Building a Room Full of Balanced Harmonics

Hi Michael and Zonees

Sonic is glad that I managed to help a couple of friends solve an acoustical problem using Michael’s products.

A couple I know have a top notch audiophile system in a good room, about 25 ft x 16 ft with a sloping ceiling from about 9 ft in the front to about 12 ft.

The system is a good system using Mark Levinson electronics, with tube amps, studio grade monitors and Transparent Audio cables. The lady is the audiophile, her husband is just a listener and the one who has to move the 150 lb speakers around to suit his wife’s attempts to optimise their room.

The room is carpeted and has curtains behind the speakers. She said to Sonic her problems were of a rock and hard place situation. No curtains or sound treatment and the room rings maddeningly, add the curtains, cushion and tapestries, the ringing is gone but the sound is dead and the volume needs to the cranked up. She heard Sonic’s system, was surprised and got interested in Michael’s Tune approach. She may have visited this site after I gave her the address.

We went down to the shop here who sells Michael’s products and bought Corner Tunes and enough Echotunes to deal with the long room. Up went the Corner Tunes and ETs and Sonic got all superfluous wall hangings and curtains removed. She and her husband were very surprised (and they are a rather understated pair) at how the room became more balanced and silent even when “live”. Sonic next recommended that the speakers be moved forward and the listening seats moved forward. Not anywhere to close to the Tune setting but a major difference for them. They didn’t think it would work but said the sound became more realistic. The room is now having the minimal damping but for the first time there is no glare and ringing.

Our friends had the usual Tune-questions…how can 4 small triangular pillows and 4 rectangular pillows at the ceiling edge do everything that [competing product] could not do at a much a higher price?

Another friend of the Tune. They are scheduled for another listen in Sonic’s room when I hope to tell them more about what is possible and what I've done recently.

Another audiophile friend of Sonic’s read the Tuneland website and got into discussion with Sonic about something I am puzzled occasionally about. It is:

a. Michael and the senior Tunees place their speakers extreme nearfield.

b. The speakers are pointing forward with no toe in.

c. Effectively, listeners in these set ups are hearing the speakers 60 to 70 degrees off-axis from the tweeter.

d. Tweeters by simple principles of physics will have their frequency response roll of with increasing frequency and further off axis.

e. This means the further off-axis one goes from a tweeter, the more the highs roll off.

I recorded this off-axis behavior of two famous tweeters:

SEAS H1397

On axis:

1 – 5 kHz flat

10 kHz +3 db (referenced to 1 kHz)

13 khz +5 dB

18 kHz 0 dB

20 kHz -15 kHz

60 degrees off axis

1 – 5 khz flat

10 khz -5dB

13 kHz -10dB

18 khz -23dB

20 kHz -30dB


Scanspeak 970000 “Revelator”

On axis:

1 – 4 kHz flat

10 kHz 0 db (flat)

15 kHz +2dB

20 khz +1dB

60 degrees off axis:

1 – 4 kHz -4dB at 4 kHz

10 kHz -8dB

15 khz -11dB

20 KHz -25dB

From this representative data of two tweeter’s polar response we see that a severe roll off results when we listen this far off axis. Roll-offs like these are very audible.

Michael – how is it that your speakers can be listened so far off axis yet no one reports losses in treble? Can you explain the difference between what tweeter polar responses show and what is experienced in a Tuned room in relation to upper treble response? How do you maintain treble response, and do you have views on what the on-axis treble response should be compared to 70 degrees off axis which is what you and senior Zonees are listening at in extreme nearfield.

Sonic

Hi Sonic

I'm heading toward the plane. I'll see if I can get on-line tonight and answer.

Yes, please do Michael.

I think this is a question many who have some knowledge of speakers will ask after looking at Tuneland systems.

For Sonic, I am sitting moderate-near field and my ears are about 25 degrees off axis from the quasi-ribbon tweeters of the Maggie 1.5QRs.  Everybody who has heard my system has said the trebles are nicely extended, some have remarked that the trebles are excellent. 

On paper, my 25 degree off axis seating is a non-starter given the Magneplanars' dispersion.  It should sound like a rolled off Ortofon SPU moving coil with a spherical stylus but it doesn't.

I have however found that going further off axis does in fact sink the trebles.

And 70 degrees off axis is a long way from 25 degrees. So what's the theory here which prevents a roll off that from the SEAS and Scanspeak examples look like a response from a damaged tweeter?

Sonic

Hi Sonic

First off, glad your able to go help people get better sound. I hope they enjoy the product and have a chance to stop by tuneland.

When people tell me measured results the first thing I want to ask is "under what conditions"?

What were the drivers mounted to when tested?

What was the testing room like?

What audio system was used to do the amplification?

What style of microphone was used for testing?

I guess you could say I'm a pretty big testing skeptic.

Lets flip the switch for a minute an do a test on an acoustical tweeter.

Years ago UMI was kind enough to send me a horn for testing. Some of the engineers wanted to see why they were getting different test measurements when playing horns outside as opposed to in a studio or hall. Everytime they took their horns into a different space the recorded information was different. Their on and off axis testing was also extremely different depending on where the tests were being done. Asking me what I thought was going on I invited them to a visit at TuneVilla. I told the guys I would set up mics and we will take a look at note responces. When we tested on and off axis in a normal room the readings told us that the horn was extremely directional and depending on where it was pointing would go in and out of tune. Next we tested the horn in a tuned room and found that the horn played more even and even though you could tell direction the notes sounded the same throughout the room. We added funiture and people to the room and the horn started sounding more directional but not as bad as the untreated room did. Latter we focused our attention to speakers. We tested two speakers, one was an B&W 801 and the other a Rev80. The B&W at first sounded very directional and when the room was foamed and trapped the problem still was there. The futher you went off axis the more rolled things would get. Then the room was stripped down and we set up our typical studio setup, which is a tunepak plus 2 echotunes. This did not do the trick on it's own but with a little tuning we started to see the off axis extend dramatically. Next was the free resonate speakers. In the foam room the 80's closed in like the B&W but not quite as much. After the basic tuning the off axis jump way past the B&W and after some serious tuning was able to get very close to the same frequency balance throughout the room with only 6 minor dip areas. This once again told us the a room response is far different from a driver test response.

Since I don't believe in straight line wave response a tweeters measurements from the factory means very little to me.

Another thing to look at when checking specs and comparing to the physical testing lab is, in most testing labs the cabnet being used to do the testing has a rubber seal gasket that is placed between the tweeter and the wood of the cabinet. Every test we have made with these gaskets being used we have see the off axis response shrink to nothing. Tweeters (like anything else) become a part of what they are attached to. Limit the vibratory response and watch the performance shrink. I've done these tests on tons of different tweeters and cabinets with the same results. Conclusion, dampening is what makes the response shrink, free resonance along with mechanical tuning is what makes the response grow.

Most tunees who have free resonant speakers are more concerned about energizing the pressure zones in balance than they are caring about facing a dampen speaker at them because of the speakers limitations. The days of pointing speakers in a room for me has long past. It's more about properly energizing the real speaker (the listening room).

Greetings Michael

That's one of the best insights into speaker directivity and dispersion. There is so much to learn about musick reproduction.

Sonic's fellow listener who likes headphones -- particularly STAX electrostatic earspeakers....yes, STAX called their headphones earspeakers....said thusly:

"For headphones, do not blame the frequency response graphs.  It is "psycho-acoustics" not "acoustics".  Microphones have their own colourations too. The signal is already imperfect before it gets to the headphones".
 
Sonic thinks if we substitute "headphones" for "loudspeakers", we are facing a signal that is already compromised through the recording chain before it gives us the first notes from our loudspeakers.

Yet there is hope....Kimura-san of 47 Labs pointed out that when properly tuned/developed, CDs have tremendous detail.  The limitation in his opinion appears to be not the digital recording process and storage medium but in the replay systems that restrict the musick from digital sources.

Sonic has always found Kimura-san of 47 Labs one whose mental power cuts through all conventional audiophile ideas and myths.

Sonic

Hi Sonic

Busy at Bill's here but wanted to also say, we might be better off sometimes by thinking of our rooms as large headphones. Headphones we can walk around in and change the flavor to our liking.

The science behind listening to the speaker room ear combo is really only just beginning in this hobby. Wait till people start to really take it as serious as it needs to be. You will see a lot of change take place all the way up the audio chain. Trying to remove the room from the equation is the biggest mistake audiophiles and audio engineers have ever made. This chapter (the acoustical chapter) will prove to be the biggest most successful chapter in all of high end. And as you were talking about in TT's thread will change speaker designing. Read articles on dampening speakers and you will see how bad they have missed the mark. Controling internal waves can be done with very little burn.

I should write on our testings while doing this.

Hey, Sonic,

This is the second time mention has been made of Space Cones talking. Perhaps this is the real problem here. How can you enjoy your music when the cones are yammering on? Mr. Green needs to breed some mute cones.

 Oh this was good!

And very true. If there is not enough range to the materials the SC has nothing or very little to work with.

Greetings Zonees

Tunees will guess by now that Sonic is on to something with the Space Cones.  Only I want to get more settling time in before commenting because however excited I feel now, I could be (and have been) wrong. Just this time it may be a breakthrough that is important.

Of course Michael has his standard of equipment settling and he is right. He plays a CD day and night for days at a time to get every thing in sync.  For Sonic, given my limitations, the first real inkling of potential or otherwise will come after 4 days of listening sessions and will be very clear by about seven to 10 days of musick replay time. 

For reasons of environmental sustainability, carbon footprint and constraints of my dwelling, Sonic will not leave equipment powered up 24/7 and left playing continuously. 

The other thing I am doing now is studying about ambience reproduction in particular reproducing the side wall reverberation.  Some magazines talk about recordings with the "backwall sound" of the music reflecting off the concert hall proscenium being audible.  This is an anomaly and may be an excuse for tuning problems or junk gear/accessories. 

Ferrite RFI dampers are particularly bad.  Sonic even knows some amplifiers and digital gear that are unstable without ferrite beads or clips somewhere in the circuitry. Otherwise they go unstable.  If you ever encounter equipment that requires Ferrite to be stable or to operate linearly, run!  

I have tried Ferrite clips on my mains, interconnects and speaker cables.  Never worked. Even before I started to Tune, ferrite caused the sound to close down, soundstage width to shrink and instrumental and vocal colours to bleach out and go artificial.

The ultimate is ambience and reverb that distinctly come off the side walls and all round the listener's side and rear room spaces like they do in real live non-amplified musick. There is the whole idea of listening to speakers as if they were headphones and the vexed issue of inter-channel stereo crosstalk that I am also studying.

Sonic

Greetings Zonees

Anyway ferrite is a long way ago in Sonic's rear view mirror. I was asked by fellow audiophiles to try Audio Technica's ferrite clips but the sound went dead and closed in. I tried the ferrite on interconnects, speaker cables, mains cables and wires between printed circuit boards in my gear. Michael is right that ferrite is not a good thing. 

What I been doing recently is Sonic has replaced my resitone top tune rods with mild steel genuine Michael Green rods. This is what I been using from the outset till I bought a bunch of resitone rods and squares.

Compared to the resitone rods, the genuine MG mild steel rods make my system more alive and musical.  In contrast, resitone rods sound thicker, slightly more closed in and heavier sounding. Resitone squares are not great either.  They take the musick in the "thickness/sluggish" direction.

With the mild steel top tune down rods for the CD player and the Quicksilver pre-amp, it was good sound.  Was listening to Brahms' Sonatas for Viola and Piano (Hyperion) which sounded beautifully clear and musical with a wide stage. Some Charlie Parker too. Of course, this is something Zonees need to try for themselves. Remember Sonic got a room/system that is very rigid at the walls, ceiling and floor.

Sonic

I've got so much posting  and looking at systems to do when I get home, but  wanted to say that I love these types of posts because they talk about the sound of transfer and this is like no other hobby in the way signal is flowing through parts. For me hearing through the ears of others does so much. Likes kinda like picking out strings for a guitar but so much more. All of the strings work, but based on the guitars flavor, user and environment the combo can make amazing differences and allow the user to dial in the affect they want.

It shows me over and over again that fixed is not  the way.

Oops...encountered text color issues.  Posted full text again, hope it is legible now....

Hi Zonees

Fascinating article this from Recording Magazine about the difference between recording heard through loudspeakers and headphones.

For one thing headphones present sound to our ear drums in a way that is not found in normal listening.  The pinna is folded back and its effect is gone.  The sound is split right and left and sent axially into our ear canals. There is also no interaural crosstalk.

All this makes the headphone listening experience very different from loudspeakers.  Read on!



Can We Use Headphones As Critical Monitors - Part 1 of 2



 An in-depth look at using headphones in recording and mixing



 By Robert Auld



Source: http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/131.html



Problem number 1:

You have a modest home studio in one room of your apartment. What with all the good gear available at bargain prices these days, you have the potential capability to make and mix good sounding recordings.



But your monitoring setup is only so-so: a pair of decent near field monitors driven by an okay amp in a room with the usual acoustic problems. You don’t have the money for a major speaker upgrade, and even if you did there’s still the room. Major acoustical renovations are out of the question (you’re renting, after all) and you can’t afford to move.

Last week you heard one of your mixes played back in the new mastering suite of a local studio. It was great to hear your stuff in such a good room, but also depressing—problems with the mix that you hadn’t even been aware of were plainly audible over their big monitors.



Problem number 2:

You’ve been hired to record the local choir in their church. Your regular monitors are too cumbersome to lug on location, so your borrow a pair of highly-regarded near field monitors.



You set them up in the control room you’ve made out of a room adjacent to the nave. Unfortunately, the room’s acoustics are so abominable that the quality of the loudspeakers is practically irrelevant; you simply can’t hear what you are doing. The recording session begins in 30 minutes.

Since this article is about using headphones as monitors, you should be able to guess the solution to each problem: use headphones. However, a good many people might object to using headphones as critical monitors, and not without reason. They have probably encountered...



Problem number 3:

You’ve been hired to record a group of musicians on location. There is no possibility of setting up a separate control room; you will be in the same room with the musicians.



You monitor the session on headphones. Your mix sounds pretty good on the phones. You go home and listen to the recording on loudspeakers.

It doesn’t sound anything like you thought it would. What happened?



The idea of using headphones as critical monitors is at least controversial. Yet there are respected engineers and producers who do just that, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes even out of preference.

It is a practice that is especially common among engineers who record classical music for a living. That could be explained by the nature of the job: most orchestras, chamber groups, etc., record on location.



But the art of setting up temporary control rooms at such sessions has been successfully practiced for a long time by all the major record companies. Clearly, some engineers see real advantages to monitoring with headphones, apart from their obvious convenience when on location.

I have long counted myself among those who use headphones for monitoring out of necessity. But after thinking about it a bit, I realized that I have often chosen to use them even when I could have used loudspeakers; I just feel I can hear what’s going on better, and I have learned to adjust to the ways they differ from speakers—for the most part.



It is one thing to know this intuitively and quite another to explain it rationally. I needed to clarify my thinking, so I called up Jerry Bruck, an engineer who makes a good part of his living recording classical music. As I expected, he has used headphones as monitors a lot, and he had much to say on the subject.

So with Jerry on hand as our resident expert, let’s dive in.



I’ve got those interaural crosstalk blues

First the bad news: headphones really sound different from loudspeakers. Let us count the ways.



“The principal problem with headphone listening is you have no mixture of left and right channels; they’re piped directly into the respective ears. Because of that it is very hard to judge the width of your stereo stage, the amount of center that you’re getting, as opposed to left and right. You tend to misjudge that on headphones.”

The fancy name for what Jerry is describing is interaural crosstalk. Loudspeakers have lots of it (if your right ear can’t hear the left loudspeaker, something is wrong), but headphones have none. Mr. Bruck continues:



“A sometimes very serious misjudgement on headphones is to think that it’s wetter than it really is. You find on loudspeakers that you are much closer in perspective than you thought you would be listening on phones.”

The reasons for this are a bit complex, but they probably have a lot to do with aural masking—that is, with the tendency of one sound to mask another. In this case we are dealing with direct sound (a lead vocal, for instance) and reflected sound (as in the reverberation stimulated by that vocal). To quote another authority:



“Angular separation between direct and reflected sounds has a minor effect on the audibility of the reflections, except when the two are coincident, when the reflection tends to be masked by the direct signal.” —Ron Streicher and F. Alton Everest, The New Stereo SoundBook, 2nd edition.

In other words, if the reverb is coming from the same direction as the vocal or very close to it, it will tend to be masked by the direct sound. Here is how I think this applies to the headphones vs. speakers question:



With typical stereo loudspeaker monitoring the angle between speakers is about 60 degrees, or 30 degrees to each side of our listening position. This is a small portion of the 360 degrees over which we hear. It is safe to say most of the sound approaches from in front of us.

With headphones the earcups encompass an angle of 180 degrees relative to our ears, equivalent to speakers placed 90 degrees to each side. This is a big change, and it allows for greater angular separation between at least some of the direct and reflected sounds in a recording. A portion of the reverberation will literally be unmasked, and so the recording will sound subjectively wetter.



Experimental data on angular separation and masking imply that this difference is equivalent to increasing the reflected sound level by 5–10 dB. This would certainly be an audible difference, and it bears out Jerry Bruck’s observation (and my own experience). But...

The binaural difference



There is one circumstance where “it sounds wetter on headphones” does not apply. This is when you are making a binaural or quasi-binaural recording.

In its purest form, binaural recording uses small-diaphragm microphones placed in the ears of an anatomically correct dummy or, less conveniently, in the ears of a real person. Then there are quasi- binaural microphone arrays like the Crown SASS that mimic the ear spacing and acoustic shadowing effects of the human head.

In either case, recordings made with these systems and reproduced with headphones preserve the spatial cues of the recording environment with considerable accuracy. This allows our brain to sort out the direct and reflected sound as it does in real life, with a gain in realism and clarity that can be really startling.



When you play the same binaural recording over loudspeakers the spatial cues are altered. What had been all around you is now placed in front of you, as if viewed through an open window, and—masking effects or not—it tends to sound more distant.

This is, of course, a special case, as most recordings use conventional microphone arrays that do not preserve spatial cues accurately, regardless of the playback method. So lacking a realistic acoustic model to work with, our brain resorts to other methods of analysis, and things like masking effects assume greater importance.



The lowdown on bass

So far we’ve learned that headphones create a weird stereo image and do strange things to reverberation. What else have we got to look forward to from our potential critical monitors? Let’s have Jerry Bruck talk about low frequencies:



“Low frequencies are only partially a question of what you are hearing with your ears. A lot of it is, in fact, called “skin effect,” borrowing a term from another discipline. No matter what the headphones turns out to be, no headphone ever gives you the sense of low frequencies that you get from speakers.”

This is why Hollywood doesn’t use headphones when it wants to make you feel an earthquake or an explosion.



If headphones differ from loudspeakers in such significant ways, can we still use them as critical monitors? The answer, I think, is a qualified yes. Let’s look at the advantages that might make us say yes, along with the qualifications.



The case for headphones as monitors

There are many situations where headphones have the potential to offer a higher quality of sound than loudspeakers:



• They are not dependent on room acoustics, which can vary tremendously. As a sound reference that is consistent from venue to venue, headphones are a uniquely practical solution.

• Most practical high-quality loudspeakers use more than one driver for each channel and need a crossover network of some sort. The potential for sonic problems with this arrangement has always been a challenge for speaker designers. Headphones can bypass such problems entirely by using a single driver for each channel.



• There is no agreement as to the ideal polar radiation pattern for a loudspeaker. A variety of approaches are found in both consumer and professional settings, and they all interact with the listening room in different ways. With headphones this is not a consideration, let alone a problem.

• The very characteristic that makes the most difference in the way headphones sound—the lack of interaural crosstalk—makes them revealing of details in a recording to a degree that no conventional loudspeaker setup can match. This is one reason why many classical music engineers use them: if you need to catch things like that smudged entrance in the second violins or a fluffed note by the bassoonist, headphones will tell you about it much quicker than loudspeakers will.



• This same precision in rendering detail makes headphones superior for editing stereo program material. They reveal what is really going on at the splice point much more readily than loudspeakers—most of the time. (I’ll let Jerry Bruck tell you about the exceptions in just a bit.)

There are many practical advantages to using headphones as well:



• They are lightweight and portable.

• Dynamic-element phones have no need for large, powerful, expensive amplifiers. Suitable headphone amps are already built into a lot of recording equipment, and separate headphone amps are usually small and cheap compared to speaker amplifiers.



• Closed-back headphones provide some isolation from your surroundings, making it possible to monitor where it would otherwise be difficult or impossible.

• Some headphones are capable of deep bass response normally found only in very large full-range loudspeakers or in subwoofers. If you record pipe organs for a living, you may find this useful.



• Did I mention that they are lightweight and portable?

Even the more expensive top quality headphones offer more “bang for the buck” than loudspeakers. For example, the Sennheiser HD 580 has a street price of about $250. This gets you dynamic element headphones that are considered to be near-equivalent to the most esoteric electrostatic models. Loudspeakers with equivalent sonic performance could easily cost five times as much, or more.



A fly in the ointment: the editing bug

I said that my ‘yes’ to using headphones as critical monitors was qualified. Jerry Bruck explains one small but important problem that can happen when editing stereo program material:



“I love using headphones for editing because of the precision. If there’s some vestige of something you don’t want in a splice that’s, say, coming in or going out, the headphones will nail it in a way that loudspeakers never do.

“But—and this is a big but—a real danger exists, because I have many times had the experience, as others have had, of making a splice in music, and on headphones it is totally inaudible. You sit there congratulating yourself on what a wonderful splice you have just made, and then take the headphones off and turn up the speakers, and suddenly it’s glaring. It’s there, and you can hear it, and you go, ‘how can that be? Why can I hear it on speakers and not on headphones?’



“I don’t really have an explanation, but I will venture one: that it has to do with the phase relationships between the channels. Again, it’s the interaural mixture that occurs with speakers and doesn’t occur with headphones. Once that happens the two channels have phase relationships that are a give-away, that something has happened here that could never happen in real life.”

“So I would more than caution anyone, I would actually warn anyone who attempts editing in headphones: check your work on speakers. It doesn’t happen every time; it happens like one time out of 20, but that one time will really amaze you when it occurs, and you’ll have to go back and re-do it. Otherwise everyone is going to hear it.”



Interaural crosstalk blues II: why we need both headphone and loudspeaker monitors

A good case can be made for always using both headphones and loudspeakers to monitor our work. The two different monitoring methods each tell us different, useful things—stuff that we really need to know. (There is also the issue of the increasing use of headphones by our listeners with all those millions of portable music players out there.)



Once we decide to work this way we can reap some real advantages from it. For example, if I have really good headphones I have less need for big, expensive loudspeakers. The things I need speakers for—checking the stereo image, the direct to reflected sound balance, etc.—can be reproduced just fine by smaller, less expensive loudspeakers (provided their basic sound quality is adequate). Other things—fine balances between instruments in the mix, little details of performance, tonal colorations, etc.—are better checked on top quality headphones.

Jerry Bruck has taken this idea to its logical conclusion for some of his location monitoring. On some of his smaller scale jobs, where he doesn’t want to lug around a whole van-full of equipment, he brings along the Cambridge SoundWorks Model Twelve speaker system.



You’ve probably seen the ads for it: “stereo in a suitcase.” Two small satellite speakers and a small 3-channel amp fit into a medium sized carrying case that also has a built-in woofer. Unpack the amp and the satellites and the case becomes the subwoofer of a powered 3-piece system. According to Jerry, the sound quality of the Model Twelve is quite good—certainly accurate enough to tell him what he needs to know. Then for the fine details, on go the headphones.

[Editor's note: at the time of this writing, the Cambridge Soundworks system was, if not unique, unusual and worthy of mention in the industry. Nowadays there are a lot of fairly portable 2.1 speaker systems with tiny satellites and a reasonably portable subwoofer that might serve as alternatives to headphones.]



I’ll leave you with this thought before we consider how to evaluate different headphones:

“It is an axiom of any recording technique that the final result is only as good as the monitoring system used when making the recording. The more accurately the recording engineer can hear throughout the process, the better the final result will be.” —Streicher and Everest



Interaural blues III: evaluating headphone sound quality

How do you choose, from all the models on the market, the headphones that will work for you?



To start with, we could try measuring headphone performance in a laboratory setting, much as any manufacturer does. This is both easy and difficult. The easy part is placing the headphones on the ears of a measuring dummy (such as the Head And Torso Simulator by Bruel & Kjaer) or onto a specially designed coupler or artificial ear (the B & K type 4153, for example). You then run test signals through the headphones, they are picked up by the microphone(s) in the dummy or coupler, and you have your test data.

The hard part is deciding what the test data mean.

One problem: the dummy ears or coupler are meant to simulate average human ears. Who is average? No one. Does it make a difference? Yes. It’s like trying to determine how a loudspeaker will perform in one room by measuring it in a different one.



Now, speaker designers do that all the time; they measure loudspeakers in anechoic chambers, where no one in their right mind listens to music. It is a useful exercise but it does not tell the whole story.

Measuring a headphone with a coupler has similar limitations. Just as the anechoic chamber will not tell you much about room effects, the coupler will not tell you much about the variable effects of real human ears interacting with headphones.



Another problem: there is not complete agreement as to what curve constitutes “flat” response when a headphone is measured on a coupler or dummy. One choice is free-field (sound arriving with no reflections), another is diffuse-field (sound arriving with many random reflections).

A strong argument for diffuse-field is that it better matches real-world listening conditions. Several “diffuse-field equalized” headphones have been introduced over the past decade, with models available from AKG, beyerdynamic, and Sennheiser.



They do not all sound alike. Apparently there is no consistent standard for implementing diffuse-field  in headphone designs. While my own attempts to locate such a standard have produced no results, that does not mean it does not exist. If anyone out there does know about, say, an ISO standard for diffuse-field of headphones, feel free to email me about it: talkback@recordingmag.com.

I do not have a testing laboratory, but I still need to evaluate headphones. So I use my ears. I listen to test signals and to music.



First, the test signals. I listen to two types of signals: warble tones and pink noise. The warble tones are sine waves that continually vary in frequency over a range of about 1/3rd octave. This prevents resonances from building up at any one frequency in the test environment (usually listening rooms, but it works for ears covered by headphones too). I use the warble tones to get some idea of the bass extension of the phones under test. At some point it becomes necessary to dramatically boost the signal to hear anything at all, and this is usually a good indication of the useful limit of bass response.

Pink noise is good for assessing overall tonal balance and showing up colorations—midrange humps, upper bass dips, or whatever. These show up as tonal changes in the pink noise.



The real test, though, is music. It is important to pick music recordings that have the right characteristics. Most commercial recordings, especially those of pop music, are disqualified from this test because we do not know what was done to them during recording and post-production.

We can listen to two different monitors with a given recording and say, for example, that one sounds brighter than the other. But which one is the more accurate monitor? What does an AKG C-12 tube microphone, nine inches on axis from a particular singer, put through a parametric eq, and a Studer analog multitrack tape machine, really sound like? You tell me.



There are a couple of ways around this situation. One is to use recordings that you make yourself with simple techniques, no processing, and microphones considered to be accurate. I do this myself using the Crown SASS stereo microphone. I do not think the SASS is a perfect microphone, but its deviations from accuracy occur mostly at the frequency extremes. It also helps that it is a quasi-binaural array. So if I listen to a recording made with the SASS through particular headphones and it sounds more like I’m actually there, I figure I’m on the right track.

A second solution is to seek out commercial recordings made with simple techniques, relatively accurate microphones, and no processing. These do exist. Check the sidebar for some suggestions. One hint: almost any of Jack Renner’s recordings for Telarc would qualify.



Listen to such a recording on, say, two different headphones. If with one pair you hear midrange colorations or boomy bass while the other pair sounds open and well balanced, it is likely that the better sounding headphones really are better.

And I’m not going to leave you just with those guidelines, useful as I hope they are; we’ll review some good headphone candidates in Part 2, also available online at recordingmag.com.



Robert Auld is an audio engineer and theatre sound designer who works in New York City. He would like to thank Jerry Bruck for his contribution to this article. You can write to Robert at talkback@recordingmag.com.





Evaluating Headphones: Some Commercially Available Recordings

There are various CDs available with pink noise, warble tones, etc. The one I use is a French import: Compact Test Demonstrations, Pierre Verany, PV-784031 (issued 1984).



Music recordings that more or less fit my criteria for accurate pickup:

Charles Tomlinson Griffes: Goddess of the Moon. Perspectives Ensemble, Newport Classics NPD85634. Exotic chamber music, recorded in live performance by engineer Joe Stanko with the Crown SASS stereo microphone.



The King James Version: Harry James and his Big Band. Sheffield Lab 10068-2-F. Recorded direct-to-disk in 1976. Engineer Ron Hitchcock used a single stereo microphone (a modified AKG C-24), augmented by spot mics on the piano and bass. The CD reissue is still one of the most realistic recordings of a jazz big band ever made.

Paquito D’Rivera: Portraits of Cuba. Chesky JD145. In 1996, 20 years later, Bob Katz used virtually the same methods (four microphones, with the band on location in a church) to record this latin-tinged big band led by arranger Carlos Franzetti. This record won a Grammy for best jazz album.



Edvard Grieg: Lyric Pieces; Emil Gilels, piano. Deutsche Grammophon 429 749-2. Recorded in a church in Berlin, 1974. Emil Gilels was one of the great concert pianists of our time, with a kind of tonal control of the instrument that most pianists can only dream about. The recording is a good, straightforward job, probably done with two microphones.

P.D.Q. Bach: 1712 Overture & Other Musical Assaults. Telarc CD-80210. As is their custom, Telarc lists most of the equipment used to make this recording. The microphones were small diaphragm condenser models from Schoeps and Sennheiser and “the signal was not passed through any processing device (i.e., compression, limiting or equalization) at any step during production.” Engineer Michael Bishop did a superb job of recording the large orchestra used for most of the selections, and was also responsible for the imaginative sonic collages that accompany Prof. Peter Schickele’s introductions.



Michael Murray: The Great Organ at the Cathedral of St. John The Divine, New York City. Telarc CD-80169. One of the world’s great pipe organs, recorded in 1987 in the world’s largest gothic-style cathedral. Producer and engineer Robert Woods used Bruel & Kjaer 4006 omni microphones for his pickup. As you might expect, the bass extension of this recording is impressive.

Walton: Belshazzar’s Feast. Atlanta Symphony Orchestra & Chorus, Robert Shaw, Telarc CD-80181. One of engineer Jack Renner’s best recordings. The Walton is a big, flashy piece using a large chorus, baritone soloist, organ, and two antiphonal brass choirs, in addition to full symphony orchestra. I find the opening a cappella male chorus section useful for revealing midrange colorations in monitors. And about 16 minutes in there is a very complex section (“Praise Ye”) that separates the men from the boys. It takes really superior gear to do it justice.



Mahler: Symphony No. 8, “Symphony of a Thousand.” Atlanta Symphony Orchestra & Chorus, Robert Shaw, Telarc CD-80267. Jack Renner has written that the sessions for this recording were the three most difficult days of his life. The logistics had a lot to do with it: when you give nearly a thousand performers a break, it can take them close to a half hour just to get off the stage! Renner used a dozen or so microphones (Telarc’s usual arsenal of Schoeps, Sennheiser and B & K mics) to cover this huge ensemble, which he mixed down on the spot to a custom-built two channel. (He must be a very brave man.) I have minor quibbles with some of the balances here and there, but there are other parts of the work that, heard on first rate equipment, have enormous impact.



 

Hi Zonees

The Space Cones work and they have a big effect!

Here's how they are applied in Sonic's system:



[Pix space cone 1 goeth here]



[Pis space cones 2 goeth here]



Huge girth and focus of the images across the soundstage.  A frequency balance that has bass which you won't believe from Magneplanar 1.5QRs with no subwoofer.  And a well defined yet sweet mid and treble. 



True Sonic's experience with the Space Cones now reflect what Michael has been saying.



It took many days of settling to get this point. Test this out on a of LPs, SPs and CDs.  Excellent harmonic richness!



Sonic

 
Those Space Cones

I call them my energy antennas. Their so powerful that you can throw things way off till you find the right placement. And when you do, explosion

Things go from fussy to super info.

Hi Sonic

It appears that the format on the site has changed. Don't know if this will be corrected or not. I may need to change the way I edit, rats. Until then I will do my best to plug in pics.

here are the pics from sonics last post

When I designed the Space Cone I wanted something I could use as a powerful energy field magnet as well as transfer device. The SC is the first of my energy control devices that I have made public. It's like an energy amplifier and you can change the amount of volume and the pitch by using different materials on both the flat side and the point. The problem with energy field magnets is they are dependant on what they are touching to complete their connection to the harmonics both in waves and vibrations. This gets tricky along with fields themselves because of how we think they work and how we control them.

I started to get into this a little on the old tuneland but could tell that it was going to get really tricky if certain things did not happen first to the energy, so I backed off. You see once you start combining waves with vibrations (mechanical) with fields you are getting really serious and it is easy to have one over power the other, and it can happen very fast.

We have to remember that vibrations and waves work off of values and changed values are volumes. Why don't shields work in audio? They do, it's just that the engineering community is into over kill because they think they are giving an absolute (that word again) fix when they are actually messing up the harmonic balance of the fundamentals. Energy shields and amplifiers need to be used in balance with each other to work. If not you will get a colasped signal patern. I describe this sound as phasy. It's actually an oscillating wave (field) out of rhythm (timing). You guys hear this all the time in your systems but may not know what it is. It's another reason why chassis are very very bad for component parts.

We should probably get into dielectrics vs antennas and how they work with waves (fields). Ok, deep breath....do I want to go there

Need to take a break and think about how I fit these altogether so they make sense. Lets just say, I'm glad the SC's worked  .

Hi Zonees

Those Space Cones are not stuck on the Magneplanars' grille cloth.  The are mounted on stalks I made from genuine Michael Green mild steel items that mount into existing screw holes in the panels which were originally used to mount wooden cosmetic strips and an outer, additional grille cloth. So the coupling is achieved in this way without the re-radiation ability of the Space Cones being hampered.

Sonic

Nice, very inventive.

An Interview with Mark Levinson

Source: monoandstereo  

[Sonic thinks: there is hardly an audiophile who has not heard of Mark Levinson, the man or the equipment.  Some idolize him, some may think that the Mark Levinson gear was part of the beginnings where hi fi equipment went from $700 turntables and $900amps to turntables that cost $100,000 and amplifiers that have crossed the $1,000,000 mark (no joke.... I read in Hifi News and Record Review of such a device from Italy)].

So Levinson the man....his adventures with his various brands like Cello, Red Rose and now Daniel Hertz are stuff where much has been written and full of interesting views. Here are some:

 
Questions by Matej Isak, Mono & Stereo

You and your name are the legend of it’s own in high-end audio. Where and how did  all started for Mark Levinson?

This is a long story, too long for now. Basically, I was a musician and enjoyed recording my teachers and friends. I wanted the sound to be better. I discovered there are two parts to this – the recording quality and the playback quality. I became involved in both, and started a company, MLAS, Ltd., (Mark Levinson Audio Systems, Ltd.) to manufacture both recording and playback equipment. This was in 1972 in Woodbridge, CT in the basement of my parents’ home.

Some say you are the founder of high-end industry?

I believe in good engineering and faithfully reproducing music. I don’t have much in common with the  high end audio of today. High end audio equipment, for the most part, cannot be used by recording and mastering engineers because of serious limitations. Most of high end audio is based on nostalgia, marketing, politics, dreams and illusions. My Daniel Hertz products can be used by the top audio engineers in studios for recording and mastering because it has performance that high end audio is missing. I don’t even know what high end audio really is. It seems to be expensive audio equipment made in small quantities, reviewed in certain magazines and sold in certain stores, but I don’t think there is any real definition for the term.

Who were your inspirations (and still are)?

Dick Burwen was my original audio mentor. We are still close friends almost 40 years later. For company philosophy and equipment models, Yasuo Nakanishi of Japan was a great sensei (teacher) and friend. He helped so many companies but very few ever appreciated him. Sadly, he died some years ago, broken by business difficulties and illness. He was a great music lover starting in the early 1950’s. I have been inspired by the great musicians I have studied and played with, like Ali Akbar Khan (classical music of North India) and his associates, Paul Bley, Sonny Rollins, Chick Corea, Lee Konitz, Paul Motian, Herb Pomeroy, Elvin Jones, Jimmy Garrison, John Coltrane, and many more.

Would you consider that you were and are audiophile-oriented man-company?



I make audio equipment that seems right to me. I don’t think about the audiophile world. I am happy if someone enjoys the equipment I design and build, but my goal is to recreate a musical event, not look at marketing and audiophiles.

Kindly list all of the present products from Daniel Hertz?

People should visit www.danielhertz.com for details. Briefly:
Speakers: M1, M2, M3, M7
Power Amplifier. M5 TELIKOS Reference Mono Amplifier
Preamplifier: M6 1 MegOhms Preamplifier
Daniel Hertz pure silver litz interconnect cable
Daniel Hertz Premium 500 speaker cable

Why the name Daniel Hertz?


I wanted a family name. Daniel is my father’s name. Hertz is my mother’s family name. Heinrich Hertz, the physicist who first demonstrated the electromagnetic wave, was my great uncle. That was the beginning of audio.

What actually happened with Mark Levinson trademark and company?

I was young and inexperienced in business. I was a musician, really. Some American business sharks stole my name and company ( I was never paid anything), and they tried to keep me out of audio for life. They put the company through a planned bankruptcy to eliminate my stock, and  sold everything to Harman later. I had nothing to do with products bearing my name since 1980. It is interesting that Harman refuses to service the older products that created the legend.

What would you say, that is the difference between Mark Levinson and Daniel Hertz_

Mark Levinson was a big step forward in the quality of sound and construction of preamplifiers and power amplifiers. Daniel Hertz offers a complete system approach that combines the most natural sound, the advantages of high efficiency (1W = 100dB sound pressure level), and European craftsmanship.

Can you tell us more about Red Rose music?

Red Rose Music was intended to make smaller, more affordable but extremely high quality equipment for a wider audience. RRM used ribbon-based speakers. Sadly, RRM suffered from executive fraud. Internal financial executives destroyed the company, and then destroyed the computer so no one could figure out exactly what they did. I was trying to rebuild RRM, but the global economy was getting worse and worse, and 9/11 was a terrible blow, as we were based in NY. Eventually, I found Europe to be a better home for me.

Cello products are the legendary standouts. Can you tell us more about company and your time with Cello?

Cello products entered the audio stratosphere. There is plenty of information about Cello on the net. I can’t write a 100 page book here to retell the story. Cello was used by some top record companies and mastering labs as well as residential users. When I started Cello with the Audio Palette, audio experts predicted a total failure. We sold 1,000 Audio Palettes over time.  

One of our customers became an investor. He sold his company for a billion dollars cash. He decided he wanted to run Cello and forced me out. I never was paid anything for the company, and lost my life savings. Cello made a profit for 15 years. It was a tragedy that shortly after he took over, he bankrupted the company.  When people create beauty, others will try to take it and destroy it. Used Cello equipment could become difficult to service because it used many custom parts, but I think Paul Jayson of Viola 5CT USA) is trying to provide service still. I am very proud of Cello Ltd.  and its many pioneering innovations, like having its own showrooms in NY and LA, sort of like the precursors of Apple stores.

When did you established Daniel Hertz and why?

Daniel Hertz is my final statement in no-compromise audio. I believe it offers the most natural sound, highest reliability, exquisite craftsmanship, flexibility, and maximum performance. Former Cello owners agree. I think it would be next to impossible to find the resources needed to make these products in the USA. They gave all the industrial work to China and so many small companies went out of business. I wanted to overcome the limitations of the past with new audio technologies, all perfectly tuned by ear in a complete system concept. Daniel Hertz equipment can also be used with other audio equipment for those who want to make their own combinations. After being so fortunate to work with so many wonderful people in my career, and meet so many great customers and have so much acceptance, I wanted to finish my career with a final, ultimate statement in audio. Now it is time to move to fixing recordings and bringing the music recordings up to the same level of quality.

Why are you chose Switzerland as place to be?

Switzerland is a great place to have a company. It has a stable infrastructure, solid currency, an excellent work ethic, a tradition of quality on many levels, and is centrally located in Europe.

Daniel Hertz become a synonym luxury high-end audio. What is the story behind it?

The secret of Daniel Hertz is putting all the energy into the most advanced engineering, quality, and careful listening, not marketing. People find us, we don’t chase them.  Our customers demand excellence and are tired of the usual high end audio nonsense. They are usually respected people, and their opinion is valued by others.

If my memory serves me well even Mr. Medvedov holds your system?

A Russian TV show showed Dimitri Medvedev with his Daniel Hertz system, that is true.

You don’t implement any tubes, but only solid state. Why is that?

You cannot get Daniel Hertz quality with tubes.

Why did you choose Solid State as your path?

It works the best.

Have you ever even thought about implementing tubes into your products?

I tried it once with Red Rose Music. It was a big mistake. Never again.

Tubes vs Transistors?

You can get good sound with both, but tubes have too many downsides.

Silver. What is the real thing about using silver in audio chain?

Silver is the best conductor of electricity. Laws of physics. But copper is more practical for speaker cables.

What is your approach and specific to your topology?

No comment. Except that complete system design has proven to provide customer satisfaction because every component can be matched.

What does state of the art solid-state amplification actually means for Daniel Hertz?

I do not know why you keep using “solid state” here. State of the Art is enough. The answer to your question is, “listen for yourself.” Again, we have based our design on faithfully matching the sound to live music. This is the core of my work always. Record music with a high quality system like we have, and compare the playback.

Daniel Hertz Speakers are high efficient. Is this a must?

For me, yes. Less efficiency turns electrical signals into heat. That is music you don’t hear.

Can you tell us more about your speaker cables?

High-end audio is generally full of pseudo-science and fraud, especially with cables. Daniel Hertz speaker cable works very well, is not too expensive, and all our customers are happy.

What would you say sets apart Daniel Hertz audio design above other manufacturers?

No bullshit.

What is the difference between your pro and audiophile lines?

We have only one line.

You’re also a musician. How important would you say, that is when designing any audio products?



That is the heart of it. How can you reproduce music if you don’t know what it is?

How is your musical path is going on?

I still play when possible. I especially enjoy playing the sarod, a classical string instrument of North India. Also my double bass, flugelhorn, and other instruments.

Petrof and Mark Levinson?

Petrof are music people. Daniel Hertz speakers are built by people who make some of the finest pianos in the world – my favorite piano. I could not find that quality anywhere else.

Where is the borderline between luxury and quality?

This is a personal judgment. For a classical pianist, a 2.8M piano is quality. For others, it might be a luxury.

Do you use pure class A is your signal chain? If so why?

Class A is very misunderstood. Of course, our circuits use a Class A approach, but I do not want to talk about it here because it is a big subject and needs a lot of time to explain correctly.

How important is power supply?

Very important. This is obvious.

Classical music. The ultimate test for high-end?

Every kind of music and recording has certain demands and requirements.

What is your opinion on digital music revolution and the birth of mp3?

Digital music was the beginning of the dark age of music. But something good will come of this soon.

Where is the fine line between, resolution, transparency and musicality?

Listen to the music in life and then the playback.

How do you fine-tune your products?

By ear. Indian music is especially hard to reproduce, but Daniel Hertz can do it.

What is the reference for your when designing any products?

Reproducing musical events.

Is there a need for a high price in high-end?

Not necessarily. But the very best will cost more than the others.

Audiophile is quite an overused term. How so you see it?

I don’t think about it. My involvement is with my work.

Digital audio era is here. Do you think this is the future to stay?

We have to make it work. It is possible. Watch for future developments from Daniel Hertz.

Vinyl?

Great of you enjoy it.

Ever explored possibilities of Class D?

I work with Intersil D2Audio, a manufacturer of Class D amps.When well designed, they can be better than many discrete high end amps.

How close can one get with digital reproduction in comparing to analog in your opinion?

Equal or better with new technology just coming.

What subcontractors do you employ?

No comment. Except we are proud to work with Petrof piano company for speaker building.

Does form follows function with Daniel Hertz?

That is the best way.

Do you still believe in traditional “made in” Europe quality?

Quality can come from anywhere. But normally it takes generations of culture to develop quality.

What do you think about products coming from China?

Some are good. Quality is not by nationality.

Any plans for more affordable Daniel Hertz components?

Daniel Hertz is a statement in excellence. Period. But if I find a way, maybe…

Your speakers need 1watt to achieve 100db.  Is the trend, that overtook audio in 70 went into a wrong way?

The laws of physics have not yet been repealed, even by the Americans.

How important are the room acoustics?

Daniel Hertz equipment sounds fine in most living rooms without acoustic treatment. Most acoustic treatment destroys the sound. The best helps in certain situations.

There is quite few DSP and room correction solutions, but they seems to add too much to the music. What are your experiences?

DSP room correction is basically a mistake.

When is it simple enough (design and topology) to say stop, this is where it all end and amplifier is finished?

When you feel happy and enjoy listening.

You’re working on the new transistor, which will change the way we see affordable audio gear?

I am working on new kinds of semiconductors but that is too big a story for here.

Who were and still are your inspirations in audio world?

McIntosh created the founding principle of engineering and design excellence in the 1950’s, with unparalleled customer service, but they discontinued that a long time ago. Many talented people have created interesting products, too many to list. I prefer to generate my own designs with my team of people.

What sets Daniel Hertz audio from competition?

1. The most natural sound.
2. Designs based on high efficiency technology.
3. The finest quality of craftsmanship, parts and materials.
4. Extremely wide dynamic range.
5. Very deep bass with no “woofer” sound.
6. Punch.
7. Vitality even at low volume levels.
8. Virtually no dynamic compression.
9. High reliability beyond any high end audio standards.
10. Incredible sense of space due to controlled dispersion characteristics.
11. Perfect for the mastering engineer as well as the music lover at home.
12. Completely matched electronics, cables and speakers tested with live vs recorded events with the most demanding music.

Daniel Hertz sound philosophy?

Record a live event of great music and play it back. You must feel that you are in the room with the musicians, and you do not get tired of listening. You also need science, measurements, listening with many kinds of recordings from all eras and genres. The system must play without stress, and provide the maximum connection with the music, as the musicians intended/

Do you ever plan to bring any other components to your line?

Maybe. The current catalogue is the permanent base of Daniel Hertz. This is not a company that plays the high-end audio game. Like my second company Cello Ltd., every piece will be a collector’s item.

Can you tell us more on special and innovative approaches that you use in your products?

Words do not convey the soul of Daniel Hertz. You have to discover it, as you would a musical instrument. Daniel Hertz is like a great piano or violin. You have to play it to feel it and understand it.

What would you say, that is the secret of Daniel Hertz?

  Love, soul, passion, commitment, life experience, science, and the best people. Daniel Hertz is            the summing up of my life’s work in audio.

How do you see the state of present high-end society?

I prefer not to comment, except to say this.  I observe that the world is becoming obsessed with toys and gadgets, and disconnected from art and soul, the artisanal and the deep.

Would you say that high quality is more affordable today or you have to pay premium price for best components and sound?

This depends on what you want, and if you find the right people to help you, not just take your money.

Where does hi-fi stops and high end comes in for you?

No one has an answer for this question. I do not see any definition of what high-end audio is.

What is the definitive goal of Daniel Hertz audio?

Daniel Hertz provides a new world reference in audio quality. Its goal is to sum up all I have learned, and bring it to the world. The purpose is very spiritual. Those who have it understand this.

What do you see the future of audio and where do you see your roll in it?

The future of audio depends on a number of things that are still in flux. It is also connected to the world of music recordings, and how that is developed. Love of music is universal. Almost everyone has it. But the business world is normally run by people who are paid to make money, not create beauty and uplift the soul.

Are physical medium obsolete?

No, because you can enjoy music on any medium if you have the right solution.

What is your opinion of vinyl?

Can be very enjoyable. But it also has severe limitations as anyone can tell if they hear the master tape. The limitations may be more or less audible depending on the type of music.I recorded Bill Elgart (“A Life” in 1976). The LP is unlistenable. Many people returned it. The CD and SACD are awesome.

Do you think analog master tape quality can be matched within the digital domain?

Yes, with the right solutions.

Can you tell us more about your recordings and what is so special about them?

The most important thing is to find musicians who play at the highest level. Then, recording them is fairly easy. Recording is an art. You can’t explain how you paint or write or make a violin in a few words.

Do you plan to record more music?

Yes!

Who are your musical inspirations?

Too many to list. Ali Akbar Khan, Nikhil Banerjee, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, Scott LaFaro, Gary Peacock, Paul Motian, Lee Konitz, Jimmy Garrison, Elvin Jones, Art Tatum, Ameer Khan, Sonny Rollins, the young Alam Khan, son of Ali Akbar, and many others.

Can you tell us more about your time with Keith Jarret and Chick Corea?

Keith and I both went to the Berklee School of Music in Boston when  it was very small, on Newberry St. Keith played in my band, I played in his band. He was playing in a cocktail piano lounge for $15 a night. Chick became a good friend. He played often at Connelly’s, a jazz club in a black section of Boston, as the house pianist with greats like Coleman Hawkins and Roy Haynes. He probably got $15 a night too.

John Coltrane is one of my favorite artists. Can you tell me more about the time you spend with him and if he affected you in any way?

Another long story. When I was 18, he invited me to come to his hotel room in Boston to talk and play. I was too afraid to go. I know what I lost. That taught me never to be afraid of anything again.

Coltrane somehow entered different kind of space and time withs his last years. He was deeply impressed by teachings and music of India. Can you elaborate on this and the way you see it?

Not here. Ali Akbar Khan lived where John was trying to get. But his music is incomparable.

How did you become influenced by Sarod and where did you learn to play it?

Ali Akbar Khan. Go on the internet or contact Mary Khan at the Ali Akbar College of Music in San Rafael, CA. www.aacm.org . After 40 years, I am still only a student, but I learned to touch the music and play some things.

Indian classical music with their knowledge, mantras, ragas etc. is a very unique universe, that seems to never stop. Did it touch you?

Of course.

Could you find a connection between jazz and Indian classical music?

Yes, but is very obscure and has nothing to do with the fusion music being played today. Real North Indian classical music should be played pure. Elements can be incorporated into jazz but almost no one knows how to do it because they never studied adequately.

You know the tone of the instruments. How difficult is to achieve it in reproduction?

Listen to my recordings on a Daniel Hertz system.

Active crossovers?

Good in many applications.

Is it possible to achieve the same feeling with high-end audio as on concert?

Possibly. The most important thing is your mind. Even a small mono system can bring joy too.

How to remove mystics from audio?

Some people need them because audio is their hobby. Many fields have them – cars, watches, photography, for example. Pay more attention to the music.

What is the difference between audiophile and music lover?

There is nothing wrong with enjoying good equipment, and loving music. The two are not always together, but many people love both.

What does a music lover get with buying Daniel Hertz?

You only find out when you have it. Usually people find that their quest has ended.

What is your reference when designing and testing new products?

Good recordings and science.

What is the real high-end reproduction for you?

When you forget about equipment.

Is Daniel Hertz high-end or ultra high-end company?

We are just people doing our best.

You were also involved with Sony and SACD. Please tell us more.

SACD was originally developed to stop piracy. It had merit, also for sonic quality. But there were no tools in DSD, the format of SACD. So engineers mostly used normal PCM technology so most SACD’s are just CD’s in a different format. A pity. Sony and Philips abandoned SACD under the onslaught of MP3 and downloaded music.

What is your opinion on SACD audio quality?

It can be great if done well.

You were also involved with giant LG. What was your role?

I was Chief Sound Advisor for three years. I helped LG upgrade its sound quality, as they requested. I learned a lot and they treated me very well. I met many very interesting people.

Who would you say typical Daniel Hertz audio customers are?

People who love music and can afford to buy Daniel Hertz equipment.

You also mastered few records. Can you tell us more about this?

I can’t remember all the things I did. I remember remastering the “Birth of the Cool” seminal jazz recording using the Cello Audio Palette, and having Lee Konitz sitting next to me, agreeing with the results. Lee played alto sax on that iconic recording from the 1950’s, with Miles Davis and other greats, and there he was, sitting next to me.

Any last thoughts for our readers?

Support real live music. If we don’t, it might disappear. Get rid of amplification of live music as much as possible. Support small music spaces that provide intimacy. Support large venues like concert halls and opera houses that are now endangered. Contribute to organizations like the Ali Akbar College of Music (www.aacm.org)  and the Music Maker Relief Foundation (www.muaicmaker.org ).

Instead of nostalgia and fantasies about my past achievements, see what Daniel Hertz is doing today.  If you are able, support living people and companies that are based on true dedication to the best in engineering, craftsmanship, design, and love of music. For those who cannot afford it, just enjoy what you have and know that your appreciation is valued. I would like to thank all the people who have loved my work and enabled me to have such a rewarding career in audio. And thanks to you and your magazine for asking so many good questions, and allowing me to speak to your readers.

www.danielhertz.com

Well you stumped me on this one sonic

Not to be rude to Mark, but if your system didn't walk all over anything they built I'd give him a billion dollars

I know Mark from doing shows and from some of his close relations. Won't go into details on this one.

I'm interested in how or why this got your attention? Do you feel that these types of products serve listening?

Marks products are 180 degrees from the tune and are some of the most stuck products I have ever listened to and had to work on. Most of the time replacing each piece with something else to even get close to sound. I have been where his products are/were built and can say that if there ever was a story that was miss leading in this hobby it would have to be his products. As Mark said it wasn't his intentions but when I was at the shows watching this awful sounding stuff being played he would be right in the middle of the pictures. I didn't know honestly that Mark was considered the father of anything in high end audio which goes to show how marketing has blinded reality. But I have had to try to make many of his systems sound good and to be perfectly honest the Sherwood/Maggie/Mini Mod/RoomTune setup runs circles around his/their very best.

Hi Sonic

I must add this apology posts to Mark, but it's only because I am listening at such a diferent level than any of those guys have who are listening to boxed electronics. They can never know what is going on because they have never experienced the music openning up to this level. They have created an industry that has not as of yet become basically sound because of a simple fundamental design flaw "the lack of understanding mechanical transfer".

I really hate to be mean to them or anyone but if the industry doesn't understand something even this basic it's very hard to think of them as real. maybe if I lived in the world of trading components but I'm so far above that and even changing my mass and materials even a little changes so much. How can the industry talk like they know sound when they are so far removed from how it works. This tells me at best what level their sound is and for those listening and buying how far away from music they are. As I read I see him and them avoiding the questions with answers that are not about the sound. They have spent their lives painting missleading pictures and as a music purist don't understand how they can do this. Worse of all you see pics of their own listening and can see how bad their systems are set up. I think Oh My Lord how can people be so fooled as to pay so much for something (if they studied even a little) that is so wrong.

Hi Michael

You must understand the irony behind my post. Sonic does not just post stuff I agree with.  On the contrary, I find and upload things that define the tune from a positive or a counterpoint for Tunees to make up their own minds.

Now back to Tuning:

Sonic is wrestling separately with my 300B amplifier.  There is line hum which is higher than I expected and it just gets in the way of the beauty of the 300B. So Sonic said “enough of this!”  Turns out it is an AC filament amp.  Going DC will drop the hum by at least 20 dB but in the world of tube amps there are tribes – the AC filament tribe and the DC filament tribe…not to mention the 2A3, 212, 803 tribes. They all hold views that are strong in their favour and have reasons why everybody else is wrong.  I am for a DC filament but the circuit will need a work through by an expert because even in its AC form, something is causing the stray voltage levels to be higher than normal.   Good learning for Sonic.

Sonic is happy with the Space Cones on the Magneplanars. By being re-radiators, those Cones act like point sources and improve the focus of the panels’ imaging a lot. I am now just about getting 3D bubbles of image in open space as opposed to “images”.  This must be as hard to explain as how a recording can play 30 ft wide in a 15 ft wide room. It can be done and you will recognize it, just that getting there is a journey and by degrees and describing that journey like mine in words is difficult – and I want to go conservative because in the past I have reported effects that the sound I am getting today show what I said were shadows of things emerging.  

This is what I did after the Space Cones went on the Magneplanars.



See what I attached to the mini Shutters?  Absorptive sides away from the wood.  What’s the effect? If recordings are a ball of instruments and ambience rolled up, this starts the unrolling.

I am getting a sense the Space Cone tune has put my system up a notch where new tunes like this being introduced are getting stronger in their effectiveness and audibility. There is a good path of tunes to occupy Sonic in the days/weeks ahead.

Sonic

Hi Sonic

On the issue of ML.

I wonder though if it isn't better to put those types of post on another thread. To me they look like thay are part of your thinking whereas on another thread it could be a discussion all on it's own.  

I think their worth talking about, their just off topic from what you are doing on your listening thread. For example there are many things I would or could spin off of a post like this or like the Japanese posts but I wouldn't want to keep cutting into your listening progression to get to them.

Does this make sense?