+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67

Thread: KEF LS50s - demos?

  1. #11
    Join Date: Jun 2014

    Location: Chorley Lancs

    Posts: 14,599
    I'm Steve.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharos View Post
    I would be very wary of using too good a speaker for TV sound. Having gone very high end much TV speech is unintelligible and I have to use subtitles, whereas for eg. the ones on my PC would I'm sure, produce intelligible speech.
    I have found this to be the case with my set up, which isn't even high end - I suppose better speakers bring up all kinds other sounds like traffic noise, music, footfalls, other chat, all competing with the dialogue. I think the problem lies with impaired hearing, I get similar issues in real life.
    I just dropped in, to see what condition my condition was in

    T/T: Inspire Monarch, X200 tonearm, Ortofon Quintet Blue. Phono: Project Tube Box CD: Marantz CD6006 (UK Edition); Amp: Musical Fidelity A5 Integrated.
    Speakers: Zu Omen Def, REL T9i subwoofer. Cables: Atlas Equator interconnects, Atlas Hyper 3.0 speaker cables

    T'other system:
    Echo Dot, Amptastic Mini One,Arcam A75 integrated, Celestion 5's, BK XLS-200 DF

    A/V:
    LG 55" OLED, Panasonic Blu Ray, Sony a/v amp, MA Radius speakers, REL Storm sub

    Forget the past, it's gone. And don't worry about the future, it doesn't exist. There is only NOW.

    KICKSTARTER: ENABLING SCAMMERS SINCE 2009

  2. #12
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pigmy Pony View Post
    I have found this to be the case with my set up, which isn't even high end - I suppose better speakers bring up all kinds other sounds like traffic noise, music, footfalls, other chat, all competing with the dialogue. I think the problem lies with impaired hearing, I get similar issues in real life.
    Yes those other sounds do serve to mask, but it is also that mic. technique is not really paid much attention to, and so proximity effects are often present. A high performance loudspeaker will reproduce those bass and lower mids, thus masking the speech.

    But yes you are right about hearing impairment, and as with R4 just now, a woman barrister talking about children's plights, because she was not for whatever reason producing much presence range and very little top, I struggled even at 70dB to understand her. It is also possibly a new 'voice style' from people.

  3. #13
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to, and there are several variables which must be considered.

    In our formative years we are subject to imprinting of social norms, of which our education forms a part. We are taught the 'right' way to speak, which in my case was regarded as received pronunciation. This forms, as does much else in our environment, an internal 'template' which we regard as a reference, and much of this early imprinting is permanent, and is a reference point.

    However these norms shift with the sands of time, more particularly with cultural changes, and are often adopted by the media, and hence further perpetrated, because listeners habituate to that with repeated listening, this following what I call the 'sheep function', the tendency to adopt the norms surrounding us in order to 'lubricate' social interaction.

    It is also apparent that broadcast media have drifting norms for sound quality; Alan Shaw of Harbeth has recently stated that after visiting New BH in the early part of the century, and seeing all the glass lined studios there, he does not use any recordings after that date because they are so poor compared with earlier ones done with much more care from the last century. He cited an Archers episode in which someone on horseback was very wrong in quality.

    If you listen to a news prog in which the BBC uses an old bit of actuality, it will be apparent that both the recording quality and enunciation are far superior in the actuality, and although some may laugh, Pathe News, though maybe a little quaint, is always intelligible.

    The last variable is of course our aging hearing, and some loss of recorded presence may cause us to resultantly mishear, but often, and particularly so when lavalier electret mics. are used, it may be almost completely missing from the recording.

    I think I am still very able to differentiate a good from a bad vocal recording.

  4. #14
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    If you listen carefully to speech from radio, you will notice that articulation is often poor, a result of our cultural deterioration, this contrasting with the cultural renaissance from '60 to '80. (A Dumbing down).

    I think that when we have something profound to say, and which we feel strong conviction about, we tend to pronounce it well and provide clear intonational and inflectional expression. What is being churned out now is half hearted and poorly pronounced; this may help people to avoid responsibility and committal, it is difficult to pinpoint meaning from mutters and grunts.

    There are also widespread types of intonation; The 'patronising Mother to child' one, in which a soppy baby-talk voice is used, a Blofeld one in which small flecks of knowledge are given with a voice of contempt and disdain, the (aren't you fortunate to have the opportunity to listen to me?), one in which every sentence is expressed as if each word contained a profound earth shaking new discovery of truth, and others.

    Rarely, even if without overt egotism, is something expressed in humility, with the announcer minimising his presence but maximising his attempt to communicate clearly every aspect of an explanation. And what about this prevalent arm waving, which IMO masks an inability to express clearly? Remember Magnus Pike?

  5. #15
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,859
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharos View Post
    This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to, and there are several variables which must be considered.

    In our formative years we are subject to imprinting of social norms, of which our education forms a part. We are taught the 'right' way to speak, which in my case was regarded as received pronunciation. This forms, as does much else in our environment, an internal 'template' which we regard as a reference, and much of this early imprinting is permanent, and is a reference point.

    However these norms shift with the sands of time, more particularly with cultural changes, and are often adopted by the media, and hence further perpetrated, because listeners habituate to that with repeated listening, this following what I call the 'sheep function', the tendency to adopt the norms surrounding us in order to 'lubricate' social interaction.

    It is also apparent that broadcast media have drifting norms for sound quality; Alan Shaw of Harbeth has recently stated that after visiting New BH in the early part of the century, and seeing all the glass lined studios there, he does not use any recordings after that date because they are so poor compared with earlier ones done with much more care from the last century. He cited an Archers episode in which someone on horseback was very wrong in quality.

    If you listen to a news prog in which the BBC uses an old bit of actuality, it will be apparent that both the recording quality and enunciation are far superior in the actuality, and although some may laugh, Pathe News, though maybe a little quaint, is always intelligible.

    The last variable is of course our aging hearing, and some loss of recorded presence may cause us to resultantly mishear, but often, and particularly so when lavalier electret mics. are used, it may be almost completely missing from the recording.

    I think I am still very able to differentiate a good from a bad vocal recording.
    And how does someone on horseback sound? The Archers episode would have been recorded in a studio, and I doubt if the polar pattern of the microphone would have been chosen so that it would sound as though the speaker was, say, two to three feet above the listener.

  6. #16
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    That was AS's account, but certainly a person on horseback will be out in the open when galloping, and hence no proximity effects, a thin voice, and no reflections or hard upper end.

  7. #17
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,786
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    I saw a show on telly not so long ago where a bloke visits The Archers studio. They have a sort of semi-anechoic section where people stand if they are meant to be talking from a distance away. So they do take these things into account.

    Never listened to it myself, I find Radio 4 a bit weird.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  8. #18
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    I also saw that, for a second time, and conclude that with all those facilities they are lacking in ability to hear what is right.

    R4 is a bit weird, sort of setting an agenda for a certain social type, and it was described 20 years ago as 'mogodon for the middle classes', to me it is a perfect index of the deterioration of the supposed middle classes.

  9. #19
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,859
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    I listen to Radio 3 and Radio 4 most of the time. It's Radio 2 that is "mogadon for the middle classes".
    Barry

  10. #20
    Join Date: Jun 2014

    Location: Chorley Lancs

    Posts: 14,599
    I'm Steve.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I listen to Radio 3 and Radio 4 most of the time. It's Radio 2 that is "mogadon for the middle classes".
    Still prefer it to R1, which "charlie for the chavs"
    I just dropped in, to see what condition my condition was in

    T/T: Inspire Monarch, X200 tonearm, Ortofon Quintet Blue. Phono: Project Tube Box CD: Marantz CD6006 (UK Edition); Amp: Musical Fidelity A5 Integrated.
    Speakers: Zu Omen Def, REL T9i subwoofer. Cables: Atlas Equator interconnects, Atlas Hyper 3.0 speaker cables

    T'other system:
    Echo Dot, Amptastic Mini One,Arcam A75 integrated, Celestion 5's, BK XLS-200 DF

    A/V:
    LG 55" OLED, Panasonic Blu Ray, Sony a/v amp, MA Radius speakers, REL Storm sub

    Forget the past, it's gone. And don't worry about the future, it doesn't exist. There is only NOW.

    KICKSTARTER: ENABLING SCAMMERS SINCE 2009

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •