )
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Golden Ears?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:22:35 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43

In article <Bvnx26.9H8@world.std.com> DPierce@world.std.com (Richard d Pierce) writes:
   In article <1992Oct5.092831.26359@walter.cray.com> daw@cray.com (Dave Wright) writes:
   >
   >With all this talk about audibility of cable effects that can't be
   >measured, let's talk about measurable audible effects.
   >
   >Why does that AM car radio sound so good after weeks in the wilderness?

   To whom? AM radio sounds pretty dismal to me all the time, especially
   after weeks in the widlerness!

Gee Dick, you missed a good opening to dump on subjective reviewing!
Dave, since you point out that something as grossly innacurate as an
AM radio can sound great once you've been away from reproduced sound
for a few weeks, what do you think that says about the chances of a
reviewer getting things "correct" when he/she spends a week or two
listening to one pair of interconnects, and then switches to another
pair for two weeks?  Surely the AM radio thing proves how short one's
auditory memory can be -- how long do you think the impressions of
something as subtle as the differences between cables can last?

   >Why does a high end audio system sound better through an open door where
   >you are outside the stereo image of the speakers? 

   Who said it does? Does it sound better to you? Doesn't to me!

I'll give the original poster the benifit of the doubt and assume he meant
"Why does a high end system sound better than a lo-fi system, even through an
open door..."

*Some* (not all, and not neccessarily high end) speakers have pretty
flat reverberant response.  I imagine that they would sound better, on
average, through an open door than speakers that don't.

   >Who in this group can here if the speakers are reversed polarity?
   >what are these audible effects.

   Maybe audible, may not be.

I believe that the Stereophile test CD has a track that switches absolute
polarity in the middle, if you're interested in seeing if you can hear it.

   [stuff deleted...]

   >Is the flat response/ perfect measurement speaker really desired?
   > Sound production vs sound reproduction

   First, no such speaker yet exists. Secondly, let's trun the question
   completely around: why would you NOT want flat response?

   (NOTE: While flat frequency response in and of itself is not a sole,
   necessary and sufficient condition for perfect reproduction, it is
   certainly arguable that it represents a bare minimal criteria)

Hmph.  I'm not very well versed in this topic, but I'm pretty sure
that there can be some legitimate disagreement on this point.  How
about systems like the Hughs SRS?  I don't want to get into an
argument over whether it's a great idea or not, but the people who
designed it seem to think so, and it's whole purpose it to play with
the frequency response to trick your head into hearing "better"
stereo.

   >Why does a shower with terrible acoustics by sound reproduction standards
   >sound so good?

   Does it? I think it sounds like sh*t!

I'll put some words in the original poster's mouth again, and assume he meant
"sound so good when I'm singing in it...", and not "sound so good with my
Duntech Black Knights [the indoor outdoor version, of course] in it...".

On this point, much has been written.  First of all, the early
reflections and long reverb time in a shower bounce your voice back
into your ears, and many people have an easier time hitting solid
notes in that environment.  Plus, the dimensions of a shower, combined
with its reflectivity, tend to create a nice resonator that reinforces
the lower fundamentals of many voices, with a nice effect on the
sound.

The reasons reproduced sound might not sound so good in that same
shower are not particularly big mysteries.  First of all, most pop
vocals have already been run through the electronic equivalent of a
shower stall before you buy the record, and they don't really need
another watering down.  Second of all, Yo-Yo Ma's cello needs no
additional help with its tonal quality.  Thirdly, neither the
aforementioned vocalist nor Yo Yo Ma (particularly the latter) need
any help hitting the right notes, and even if they did, your
reverberant shower/listening room isn't going to somehow change the
notes on a CD from whatever they are into perfection.

Now if you were to do the original recording in the shower stall, that
might be another matter.  I recently did an album for a twelve-member
female accapella group, and we were looking for an interesting
location for one of their numbers.  The twelve of them seemed leary of
climbing into the shower with me, so we settled for a stairwell.  I guess
the were scared off by the size of my mike boom ;-)

Ahem.  I'll leave the rest of the original posting alone.


Tony Berke  (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu)