How did the Earth become so round

"The earth is flat." How would you respond to anyone who firmly felt that? give them a room with soft walls and crayons for their toes?

with naim pursuing musical reproduction without the voodoo, and many others preaching pure rubbish..... why not naim be regarded as round earth and (most of)the others be called flat earth instead?

can anyone help me out? why is it so many people, so many forum members - experienced ones among them - label naim's approach "flat earth"?

Silk is a recent casualty to this misnomer. A throughly nice guy, i never heard him say such things before.

does Linn too deserve this label, even if they are obsessed by the letter "K"?

Why call Naim flat-earth, and if it's wrong to call it that, why still keep calling it that?

Help me out someone, anyone.

vik

Very interesting question that allways intrigued me.

Why should it be more interesting to hear WHERE the musicians are sitting as opposed to WHAT they are playing? Or to be more specific, why, on the whole, should there be anything of interest in hearing where the musicians are sitting?

How could it go so wrong? Remember, Round Earth thinking was there before Flat Earth (even if the names came later).

My idea is that the HiFi industry, when it started after the WW II, was started by people who wasn't interested in music and therefore didn't have a clue how MUSIC should be reproduced. They had probably learnt about electronics while in the military. When they came home they bought a car and a gramophone (both probably to get chicks). They quickly heard that the sound of the instruments was crap and thought something like "Hey, I'm so clever and with all my knowledge from the military I can improve this." And then it started...

HiFi as a means to make the reproduced music sound more like the sound in the concert hall.

It was much later, when IT and some other people started to talk about that we should listen to how the MUSIC as such is reproduced that Flat Earth arose.

Thats my thought, anyway.

JohanR

Very old equipment, post-war, pre-war etc. had a very small hifi chain. There was so little in the chain from source to ear that there were very few timing problems indeed. This could be why so many people claim they get better music from wind-up gramophones and thorn needles, even though the fidelity is terrible.

So, once the timing was sorted, people started working on achieving better fidelity. The problem has always been the compromises that get made on the way. Most silver plated copper cables give great space. This is often due to a phase distortion which separates the high frequencies from the low since the high frequecies travel more quickly on the surface of the wire whereas the bass frequencies travel through the copper core. The different arrival times are tiny, but we do perceive them.

Some people are more susceptible than others to these nuances, to the point where one person's boring hifi is another's heaven. The thing is, it's easy for people to recognize better space, more detail etc., but many can't perceive timing changes so easily. "Raising the hairs on one's neck" is not as easy a description as "more timbre", partly because it reveals our inner selves and that's a really psychological barrier for many.

Finally, spacial awareness is part of the performance - more so with classical than modern music admittedly, but it's stillthe case today. In the past, all music was in the presence of performers. You could argue that without watching the performers, one didn't have the performance. Therefore, the reproduction of their relative positions is important to many people. I'm one of these. If I'm listening to opera, I want to hear and visualise the singers as they move around the stage (hence my belief tha all opera will be dvd based one day). If it's classical I want to hear the orchestra and the relative locations as the various instruments play off each other, lending more realism to the event. Rock bands etc. are less important in terms of spacial awareness, and much of this is due to the fact that I know they're often multi-tracked and playing at separate times off click-tracks. So where's the spontaneity and synergy of a band playing together? Nowhere. I don't find that much pleasure in many bands recorded with modern techniques - I wonder why eh?

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohanR:
Very interesting question that allways intrigued me.

Why should it be more interesting to hear WHERE the musicians are sitting as opposed to WHAT they are playing? Or to be more specific, why, on the whole, should there be anything of interest in hearing where the musicians are sitting?

How could it go so wrong? JohanR

---

JohanR

Simply because thats what some people want? Some like strawberry ice cream, some prefer chocolate. Both know they are right.

Mike

It seems that my little history research got shot in the arm directly!

I still don't understand this fascination with the direction of where the sound is coming from. But, yes, I have understood that it's popular, look at the Home Cinema movement. People that would never pay more than £200 on a music system happily pays £1500 for a "surround system". And they can be very happy describing how they can hear feets running around on there own floor while looking at Tot Store II. So what?
I understand if one has a big projector screen and line doublers and stuff to get a better picture quality. And I understand if one has a decent sound system that reproduces the dialog and the music. But helicopters flying around in the living room? Yeah, it's fun the first time, and maybe the second, but it doesn't make the film any better.

For the record, I have a multi channel Home Cinema system, but it's the first thing I would sell if I was short on money.

JohanR

1) For those sitting close to the performers at a real musical performance - unamplified instruments and voices - the spatial effects are a startling, enriching part of the performance. The spatial effects can be REALLY startling when the timing and/or tuning is off! :-)

2) Constant repetition of a position tends to gain acceptance for the position, no matter how absurd or dangerous it may be. - vid. Harry Pearson and George W. Bush.

Regards.

Phil
from 'Class war is when the middle classes want to fight back against ripoffs by and for the rich', Il, USA

Johan

The idea is realism. Don't you feel that it's more realistic when the sound from the helicopter/bullet/train/hovercraft/whatever follows the movement of the item on/off the screen? It's a question of immersing you in the experience. The cues in film are obvious, and it makes your involvement in it easier. After all, a creepy film is made all the more so if the footsteps in the haunted house come from behind you, placing you in the film with the participants!

Music reproduction is quite a different matter though. Emotion and expression are described via instruments (I include the voice as an instrument) and the effectiveness of the piece is much more derived of timing than it is in film. Therefore, phase linearity is all-important with sound reproduction. That said, if the music is describing an event such as in opera, visual clues make it much more helpful to understand a scenario.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

A couple of days ago I listened to a DVD/Surround-system, the spatial effects were impressive, but I really felt strange when I found myself sitting in the middle of an Orchestra... For the record: I am sitting in the middle of an Orchestra every day, because thats my work, so I know exactly how it feels in the middle of an Orchestra. I can admit that the feeling created by that surround-system was quite realistic, but I don't want to have the feeling of sitting in the middle of an Orchestra if I go to a concert: I prefer to sit in front of the music and "watch" toward the front.

On the other hand I like to watch movies, and I enjoy all that helicopters flying around my head, but I don't even have a TV at home. So: do I need a multichannel-system? No. Until now the rear-channels always irritated me.

I think all about this new hype is making money:

1.) New equipement for the studios (also pay licence fee for new technology)
2.) New equipement for the users (e.g. more amps, speakers)
3.) New media to buy

I think instead of creating new possibilities to earn money the fast way, they should better produce much more carfully the recordings. Maybe a new high-resolution alternative with compatibility like SACD and also ready for multi-channel is funny, but if they do it:

1.) Why not include features such as recording facilities
2.) What the devil is that format war
3.) Make the media long lasting so it can store information for more than 1000 years
4.) It should be possible to playback the new format on any old or future player
5.) Resolve all the existing problems with oxidation of the datalayer, timing/jitter, conversion (stream/multibit/dsd)
etc etc etc etc

- Jun

Quote:

"Personally, i've never had a problem following the tune, regardless of the hifi system, maybe because I have a very good sesne of pitch and a technical understanding of music theory, other perople perhaps need better pitch cues from their hifi? I do however have a very poor sense of timing so a hifi system for me needs to have extremely good timing so that I can keep up. It's horses for courses."

Ah! Here we comes to a very interesting subject (to me much more interesting than Round Earth or not). Is it so that we who can appreciate a system with good PRaT don't do this because we have better hearing but, instead, becuse we have worse hearing? And here I don't mean our ears, but our brains ability to decode music. We nead a very good system to enjoy music.

An example. A couple of years ago there was a program on the telly about a boy who was born with some type of brain damage. He was blind, couldn't hardly talk and couldn't take care of himself. But he was extremely gould at the piano, he could hear a pice once and then play it perfectly. And he used only a crap cassette radio.
I can't hear all the notes being played on such a device.

Another example. A friend of mine is very musical, but his opinion on how music should be reproduced is simply the louder the better. He tolerates extreme levels of distorsion and in this noice he can easily pick out a bum note!

A new can of worms?

JohanR

quote:

---

What you say about modern recordings is not quite accurtate, I've done a lot of recording, and you don't (usually) use click track when recording. Feel is very important and you don't necessarily loose feel when overdubbing. A producer that makes each of you play to only a click track is either mad or has a very good reason to do so

---

I would say that this is exactly how most recording isn't done these days. Some bands, it's true (one of mine included) will record as much of the backing track as live as possible - occasionally even entire pieces. But most modern music is constructed. It's rare to hear a 'rock' recording with unprocessed drums even if they are recorded 'live'. After you add ambience, EQ and the rest it makes a mockery of the idea 'real' recording. The whole band won't play to a click, agreed - but the drummer often does.

Most rock and pop is recorded to sound 'good' rather than 'realistic'. The majority to sound 'good' in a car or Mini system rather than a good stereo.

That's not to say that everyone records it bits - just that most people do.

Other types of music are often recorded with realism in mind of course.

Regards

Stephen

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J. A. Toon:

If you are at a Classical concert, with a large Orchestra, you can hear exactly which instrument is playing and where the instrument is playing. You can tell how far away the instrument is from you, and also you can tell if the instrument is higher or lower that your current position.

I have been to many hundreds of classical concerts and I don't think you can. Try going to a concert and closing your eyes. Unless you are in the first few rows I personally find great dificulty in localising the instrument. Others appear to share this 'problem', with many previous postings to this effect. I think the attractiveness of sound-stage/imaging is that it partially compensates for visual clues you get in the hall but not at home. It is not fidelity to the sound alone.

duncan

Simultaneous posting with simon: that's two of us anyway!

Some people are sensitive to to where the sound appears to be coming from, others are not - lets just leave it at that and allow people to enjoy different criteria.

As an aside, at the legendary Forum Barby I noticed that during the dem when the very non orchestral cds were being played that a large proportion of the listeners started into a St Vitus like convulsion that did appear to be disconnected with the beat/timing of the music - perhaps it was to do more with the natural frequency of their bodies than the "music".

Definitely a YMMV

Derek

Well Paul McCartney in the Anthology book said the Beatles did most everything in 4 track and right at the end used 8 track and they thought that was way too much. A lot of stuff has gotten to be way too much, as much as I like some of the pyrotecnics, it's refreshing to hear something recorded simply. With that you must have great content and I doubt much out there really has that quality.

"Last time I was at a clasical concert, it didn't notice particuarly that there was much '3D ness' or direction to the sound - you certainly can here which instrument is playing but often not where it is - your eyes being the best bet here" Quote by Simon

"I have been to many hundreds of classical concerts and I don't think you can. Try going to a concert and closing your eyes. Unless you are in the first few rows I personally find great dificulty in localising the instrument. " Quote by Duncan

I agree - without the visual I experience little in the way of 3D at a classical concert.

Terry

Two things:

a) I would love to subject Mr. Toon, most of the audio press, and a large enough population to blind 'imaging' tests. I doubt many could tell blind in a good size space whether an instrument is 12 or 15 feet away. It would be interesting to find out what the actual limits of spatial perception are.

b)I believe the interest in imaging and soundstaging is down to the introduction of stereo. A good number of people, including those with vested interests (manufacturers, press, labels) became convinced that if we had stereo instead of mono, reproduction would be much more realistic. What's the one thing you can tout about stereo? The reproduction of space.

Stereo "worked" so well they tried for quad a few years later. Now they are trying again. I predict it won't work.

--Eri

Quote:

"latteral and vertical positon is less important than separation and the ability to relate acoustic ambiance to particular instruments that are causing them - its has a great impact on timing IMO. I don't think the actual apparent position of a sound between the speakers is important, but relating the direct sound to the ambient sound is. That's what imaging is all about in MHO, and why mono records can do it too."

Agree on this. Last night, while making supper I was listening to some early Solomon Burke stuff (from the early 1960:s, recorded at Atlantic, probably by Tom Dowd). Two rooms away one could hear how the musicians where placed in the studio. Singer near the mike, choir a couple of meters away, drummer along the back wall (BIG sound). I had to run into the music room and check, yes, it was glorious mono. This has relevance to me, the direction of the sound has not.

Some reflections about the talk of click tracks, over dubbs and stuff in thread. Also on this record with Solomon B one can hear how the earliest stuff the session musicians where playing from notes and ready made arrangements, it feels a bit "stiff". Later, when they recorded at Stax and Muscle Shoals the musicians "made up" the arrangement in the studio, they all knew each other and played with a certain "groove".

JohanR

It might have been an article in Stereopile... but somewhere I read about hearing and the different sorts of it. The spacial was one and apparently can actually become more acute as we age. I think it was called "event hearing" or something of that sort. Our ability to discern direction of sounds events probably is hunting and survival related. But hearing tones seems to be a different part of our hearing perception and is something that is lost as we age. We lose high frequency hearing. Fact. So we must lose some ability to hear harmonics which seem to help us hear notes and tones.

Of course Beethoven managed to knock off a couple of nice pieces after he was deaf so our perception of notes and musical relationships must certainly be in our brains and independent of our ability to hear them to some extent. At least once we can hear them and create the pathways in our brains we can certainly think tunes and rhythms in our minds without external stimuli.

It seems that everyone has their own internal reference for tunefulness and rhythm and probably spacial awareness too. Some people have perfect pitch and can sing a note out on demand. Others need a pitch pipe but then manage very good relative pitch. Others are totally lost.

I think I have pretty good relative pitch but can get lost... I remember playing in bands and using a PA that was pretty bad and having trouble keeping track of which voice was mine in the harmony... very strange. After getting into stereos and wrapping my head around tuneful and rhythmic I look back and think that those PAs were probably just distorted and confusing. Other people with better internal anchors for tune may have been able to stay on their line regardless of what was coming out of the speakers. When playing without a PA I don't have a problem relating my voice to others in harmony, though.

So how did the Earth become so round?

Recorded and amplified music are pretty damn new endeavors for the human race, and though we like to throw around the words "modern" and "state of the art" and think we are all that, we've only just begun.

We have been evolving with and making music for thousands of years. Now we think we can put it in a box and recall it at will. I don't think we even know what we are putting in the box. Anyone?

Connon

Quote:

"We have been evolving with and making music for thousands of years. Now we think we can put it in a box and recall it at will. I don't think we even know what we are putting in the box. Anyone?"

How true!

This is the most interesting thread in a long time. A (nearly) philosophical discussion about music and how it is perceived by us humans (as opposed to "does a 82 sound better than a 72").

JohanR

In my opinion, it has always been the "flat" side of the industry which has produced the real innovations, although many of these have been to do with awakening people's consciousness to what causes a difference, rather than suddenly producing a radical product.

In the mid 70s, as long as you had a Garrard SP25/Goldring G800, Trio/Nikko/Sansui/Rogers amp, and Wharfedale Linton speakers, you had "hi-fi". How it was installed and set up, connected and powered was not acknowledged to make the slightest difference. Interestingly though, John Crabbe ("Hi-Fi in the Home"; 3rd Edition, 1972) does mention (in connection with placing loudspeakers in corners) that "improved overall bass performance is frequently accompanied by noticeable colouration due to LF room resonances", and "simply against a wall but away from a corner is often a useful compromise". Way ahead of his time, that man...

Before IT suggested changing the turntable and listening again, turntables made no difference. This was a very "flat" notion, and when people listened, they could hear what he was on about. Now, there are turntables many times the price of the LP12 available, all of them selling on the back of his basic point.

I remember moving speakers around in my room to fit more furniture in. I didn't have enough bell wire for the new positions (away from corners!), so used some spare 3-core mains cable. The speakers sounded "much better", of course, but I never realised the cable had anything to do with it. When I moved flats and needed more cable, the local Linn/Naim dealership had started selling "loudspeaker cable". I had some 79-strand from them, and was very surprised at the result. Another "flat" innovation, I suspect, now kidnapped by the "round" marketeers and blown out of all proportion.

It's a similar story with mains supply. The very first mention of this I remember was in "The Flat Response", when CF advocated a dedicated spur, with pictures. Now the "rounders" are selling mains cable at over 10 quid a foot...

Supports? Well, look what The Sound Organisation started, and they were as "flat" as it gets. Speaker stands... well, you see my point.

At every stage, it has usually been the "flat" companies that have said "listen, this makes a difference" -- often with a not particularly costly idea or product. The "round" establishment has laughed its collective head off at this outrageous voodoo, and then promptly adopted it as its own invention, invariably coming up with an over-engineered, vastly more expensive alternative which completely misses the point.

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)

Simon

quote:

---

Just wanted to try to dispel the myth that overdubbing is somehow a fake or

---

Most of my favorite, emotionally stimulating music has been made with much technology and overdubbing.

Regards

Stephen

Toon: direction is much easier than distance. Blindfold me and give me a laser pointer and I would be able to hit the instruments (I think). Ask me how far--much tougher.

Speaker cable and power:

Could someone tell me when Linn and Naim started saying stuff about cables? I think in the 'round' world you will find Fulton Brown from about 1975, Polk, Kimber, and Monster soon after.

As far as power gremlins, I believe this innovation was Enid Lumley's, starting in the letters section of The Absolute Sound in the early 80s and then moving over to the regular pages. Definitely prior to the existence of The Flat Response.

--Eri

[This message was edited by Eric Barry on TUESDAY 12 November 2002 at 18:49.]

I find this "either /or" comparison quite amusing....a few years back, I was getting what can best be described as the "flat earth" sound..plenty of detail, clarity PR&T....no soundstage,depth, ambience etc. Since optimising my mains, I get all the "round earth" virtues...depth, ambience etc etc without losing any of the flat earth ones...in fact these have been enhanced as well!. The message is...you CAN have your cake and eat it too

Regards
Laurie S

Concur with Laurie's comments, I always have had a stereo system rather than a mono system so that I can get imaging, the introduction of 4 dedicated mains spurs has dramatically improved the imaging and depth as well as improving the tonal detail.

As an aside why do flat earth proponents require two channels for power amp and speakers.

Derek

quote:

"Every mono recording I have heard has been significantly less "in-the-room-believable" and realistic than a good stereo recording."

I already dribbled earlier in this thread about some early Solomon Burke stuff that had just that "in-the-room-believability". Of course, this can happen in stereo recordings to.

In another thread I have stated that I can't hear "depht" in stereo particulary well. People can say "Oh, the depht goes way beyond the back wall", to me it's just flat sounds between the speakers. It's probably fortunate for me that I didn't have to make my living in the Hunter/Collector era!

JohanR

Frank said : 'I want to hear and visualise the singers as they move around the stage (hence my belief tha all opera will be dvd based one day)'.

But most attempts to film opera result in really stagey performances, like the early attempts to film plays, it looks like a stage in front of you rather than performers around you.

I've always felt that, surround/Dolby aside, speakers were more critical than other components in creating the illusion of soundstage. Naim amps are particularly neutral and really only more noticeably 'flat' than some amps because of the amount of true detail they deliver. But their speakers rightly majored on communication over recreating stage depth, simply because most speakers in the 1980s (still?) were hopeless at it. As a by-product, they eventually delivered more stage realism (e.g. NBL). The speakers which have initially sounded amazing in imaging terms (SL6 - especially on opera, LS3/5a) were sadly lacking in the 'moment' or tangibility of being there, or simply sounded coloured. I like to think my Dynaudios do both things pretty well.

Hopefully the new generation of Naim amps will fuse these two strands even more impressively.