General SQ General discussion of Sound Quality related issues.

Hmmmm what is this SQ thing all about?

Old Jan 17, 2009 | 06:11 PM
  #21  
JohnVroom's Avatar
Yankee
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Sooo SQ must have tonality of the original recording as well as the imaging of the original recording .

My home 2 channel rig is quite good and I built it for maintaining fidelity. Cars can do pretty good, but it is easier at home.
Old Jan 17, 2009 | 06:18 PM
  #22  
MTT's Avatar
MTT
--SPECIAL ED--
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,325
If the rough definition of tonality is how accurate the reproduction is.

then if Rebecca Pidgeon (eww) sounds like she's sitting on her stand up bass players shoulder while singing, all the instrument and vocal clarity and accuracy in the world isn't going to make that right.

Tonality and staging/imaging go hand in hand and are equally important to me.

Someone mentioned earlier that SQ is a personal thing of what sounds good to the individual and can't be measured...more and more I'm starting to agree with this.
Old Jan 17, 2009 | 06:45 PM
  #23  
JohnVroom's Avatar
Yankee
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Well that is just it Rebecca Pigeon is not that gifted a singer and the recording was a studio job where she and her band record at different times so their placement is decided by a recording engineer... and our job is to reproduce what is essentially fantasy many times (on every close mic'ed classical and all rock music). I prefer live recordings to identify staging, thank you and you will find live music is better for judging tonal accuracy
Old Jan 17, 2009 | 06:56 PM
  #24  
MTT's Avatar
MTT
--SPECIAL ED--
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,325
Albeit a bad one, the reference to Rebecca was just me attempting to illustrate my point.
Personally I can't stand live music.
Live (recorded) acoustical music is okay I guess.

either way we are attempting to make a 6 inch midbass sound like a drum and one inch tweeters sound like 16 inch cymbals, it's not going to happen.

unless the listener is the recording artist, they have no idea how it was "intended" so the whole thing is still only your interpretation of "tonally accurate"

I've played in bands long enough to know that you can make any instrument sound however you'd like (within the realms of the particular instrument of course).



Originally Posted by JohnVroom
Well that is just it Rebecca Pigeon is not that gifted a singer and the recording was a studio job where she and her band record at different times so their placement is decided by a recording engineer... and our job is to reproduce what is essentially fantasy many times (on every close mic'ed classical and all rock music). I prefer live recordings to identify staging, thank you and you will find live music is better for judging tonal accuracy
Old Jan 17, 2009 | 07:08 PM
  #25  
JohnVroom's Avatar
Yankee
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
yeah live rock has to come from the mix while one can use microphones for acoustic. Live rock seldom makes the grade (though I do have a CD of X live at the whisky a gogo that is fairly believable)
Old Jan 20, 2009 | 02:34 PM
  #27  
SUX 2BU's Avatar
2000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,351
I like using headphones for a tonality reference. You can really hone in on the sounds since it's right there. I use superaural (over the ears) and quite like them.

How does a recording engineer 'place' band members on a stage when most of the time nowadays they don't even record together? Left-right placement I could maybe see, but depth? Perhaps with attenuation and even time correction it might be possible but I'm really not too sure.

I find it kinda humourous though when people get 'really' bent about how well they can pick out this and that. With a soundmap from the original recording session sure, but otherwise? Next thing you know, they are going to tell you what color the shirt of the piano player is wearing.......lol
Old Jan 20, 2009 | 04:46 PM
  #28  
JohnVroom's Avatar
Yankee
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Originally Posted by defro13
tonality is based on an individuals reference....if your reference is your car or your home stereo.....you have a poor reference....
yeah I was going that direction with my posts but I never actually said live unamplified music is the reference.. must be getting old

now for Depeche Mode, Human League and my other electronic music I listen that leaves me without a true reference

Yuli's right SQ is too hard, I should give up on SQ and do SPL (SPL is easy you just have to be loudest right)
Old Jan 20, 2009 | 06:55 PM
  #29  
thumpper's Avatar
1000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,090
I'm really picky with my systems SQ..I spent a few weeks placing the
components before I was happy with the stage
I don't like boomy bass that over powers the front stage...I like it tuned
really low with enough power to launch the cones out of the baskets
this way I have vision blurring out put and I can still hear the music
Old Jan 20, 2009 | 07:23 PM
  #30  
maltesechicken's Avatar
2000 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,026
I find the comments about imaging very funny when people reference a concert . . . I don't know what concerts you guys have been to, but all the concerts I've been too the imaging has SUCKED! None of the sound was coming from the places on the stage, it was all screaming from the speakers . . .
. . . perhaps the concert analogy works if it is unplugged in a venue that seats 500 people or less.

As for SQ in the car and why spend the time not in the home . . . I'm typically the only one in my car. In my house my wife is telling me to turn it down, and my kids don't have the same taste in music as I do. So car audio is MY place to enjoy sonic beauty without anyone else interrupting.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.