[spence]

Bellhead,
   
   There was lots of music that was wonderfully produced in the 70's. Unfortunately there was probably more music that wasn't, mostly rock music (lot's of midrangy albums with distorted guitars). If it was produced good, you'll hear it in the SP Tech speakers. If produced badly, you'll hear that too, but it's not going to send you out of the room. Once you differentiate which of your recordings sound great or mediocre, listen to the great ones on the SP Techs and then buy yourself a pair of Advents, put on your bell bottoms, and smoke a doob. Then play that old copy of Sticky Fingers and relive one of the finer moments of the 70's!

[Double Ugly]

I think spence may have said it best in another thread - they're revealing, not analytical... unless you feed them with analytical-sounding equipment.  I've done so, and I've fed them with equipment which produces an almost syrupy presentation.  You'd have to hear them to understand how neutral and revealing they are to appreciate what I'm saying.

IOW, as I've said before, they sound like what you feed them.  If you want analytical, you can definitely have it.  If you want molasses pouring from the speakers, I can assure you it's doable.  I know, 'cause I've done both with them.  For those coming from more colored speakers, it can be somewhat of a curse for a while (as it was with me), but it didn't take me long to figure out the uncolored nature of SP Techs is a blessing, not a curse.  Find the equipment that suits you and I suspect you'll be a happy man.

You may want to touch base with ted_b.  He's a *HUGE* Beatles fan, and owns the best, most revealing speaker SP Tech currently produces.  Further, though I don't know if this will help or not, but I know at least one person here believes AC/DC sounds great with his SP Tech speakers.

Something like that is going to be dependent upon your ears, your equipment, your room, etc., but it certainly speaks to what is possible.

[mcullinan]

Bellhead,
   
   There was lots of music that was wonderfully produced in the 70's. Unfortunately there was probably more music that wasn't, mostly rock music (lot's of midrangy albums with distorted guitars). If it was produced good, you'll hear it in the SP Tech speakers. If produced badly, you'll hear that too, but it's not going to send you out of the room. Once you differentiate which of your recordings sound great or mediocre, listen to the great ones on the SP Techs and then buy yourself a pair of Advents, put on your bell bottoms, and smoke a doob. Then play that old copy of Sticky Fingers and relive one of the finer moments of the 70's!

An example would have to be the Grateful Dead. The live soundboards are pretty incredible. Some of the audience recordings arent too bad either.
Mike

[Aether Audio]

bellhead,


I'd like to take a moment here to chime in and maybe help explain the difference in sound between SP Tech product and that of many others.  Specifically regarding the issues surrounding their "revealing" nature as opposed to what is termed an "analytical" sound.  A short overview of the recording/playback chain is required to do this and I'll try to keep it short  .

On the recording side we have basically two classes of components.  Those are the electronics involved and the transducers.  Any engineer will tell you that in any branch of technology, it is the transducers involved that are the weakest links and are the source of the greatest errors.  A transducer transforms one form of energy into another.  As examples, A photocell transforms light into an electrical signal and a microphone transforms sound likewise.  Magnetic tape recorder heads are transducers as well and can represent a significant source of distortion.  In vinyl recordings we also have the lathe cutting head used to make the original wax masters as another potentially significant distortion source as well as it's counterpart - the turntable playback cartridge.

Typically, the electronics involved have a much easier job in that they operate within the context of a single domain - the electrical transmission and amplification of signals.  Analog to digital (and the reverse) conversion of signals is another operation as well, but still resides within the electrical domain.

So... besides the recording engineer's playback monitors, typically the microphone represents the greatest source of distortion that the engineer is likely to hear during the recording process.  Yes, the entire electronics chain thereafter contributes a cumulative effect (particularly if signal levels are not closely monitored such as to avoid clipping conditions in the amplifier stages), but no single component in the chain represents as significant of a source of distortion as the microphone.  This means that all else being closely accounted for, the distortion in any recording is likely to be that from the microphone.  The playback monitoring speakers that the engineer uses may produce much greater distortion than the microphone or any of the electronics involved, but that distortion is only "heard" by the engineer and does not end up in the recording. 

[As a disclaimer, there are other forms of distortion that can be and usually are introduced (either intentionally or otherwise) by the recording engineer as well.  In that context though we're speaking of spatial and dynamic compression types.  For the sake of this argument I'm only refering to spectral distortions that are not intentionally or inadvertantly introduced via the subjective art of recording and mixing.]

Now, let's compare the distortion levels produced by even a modest microphone to that generated by most any loudspeaker - regardless of cost.  Many mics can handle SPLs of 110dB or greater quite easily and with admirably low levels of distortion.  Many loudspeakers can reproduce such levels too, but trust me... you don't want to know the distortion levels they produce as well.  The upshot is that most decent microphones produce significantly lower levels of distortion than any equivalent loudspeaker system.  The recording engineer knows this and that is the reason they often don't spend large sums on their monitors.  Even if the monitors are cheap "jamboxes," the recording can often end up sounding fairly good - at least by today's "pop market" standards.

At the end of the recording processes we end up with the playback system.  If for simplicity's sake we limit our discussion to digital CD playback and assuming an even "reasonable" level of playback electronics fidelity... guess what the greatest source of distortion is?  Yep... the loudspeaker.  If not consciously, sub-consciously we all know this to be true.  That's why there are few greater debates or controversies in audio than that of loudspeaker performance.

Knowing the above facts, that's why we at SP Technology decided to "give it a try" and developed speaker systems ourselves - we knew there was room for improvement.  In that, our research has lead to the discovery that much of what is claimed as "excessive detail" or "over-analytical" sound is the result of nothing more than high frequency distortion.  This is where our waveguide technology comes in. 

As a "for instance" our waveguide reduces drive current to our tweeters by about 20dB at 1kHz.  "20dB" is a 100-fold reduction in current needed to achieve a given SPL as compared to the same tweeter mounted on a standard flat baffle.  To achieve say... a 90dB SPL at one meter... our waveguide tweeter "system" only needs 1/100th of a watt at 1kHz wherein the same tweeter on a flat baffle would require 1-watt.

OK, let's scale it up.  For our WG/Tweeter to reach 120dB SPL at 1-meter... it needs only 1-watt at 1kHz.  The same tweeter on a flat baffle would need 100-watts to hit the same SPL.  Now... typically most tweeters can't handle more than 10-watts, so guess what will happen if you try to push the "flat baffle" tweeter that hard?  That's right... it will end up as a puff of smoke and deader than a doornail.  Going further yet, if we pump that same 10-watts into our WG/Tweeter at 1kHz it will achieve a whopping 130dB SPL at 1-meter!!!   

But you don't play your music anywhere near that loud - so what's the big deal?  Well... the dominant form of distortion in any driver (woofer, mid or tweeter) is "excursion limited" distortion.  Simply put, such distortion is a result of how far the driver's diaphragm has to travel forwards and back in order to reproduce a certain SPL.  Excursion based distortion gets very bad quite abruptly once a certain SPL is reached... but guess what?  Long before that point is ever reached, significant distortion is already mounting as a result of whatever excursion is taking place.

The "BIG DEAL" then is a result of the fact that cone excursion is directly proportional to drive current.  If our WG/Tweeter only needs 1/100th of the drive current to reach a given SPL, then by default its excursion at that same SPL is also only 1/100th - as compared to a "normal" flat baffle mounted tweeter.  The upshot is that while many tweeters are "working their asses off" to reach higher SPLs, our WG/Tweeter diaphragms are barely even moving in comparison to reach those same SPLs.  Correspondingly... any resulting distortion is "100 times less" than that of the "normal" tweeter as well.

The end result is that at any drive level, our WG/Tweeter system is producing 2 orders of magnitude less distortion (DISACLAIMER:this is a non-linear issue and only holds most strictly true for moderate to higher levels of output SPL)than those of the rest - even those of the finest and/or exotic materials and construction.  Gone are those "irritating and fatiguing" artifacts that "sound like" excessive detail and result in an "over-analytical" presentation.  Sure... the distortions inherent in the recording will still be there, but they are typically much lower in level than that produced by any average tweeter.  All but the most poorly recorded and "amateurish" recordings will posses significantly lower levels of distortion than that of a "typical" or even "not so typical" high-end tweeter. 

Now... if we could just get rid of all that tweeter distortion.  Then our quality recordings would really shine and we'll hear resolution like never before.  But maybe even better yet... even our older recordings will take on a whole new level of musicality and fatigue-free presentation that we have never heard before either - and didn't think was possible.

Hey!!!  That's just what we've done at SP Tech. aa In fact, I suspect that upon repeated listening and comparing our speakers to those that reportedly offer higher levels of detail, many will find that the detail they originally "believed" to be superior... is in fact the byproduct of nothing more than distortion and is essentially "artificial."  Of course, I could always be wrong. 

Sorry so long.  Hope this helps. 

-Bob

[bhobba]

As usual Bob GREAT POST.

It moved me to add my 2 cents worth.  I started doing it but really couldn't think of anything worthwhile to add.  Just a note to those considering SP speakers - you don't get this kind of service from the local HI Fi store down the road.  When you by SP speakers not only are you getting one of the best speakers on the planet, a speaker that IMHO, and the opinion of knowledgeable folks like Jim Merod, redefines the cost performance ratio in high end gear, you get support from the designer Bob second to none.  Now if only the share market will stop its nosedive.

Thanks
Bill

[Springbok10]

Bellhead,

As soon as Bob sends me my Revelations,(any day now, right Bob?)  you are welcome to come listen to them. And bring your bad recordings:) I think you live just 2 hours away.

Denis

[phoenix_rising]

Yep anyone that looks into waveguide technology as related to speakers will come to that same conclusion. There is also the added benefit of controlled directivity which also significant reduces reflections that most regular speakers generate in abundance further muddying the waters.

So whether it is music or home theater or both, you just cannot argue with physics. Just remember that the engineers who created those old recordings made them as good as they could given the technology of the time. Will they sound as good as a recording made today on something like SACD, most certainly not. Will they sound like rubbish, certainly not.

Being a Carly Simon fan myself I can tell you that her recordings are just not in the same league as many others I have but that does not stop me from listening to her, yes I can hear the difference but I still enjoy her music and I am really fussy, I just delete anything that irritates (All Lossless itunes). I think you will find the same applies, the more you love the music itself the more forgiving you are of it and the easier it is to just get lost listening to it, regardless of what speaker you are listening with.

p.s. For Carly Simons recordings what I miss is the detail a lot is just missing, in comparison to a more current recording.

[bbchem]

  Dear Bell head, I listen to the same music as you do. I have 400 Cds with music from the 60's, 70's and 80's mostly greatest hits. I also have some high end recordings as well. I had a pair of Apogee Slant 6's at one time and they were one of my favorites. Now I have the Minis as my main speakers and I will only describe the Older Recordings as this >>> Picture a Photograph with little detail and very grainy but still viewable, then picture the same photo restored and touched up so the detail is more defined. The Minis actually don't make lower end recording sound unlistenable instead they seem to extract more of what is not ususally there in less revealing speakers. In other words, they make the recordings sound very nice to my ears. After all some people can listen to a scratched LP and still your brain kind of deletes the ticks and pops and you only hear the music. The minis do this very well. The good parts get better and bad parts your brain can filter out. Just my Two cents.   aa

[Russell Dawkins]

So whether it is music or home theater or both, you just cannot argue with physics. Just remember that the engineers who created those old recordings made them as good as they could given the technology of the time. Will they sound as good as a recording made today on something like SACD, most certainly not. Will they sound like rubbish, certainly not.

You may be interested in knowing that SACD (or DSD, as it is known at the recording end of things) is considered to be roughly as good as the best analog recording devices (1/2" or 1" half track at 15 or 30 ips) by some engineers, and not quite as good as that by others. It is also popularly thought that the equivalent level of quality in the PCM domain is reached not until at least 24/96 or 24/192.
The point I am making is that there is still argument as to the superiority of any of the digital formats to the best of analog of 30 years ago as to the storage format. When it comes to convenience - no contest, digital wins. As to long term data integrity, digital has a poor record compared to tape (except for the 3M binder formulation fiasco which led to early disintegration of some tapes from the 60s and 70s).

Then, as now, the biggest and most significant variable is the skill of the recording, mixing and mastering engineers.

[phoenix_rising]

You may be interested in knowing that SACD (or DSD, as it is known at the recording end of things) is considered to be roughly as good as the best analog recording devices (1/2" or 1" half track at 15 or 30 ips) by some engineers, and not quite as good as that by others. It is also popularly thought that the equivalent level of quality in the PCM domain is reached not until at least 24/96 or 24/192.
The point I am making is that there is still argument as to the superiority of any of the digital formats to the best of analog of 30 years ago as to the storage format. When it comes to convenience - no contest, digital wins. As to long term data integrity, digital has a poor record compared to tape (except for the 3M binder formulation fiasco which led to early disintegration of some tapes from the 60s and 70s).

Then, as now, the biggest and most significant variable is the skill of the recording, mixing and mastering engineers.

Hi Russel,

That is not a reasonable comparison.
a) The tapes were not commercially available in most cases
b) The tapes degrade over time
c) LP's which were commercially available were inferior in quality even to CD

While a pristine copy of a tape may equal SACD, in this day and age I am sure they are mastering at a higher rate than 24/96 in digital format. The resultant files never degrade and can be stored forever preserving the original recording. So I see nothing but good in the move to digital.

cheers
Phoenix

[Russell Dawkins]

While a pristine copy of a tape may equal SACD, in this day and age I am sure they are mastering at a higher rate than 24/96 in digital format. The resultant files never degrade and can be stored forever preserving the original recording. So I see nothing but good in the move to digital.

right - "perfect sound forever" 

Did you work for Philips at one time, Phoenix? Not many engineers share your sunny optimism!
Digital masters don't exactly degrade - more like self destruct. I honestly don't expect there will be as many of today's digital masters around in a hundred years as there will be analog.

For all its flaws, the vinyl disc is a very robust archival medium. Many of my 10 - 15 year old digital masters are marginally playable, some not playable at all.

[phoenix_rising]

While a pristine copy of a tape may equal SACD, in this day and age I am sure they are mastering at a higher rate than 24/96 in digital format. The resultant files never degrade and can be stored forever preserving the original recording. So I see nothing but good in the move to digital.

right - "perfect sound forever" 

Did you work for Philips at one time, Phoenix? Not many engineers share your sunny optimism!
Digital masters don't exactly degrade - more like self destruct. I honestly don't expect there will be as many of today's digital masters around in a hundred years as there will be analog.

For all its flaws, the vinyl disc is a very robust archival medium. Many of my 10 - 15 year old digital masters are marginally playable, some not playable at all.

Hi Russel,

I am in the computer industry so I am heavily biased towards digital as I full understand it and what it can do. The problems that do exist are more user problems with how the technology is used. Friends of mine run the largest recording studio in New Zealand they are fully digital on the grounds that I mentioned. You sample at a high enough rate and it is indistinguishable from any analogue master, blind tested personally. So my ears may not be as good as yours, that may be where the problem lies. 

cheers
Phoenix

[Russell Dawkins]

Hi Phoenix,

Maybe you would be a good source of the answer to this question.

If you had a very important digital master recording, in what specific format and under what physical conditions would you store it to ensure maximum data integrity in 100 years, with compatibility with then-existing playback devices in mind. Data conversion from one format to another during this period would not be allowed -  the idea is to choose a scheme that allows putting away on a shelf for 100 years.

As I said, vinyl analog, for all its flaws, would seem to pass this test fairly well.

My inquiry is innocent - I am not attempting to embarrass you.

I also realize we are getting off topic!

[konut]

Hi Phoenix,

Maybe you would be a good source of the answer to this question.

If you had a very important digital master recording, in what specific format and under what physical conditions would you store it to ensure maximum data integrity in 100 years, with compatibility with then-existing playback devices in mind. Data conversion from one format to another during this period would not be allowed -  the idea is to choose a scheme that allows putting away on a shelf for 100 years.

As I said, vinyl analog, for all its flaws, would seem to pass this test fairly well.

My inquiry is innocent - I am not attempting to embarrass you.

I also realize we are getting off topic!

I wonder if someone asked Edison a similar question back in 1908. Appologees to bellhead. Shoots, Edison used horns too. 

[bhobba]

I have CD's from when they were first released and they play perfectly fine.  I have reed articles where manufactureres claim their better quality CD-R's will last at least 50 years.  My guess is if you want to keep them forever you must steel yourself to requlalrly copying them every 50 years or so.  I suspect in 50 years time they will all be stored in off-line storage that is regularly backed up every now and then so would last indefinitely - as long as the backup process is in place nayway.  I believe such features will be standard on PC's in the not too distand future - you can even buy it now but the prices will eventually be so cheap it will be be a bog standard feature to protect your precious data.

Thanks
Bill

[Russell Dawkins]

CDs themselves are good, it seems. The problem is with the CDRs that are so often used as masters and, previously, DATs - or any digital format where tape is the storage medium.

Glass masters are probably good, but they tend to stay with the manufacturers.

[phoenix_rising]

Hi Phoenix,

Maybe you would be a good source of the answer to this question.

If you had a very important digital master recording, in what specific format and under what physical conditions would you store it to ensure maximum data integrity in 100 years, with compatibility with then-existing playback devices in mind. Data conversion from one format to another during this period would not be allowed -  the idea is to choose a scheme that allows putting away on a shelf for 100 years.

As I said, vinyl analog, for all its flaws, would seem to pass this test fairly well.

My inquiry is innocent - I am not attempting to embarrass you.

I also realize we are getting off topic!

Hi Russel,

Technology is continually changing. The major problem with technology is that the storage mediums for it only last 5-10 years before they are superceded. This will change very dramatically over the next 5 years though as storage will be moved more and more onto huge server farms where they will look after your data for you and ensure it is always backed up and always available. This is in its infancy now but it where where everything will end up. In the near future you data will be available from anywhere and will not require any intermediate mediums like BluRay, CD etc it will just be pure digital over the internet. Note that this just applies to your music and other collections not HD Movies which gobble up 30-50 gig at a time, that will be a lot further down the track.

The internet will be heavily extended in the not too distant future when wifimax is more widely available and this will ensure that you will have your digital store available from anywhere at all times (as long as you are not in the boon docks), it will also largely replace the phone companies who are fighting very hard to stall its wide adoption.

In answer to your question though I would use Flac as the codec for storing your music collection. It is a public codec and very well supported now and will be long into the future, I am fairly confident that 100 years they will at least have the ability to convert it to any of the then existing codecs and it is pure lossless. I would store them in two ways:
1. A small NAS server using Raid (All it requires is reasonable ventilation, a very good unit will shut itself down before it dies of overheating)
2. With data backups on Bluray kept offsite somewhere, there are specialised storage houses that actually do this that are cheap and keep them in fire proof, earthquake proof buildings.

Bluray discs are far more impervious to scratches and general bad handling than other mediums plus they can store up to 50 gig on a dual layer disc, whenever you generate any backup of any kind you always asked for a full verified backup. I normally plug the backup into another drive unit as well to ensure it loads but I am very anal about backups. These are your backup incase of catastrophic failure like the house burning down and your NAS going with it. The NAS server will use Raid which means the data is always duplicated on more than one drive so if there is a drive failure you just buy a new drive and plug it in and all is still well.

As soon as there were decent cheap online storage I would then just move it onto that instead of BluRay for the backup. I can guarantee that these farms will provide the conversion utilities o that you can upgrade your digital life as standards change for free.

That will give you very high availability and high safety even in case of catastrophic failure. I would also point out that your vinyl is a single unit is not duplicatable and if the house burns down with it in it it is good night Irene.

I use Apple Lossless myself just because I like using iTunes as my library manager. I have all my files backed up on DVD at the moment and I am waiting for  Mac model that does BluRay before I move to BluRay myself. (Major Apple fan that I am).

I hope that helps.

Phoenix

p.s.
An example is showing you how I configure a mission critial 24/7 system. You have every computer running Raid on its disk arrays (they are the most likely point of failure), make sure that every critical computer has twin power supplies (second most critical failure point), make sure that the above is on a UPS that can stay alive for at least 6 hours and that you have a generator connected that can start itself, have automatic SMS's sent out when the power fails or any critical failure occurs. Now have two connections to the network going through two different routers. Now configure a Fail over box identical to the first and put it in a different building. Now connect the two via a direct internet link. Ensure that you use two separate lines to the internet from two different providers preferably not coming from the same cable pipe (just in case workmen dig one up). Now you have something that should have high availability.