The "problem" as I see bass is that we actually can and do use low z
more than the music composition people do. And so, speakers have
become so variable in their bass response because the music industry
does not use bass to define much of anything. We use it to define
the subtle size and distance of objects and space.
I would suggest that if I asked a group of people to adjust the
volume of one of my "natural sound" tracks to the "real world" volume
that they would all be close in their choice of the volume and that
the bass is what actually would be close to the same in all the
peoples choices. If I spend a little time I suppose I could document
that.
In order for people to equalize their audio playback devices they
need to have the tools to do that. One bass knob is not going to cut
it when subbass speakers only project a couple frequencies to begin
with. I do not see accurate bass happening anytime soon in either
theater or music equipment. This is what makes
custom "installations" appealing to me. There I can match the sound
to the space and to the equipment. I want to do more of that this
year and will go in search of a broke movie theater as a possible
playground as I do need a bigger space than I currently have access
to.=20
I still object to the Klass quote as used by this group strongly.=20
And will continue to frequently. The depiction of natural sound and
space by electronic equipment is what this group is about. I do not
accept that it is impossible. I think we can paint a room as a
natural space and I agree that the low end is very important in that
process.
What we need is something comparable to a gray scale for the photo
people to quickly set a room by ear. I guess the best material for
that gray scale is pulled from reference material of spaces that we
each already know well from having recorded in them a number of times.
Rich
--- In Rob Danielson <>
wrote:
> Lang--
> I've started a new string whether worth lengthening or not.
>
> I agree that tonal balance or contour shaping in the low end may be
> more important than shere low end extension and, sometimes, even
> "flat response" to 20hz. This takes us quickly into esoteric realms
> of reproduction and Klas's quote. I've encountered few sub woofers
> that have fairly "smooth" response down to 20 Hz even if played at
> calibrated volume.
>
> Powerful machines produce low Hz's that persist very far and sound
> out of proportion if close animal sources (sans grouse!) are of
> primary interest in the mix. But, these lows also provide some of
the
> most useful clues we have about things happening in the distance
or,
> "space" in its most articulated form. There are 3 audible octaves
> below 200Hz and 6.5 above.
>
> I find that many quiet natural settings have frequencies in the
30Hz
> range that are very useful in creating fundamentals of the harmonic
> structure to create a sense of "air" or local acoustics in a
> setting. What I call the "air" range goes up to about 900-1000 Hz
but
> the harmonics that take advantage of a well-represented low
> frequencies are in the first few octaves, 60-240 Hz. Of course, it
> takes two smooth subs and careful calibration for me to use this
> phenomenon and its all totally impractical for distribution today.
I
> have to use sound "installations," -- a real pain. As I eq, I
glance
> at the frequency/amplitude distributions in even my "quietest"
field
> recordings (Firium displays this dynamically in real time) and I
see
> huge percentages of the total sound energy down at the bottom. Too
> esoteric? possibly, but I see them as natural and useful in my
> representations, man-made or not. Rob D.
>
> =3D =3D =3D
>
> >Rob:
> >
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|