Re-Hyped

Reissues of old recordings, they keep coming back like mold on a basement wall. What’s it all about? It’s one thing to reissue an analog recording, previously unavailable in digital format, to replace a noisy, old, worn out slab of vinyl. It’s another to pull the wool over the consumer. Today, most of the reissues are re-reissues, and some are re-re-reissues. Are they New and Improved!!!? Perhaps, sometimes, maybe. A lot of the earliest reissues on CD were poorly remastered for digital or occasionally not remastered at all. It was a new technology and as with all new technologies there was a learning curve. Some figured it out sooner than others, but by the nineties the analog reissues coming out were reasonably well remastered for CD. Many of the bad first reissues were subsequently corrected without fanfare. But today, the recent wave of reissues is a new animal. It’s become an unending stream of remasters simply for the sake of taking something old and posing it as New and Improved!!! Whoopteedoo!

These New and Improved!!! rehash jobs are, generally speaking, better, marginally, or sometimes just different, marginally. Why bother? Oh yeah, it’s New and Improved!!! Gotta have it—it’s better! Yeah, I’m gonna enjoy the music more if it’s better, if it is better and undoubtedly better. And the real issue here is that you can’t get anything out of the original recording that wasn’t there to begin with. In most of these reissues better isn’t mo’better. It’s an itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-bikini bit better. Not really better enough to justify re-buying what I already have. But there’s always someone touting how g-g-g-great the new reiterations are to reignite our interest, get us to second guess ourselves and rethink that maybe it’s worth re-buying. Here we are, once again, with the upgraditis syndrome. Not only is the upgrade a sideways move, every time I’ve fallen for a reissue I’ve had to re-remind myself not to repeat that regrettable regression again. Well then, if these reissues aren’t truly about significant improvements, what are they about?

It’s re-marketing. Corporations are not satisfied with selling you their products only once. It’s about taking your money and retaking your money, again, and again, and. . . Look at big pharma. They aren’t interested in developing new drugs to cure diseases, rather, they concentrate their efforts on drugs for chronic illness that you have to take for the rest of your life. Brilliant and despicable. How do you play that game with a recording?

Remaster, repackage, reissue, re-hype, re-res, and resell it to retiring boomers (and their offspring) to relieve them of their resources. Time to regroup. Time to seek out new music, not remakes.

Posted in Audio, Discover, Music reviews | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bass Traps

or

How to Cheat the Laws of Physics

The standard answer to managing bass issues is to put bass traps in the corners of your room. Let’s step back a minute to analyze this. What is the problem? The problem is too much bass (boomy sound) and/or too little bass (thin sound) at specific frequencies. What’s the cause? Room reflections meeting up with the original waves either constructively, summing to make them twice as loud as produced by the speaker, or destructively, canceling the sound. How can we control this? Obvious, get rid of the reflections. There are three ways to absorb sound waves; resistive absorption, fibrous material that traps air converting the acoustic energy into heat; mechanical absorption, a membrane that moves with the wave to absorb its energy (like a speaker driver in reverse, or the shock absorber on a car); acoustical absorption, a resonant cavity to dissipate the energy (like a ported enclosure in reverse). Mid to high frequencies are easy to absorb with fibrous materials, carpet, foam, fabrics. Low frequencies can be absorbed too, except they require huge amounts of resistive material, not millimeters, not centimeters, but much more. The longer wavelengths require thicker and denser materials. For effective control of bass frequencies below 100 Hz, wavelengths longer than 4 meters (13 feet) resistive materials would take up meters of space—not very practical. Corner bass traps have nowhere near the needed absorption capacity necessary unless they are very large. Other types of bass traps are designed to mechanically dampen. They need to be large enough to absorb a sufficient amount of the low frequencies, essentially covering an entire wall. In addition, the interior of the trap must have enough resistive material to dampen the internal energy. One hundred millimeter (4″) mechanical traps are ineffective below the upper bass region, about 150-200 Hz. That’s not good enough to manage the trouble area below 100 Hz. Acoustic absorbers, Helmhotz resonators, need to be carefully tuned for each room and for each of the problem frequencies in the room. You can’t buy an off the shelf resonant absorption unit. Another non-acoustical technique for managing bass is equalization. It can help with boomy bass by reducing the output of the source, but even with that, because summing and nulling varies from point to point within a room, can only fix the problem at one listening position. And no amount of EQ can overcome a null. Bass problems come down to room size. Rooms with dimensions less than a full wavelength will always have problem frequencies. Eliminating the problem requires a VERY large room with each dimension greater than 15 meters (50 ft) to accommodate the longest waves, or a room large enough to accommodate the custom engineered products built specifically for your custom engineered room. Translation : $$$$$.

What to do? There is no easy answer. The best results for me have been three fold. First, keep the subwoofers away from the corners—just the opposite of the most common recommendation. Corner placement guarantees every room mode is excited to its fullest, which does result in the loudest bass, but also the most uneven, spotty bass response. Second, use two subwoofers. Multiple sources create more, yet conflicting, interference which helps to produce a more even room response. Third, use EQ below 100 Hz on the strongest peaks. Simply leveling off the peaks helps to even out the in-room bass response. Unless you can enlarge your room, the best and the only real solutions use the laws of physics rather than futile attempts at cheating them. And that’s worth repeating, you can’t cheat—the laws of physics always win.

Learn more at [Parallel Audio]

Posted in Audio, Discover | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment