So, why is it that these judges can't tell the flaws? Well, because they try to judge sound as if it was a point on a map. Once you get to that point, your sound is good. But an absolute sound is not a point. If that was the case, one of the two recordings in this video would be absolutely correct and the other absolutely wrong. Yet, both are correct.
A good sound judge would know that. Both recordings can in fact be reproduced equally well. But fantastically well would never mean that the sound seems to be within a little box, which is what the so called best cars in the world sound like.
I suggest that these judges try to go to their nearest Wilson Audio dealer ASAP. They urgently need a reference. If the sales person actually let's them audition the speakers, they will hear how different these sound when compared to "the best cars in the world".
I have nothing for or against the Wilson brand, other than I wish they were much cheaper. But Wilson makes a fantastic family of speakers that are not spatially limited as are all other mid-fi brands. Of course that there are other good brands (Vandersteen, etc). Look for speakers with great step and polar responses and don't get too worked up with tonality, which any boom box with a thirty band equalizer can do ok with. But do consider the Wilsons. I just think that Wilson's focus on tuning their dealer shops pays big dividends every time.But why not just listen to real music played life? Well, much of today's music is amplified, which means that you are at the expense of the many audio engineers with severe hearing loss that rule the world of pro-audio.
Now that if you have the time and the passion for listing to life unamplified music, then be my guest. Nothing compares to it. Professional musicians work harder than anyone I know and deserve the patronage. Just keep in mind that the actual reference that you will build will not be a single event or a single point on the map, as I made reference to before.
Instead, the real reference will be the memory of the beauty that real sound becomes.
Also, remember that to create such beauty, professional musicians have to make an exponentially larger investment. So, when listening to reproduced sound that captures the bigness and the nuances of their work, also acknowledge the exponentially larger investment required to achieve it.
In a nutshell, I think that today's sound off judges don't have either the knowledge or the guts to reward real high performance audio when they hear one. This is a shame because the tens of thousands of dollars invested by sound off competitors are being gambled through a random lottery system. It's all a real shame.
Personally, I think the closest we may get to that standard would be if prosound nearfield monitors sets with active subs were made available, at a discounted rate, to competitors. make it where the same brands ,used as a reference at a show for the judges , was available to competitors. the key would be it would be a rotating reference format that competitors would not hear till after judging. the benefit is establishment of a common reference. however, the DRAWBACK COMPETITORS STILL NOT BEING ADEQUATELY EXPOSED TO THE LIVE ACOUSTIC EVENT.another problem in competition is the incongruity in understanding and communication. both competitor and judge should be able to dialogue based on common reference as a final point of arbitration with a head judge present.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback Steven,
DeleteUnfortunately, I am afraid that pro near-field monitors are generally poor tools. Most of them focus on tonality as the only dimension relevant in sound reproduction. Just visit any Audio Engineering Society meeting and you will get lots of comments about this issue. But it is my experience that time, and not amplitude, is what differentiates the good from the ugly. There is no doubt that many of the cars at Spring Break had decent tonality. But look not at the amount of tonal energy but at what is done with each tone to discover real greatness. For example, I heard a car that played all midbass tones correctly. But, as soon as I played a demanding piece of music, the system fell apart. The music was not demanding because of its loudness. Rather, it was demanding because all bands had to be played in harmony and in time with each other, no matter how nuanced. So, the same instrument sounded big and small, it sounded behind and in front, and had clear changes in color; all depending on what was being played. While the tonality was beautiful, we were only listening to tones and not music. This is where tweeters should disappear to be replaced by floating highs. Woofers should be deleted and only low extension should be heard. But both lows and highs should have the same presence (size, positioning) as the rest of the music.
Perhaps the most offensive of what I heard was the fact that many cars seem to place midgets on top of the dash. Tiny instruments that carry all the right tonality but totally destroy any semblance to real instruments. Real sound is big. Even when my small daughter talks inside a small room, the sound is much bigger than she is. I recall one time when James Feltenberger played his trumpets right at my face. Talk about near-field. But despite my expectations, the sound was monstrous. But not big in a shrill way, but gigantically round and beautifully silky. So, you ask, how can a small body instrument sound so big? Well, because Feltenberger, like all other orchestra players, has real energy stored in his longs. All that energy must build up against the walls of the trumpet's pipes and then the instrument does what it's supposed to, it projects beautiful sound that could fill an orchestra hall. But when listening to any of the music I played, most cars could only muster an image a few inches high, which is what some judges call "focused" image.
Part II:
DeleteWhen I made reference to the Wilson's it was not because I feel that expensive is the only way to make good sound. I built my own home system because I wanted high performance sound but at a much lower price. But whether you build it or not, good quality components are essential when creating a good reproduction piece, the only free lunch is simplicity. The simpler the system, the less money is spent in components. This is why so many vintage pieces of electronics sound so good. But let's look at three 10uf capacitors: a surface mount electrolytic, a typical Mylar, and a polypropylene one. Then consider the fact that the parts' cost should be multiplied by 10 to arrive to retail. The surface mount cap will cost $0.45. The Mylar cap will be around $1.50. Finally the polypropylene cap should run about $15.00. Let's be glad that we did not consider a Teflon cap with silver foils. Such babies would run a couple of thousands. Also note that all prices would go down somewhat with volume purchases.
If we now think that a powered pro speaker usually has at least two balanced channels, we deduct that at least four 10uf caps are needed to block DC at the inputs. So just these components can be expected to become from $18 to $600 in the final retail; price. Again, not talking Teflon nor silver here; just simple components. Which caps do you think would be used by say Genelec? And when you look at adding two fully discrete dual channel opamps (made up for real components at a cost close to $30 each) or using two Texas Instrument opamps (that costs around $0.50 each), you are looking at a difference in price around $1,100 without even looking at cables, box material or even driver quality. This may explain why pro monitors don't cut it. They are simply mid-fi at best.
The volume control I built for my home system cost me about $2,000 in parts alone. I still had to solder the switch and all the components.
But one can simply go to a Wilson dealer and be assured to the system will be of absolute reference quality; not because of the price but because they would sell none if they were bad at such high price.
I told Ron Baker to go to his nearest dealer and what he heard was absolutely different than the Genelecs or the best cars could do. Better, it was not high-fi. It was beautifully floating, large music. There was no trace of a bass speaker. There was no sizzle on the highs. Best, the speakers evaporate and all you'd hear is spherical sound that extended beyond the boundaries of the room. And, as incredible as it may be, Ron had nothing to pay for the reference session.
Would other speakers sound right? Yes. Look through old issues of Stereophile for measurement reviews showing great (triangular) step response. In fact, all home, pro or car systems that create the midget-on-stage-effect fail this test. Instead, they display a ringing curve. Think of it as resonant time behavior. That's what I heard from most Spring Break cars.
The irony here, is that most so called amateurs intuitively know that such resonant time performance is wrong as soon as they hear it. It's only "expert" judges that miss this fact. So the solution may be to go back to a time before we knew anything. Ask yourself, would a cello seem right at two inches high? Would it be right that its strings are disjointed from the body of the instrument? How about if the body is completely missing and we hear strings as of they were playing on open air? Any amateur would know that such is wrong.
i completely agree with your valid points Alberto. the solution is really getting competitors exposed to the live acoustic performance. a good home audio rig set up properly would be a great second.
ReplyDelete