Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[Tony Lauck]

I find a refusal to at least nominally agree on an audible range makes for an even more difficult situation in which to carry on discussion.

In the most recent example it wasn't the 50 khz phase shift that was directly audible as Don Hills said. It was the phase changes it also caused in the range below 20 khz. Saying a 50 khz filter alters below 20 khz sound isn't controversial, odd, or difficult to understand. Saying results at 50 khz change the sound is more opaque, and likely to lead to miscommunication.

The old guideline of getting response that was -3db down out to 200 khz recognizes you need that for flat response without phase issues to 20 khz. Paired with knowledge that some collections of high frequency sounds get timed together like lower frequency tones makes it all seem reasonably explained and understandable. Nothing mysterious about it really.

The essence of the discussion (debate) is, "What is the audible range and how is it defined?" Therefore using the term in these discussions potentially involves a circular argument, or amounts to a debating tactic to trick one's opponents into agreeing to one's view of the issue at the start of the discussion. If any knowledge is to be exchanged or mutually gained, it's best to remove this noise from the discussion.

In the specific example, it could be that phase response below 20 kHz was the cause. However, it is possible to imagine experiments where high frequencies were filtered out above 20 kHz with a linear phase filter and then this argument would not apply. (I am not sure exactly which filters were used in published experiments that showed audibility of filters operating above 20 kHz, but I suspect that some of them involved linear phase filters. Indeed, I believe some have shown spectrum plots showing deep nulls below 20 kHz between original and filtered, implying linear phase.)

 

[Tony Lauck]

Don't really know what you're taking about? Are Dacs, amplifiers preamps not already perfected according to current audio measurements? So what do you mean that you don't know what to measure against?

DACs and ADCs are not perfected. They do not provide perfect correspondence between input and output, where the metric is the difference between the input and the output in the same media. (For example, one can not take a DAC and a source of digital data and use it as a modem, then capture the analog output with the ADC and verify bit accuracy for each and every sample.) So there is at least one audio measurement that is not perfected.

Even if the analog aspects are removed by doing DSP format conversions, one does not get this degree of perfection with most if not all converter software, even if one is prepared to throw away a bit or two from the available resolution. Example: take 44/24, up convert to 176/24, then down convert to 44/24 and compare the two 44/24 files.

N.B.: By perfection, I mean technical perfection in the passing of signals, not audibility. This is why I used such a hard assed definition of perfection, what is mathematically called the L-infinity norm or Uniform norm. The existing measurements and measurement systems typically use RMS averages, which average and hence discard data that may or may not be relevant to audibility.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/L-Infinity-Norm.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_norm

It is my personal belief that lack of attention at this level of detail is one of the reasons why some people find digital audio unsatisfying.

 

[Don Hills]

Don, here's an engineering principle for you: Phase shift components are generally considered to exist to 1/10th the cutoff frequency in the case of a HF rolloff (assuming a 6db slope, even lower if the cutoff is more profound); to 10X the cutoff frequency in the case of LF rolloff. So 20-20KHz is insufficient for electronics if they are going to be considered to be 'hifi' because they won't. ...

I understand that very well. It doesn't change my point: 20 Hz to 20 KHz is enough, provided that in that range everything is kept "good enough": Frequency response, noise, non-linear effects, phase etc. The aforementioned 50 KHz phase shift had an effect below 20 KHz, violating the condition. I'll grant that it does mean you have to think outside those bounds when designing a system - for example, Benchmark make broadcast distribution amplifiers. They design them with a bandwidth to about 500 KHz because they know they're going to be daisy-chained in the distribution network, and the rolloffs add up. You just do what you have to do to keep the 20 Hz - 20 KHz range unsullied. I know that amplifier design is a lot easier than it used to be, when we struggled to maintain phase margins with the power transistors of the day with Ft below 1 MHz.

 

[Groucho]

It is my personal belief that lack of attention at this level of detail is one of the reasons why some people find digital audio unsatisfying.

But compared to the effect of splitting the signal into two or three bands with large phase shifts using loose approximations to filters between amplifier and driver, and using a resonator to provide a bass effect? This passes for "audio science" in the world of audiophilia, apparently. What sort of attention to detail is this? Can the errors in 64 bit calculations or whatever be heard against this mutilation of the signal?

 

[Tony Lauck]

But compared to the effect of splitting the signal into two or three bands with large phase shifts using loose approximations to filters between amplifier and driver, and using a resonator to provide a bass effect? This passes for "audio science" in the world of audiophilia, apparently. What sort of attention to detail is this? Can the errors in 64 bit calculations or whatever be heard against this mutilation of the signal?

Acoustic "mutilations" are natural, i.e. they more or less correspond to physical effects caused by the propagation of acoustic waves in space. Therefore they are not as disturbing to the mind as electronic distortions.

Your argument is that many speakers are poorly designed, and therefore other components do not need to be well designed. This is a recipe for mediocrity. This is like a child telling his mother, "None of the other boys did well on the test, so why should I feel bad that I failed?"

 

[Atmasphere]

I understand that very well. It doesn't change my point: 20 Hz to 20 KHz is enough, provided that in that range everything is kept "good enough": Frequency response, noise, non-linear effects, phase etc. The aforementioned 50 KHz phase shift had an effect below 20 KHz, violating the condition. I'll grant that it does mean you have to think outside those bounds when designing a system - for example, Benchmark make broadcast distribution amplifiers. They design them with a bandwidth to about 500 KHz because they know they're going to be daisy-chained in the distribution network, and the rolloffs add up. You just do what you have to do to keep the 20 Hz - 20 KHz range unsullied. I know that amplifier design is a lot easier than it used to be, when we struggled to maintain phase margins with the power transistors of the day with Ft below 1 MHz.

Actually Don 20-20KHz isn't good enough, plain and simple. You can't build an amplifier without phase shift if its bandwidth limits are at 20 and 20KHz. If you did, you would be violating some physics rules to do so. You'll have phase shift components up to 200 Hz and down to 2KHz. That ain't hifi! The 50KHz condition I mentioned was predictable; 5KHz was the lowest frequency that one could predict to find artifacts and no surprise there they were; no conditions were violated. When the amp can't get the phase right, it can't present a proper soundstage either (in addition to having a tonal coloration; amps that cut off at 20Hz sound bass-shy and those that cut off at 20KHz will sound dark); our ears use phase information as part of locating the source of a sound in addition to translating it into tonality.

This is all about understanding how the human ear/brain perceptual rules work and is why I keep harping that the audio industry won't make progress until we do. Seriously it amazes me that audiophiles and engineers continue to think 20-20Khz is just fine here in the 21st century. But they apparently have not spent any time studying how the ear/brain system works. That passed muster in 1960 but not now. That's also why I made the comment elsewhere about being out of date. Even the AES, stodgy organization that it is, recommends amplifier bandwidth to at least 80KHz; this is done to insure intelligibility (ever wonder why its hard to make out the words in some songs? this is part of the reason why.) Phase gets short shrift probably because the ear can't hear phase in single tones (again, out-of-date ideas...). But we humans rarely listen to single stead-state tones for amusement.

Until we start to recognize the importance of the ear/brain perceptual rules we will not make progress in audio and will continue to have these inane. Unending. Threads. Forever.

 

[Groucho]

Acoustic "mutilations" are natural, i.e. they more or less correspond to physical effects caused by the propagation of acoustic waves in space. Therefore they are not as disturbing to the mind as electronic distortions.

Your argument is that many speakers are poorly designed, and therefore other components do not need to be well designed. This is a recipe for mediocrity. This is like a child telling his mother, "None of the other boys did well on the test, so why should I feel bad that I failed?"

I am insulted by that misrepresentation of my argument! (just joking). But it is a misrepresentation. You are arguing from a position of ever-diminishing scales. Whatever happens there will always be errors in digital audio even if the calculations are a million bits wide. You will always be able to say "It isn't perfect. And it is electronic therefore it is offensive to the ears." But you cannot show that pursuing these minutiae is more important than fixing the egregious errors in loudspeakers, so I think your sophisticated 'child analogy' can be thrown right back at you.

There is no science at all in stating that almost immeasurable electronic distortions must be more offensive to the ears than massive errors that correspond (in your opinion) to the physical effects of the propagation of waves in space. It is just words. From my position, I could probably obtain some figures in decibels and degrees that put some sort of quantification on the errors caused by (a) the highly offensive ADC->DAC chain, and (b) the blameless typical audiophile speaker. If the difference in these figures is a million to one, say, (and not in favour of the speaker!), where does that leave science in the world of the audiophile? Can it think of a different way to represent these errors? If it can't, then it has nothing to measure progress against. And why does it think that the cobbled-together speaker design from the 1930s (or whenever) is in any way optimal? Would true audio science be recommending building passive speakers with acoustic resonators if it was 'starting from here'? I think not. I don't think science looms large in the audiophile world!

 

[Tony Lauck]

Actually Don 20-20KHz isn't good enough, plain and simple. You can't build an amplifier without phase shift if its bandwidth limits are at 20 and 20KHz. If you did, you would be violating some physics rules to do so. You'll have phase shift components up to 200 Hz and down to 2KHz. That ain't hifi! The 50KHz condition I mentioned was predictable; 5KHz was the lowest frequency that one could predict to find artifacts and no surprise there they were; no conditions were violated. When the amp can't get the phase right, it can't present a proper soundstage either (in addition to having a tonal coloration; amps that cut off at 20Hz sound bass-shy and those that cut off at 20KHz will sound dark); our ears use phase information as part of locating the source of a sound in addition to translating it into tonality.

This is all about understanding how the human ear/brain perceptual rules work and is why I keep harping that the audio industry won't make progress until we do. Seriously it amazes me that audiophiles and engineers continue to think 20-20Khz is just fine here in the 21st century. But they apparently have not spent any time studying how the ear/brain system works. That passed muster in 1960 but not now. That's also why I made the comment elsewhere about being out of date. Even the AES, stodgy organization that it is, recommends amplifier bandwidth to at least 80KHz; this is done to insure intelligibility (ever wonder why its hard to make out the words in some songs? this is part of the reason why.) Phase gets short shrift probably because the ear can't hear phase in single tones (again, out-of-date ideas...). But we humans rarely listen to single stead-state tones for amusement.

Until we start to recognize the importance of the ear/brain perceptual rules we will not make progress in audio and will continue to have these inane. Unending. Threads. Forever.

What defies my understanding is how these people can be so deaf and members of an Audio "professional society". No technical changes are going to make any difference, because technical issues can always be disputed. The problem is people who can not or will not hear problems. So long as they constitute the mainstream of the community there will be no progress, except on the fringes. The community could have and should have rejected the CD when it first came out in the early 1980s.

 

[NorthStar]

And they should remove music streaming now. ...All very bad sound quality...worst than 8-track tapes. ...Plus the artist musicians are losing their shirts, their royalties.

 

[esldude]

I understand that very well. It doesn't change my point: 20 Hz to 20 KHz is enough, provided that in that range everything is kept "good enough": Frequency response, noise, non-linear effects, phase etc. The aforementioned 50 KHz phase shift had an effect below 20 KHz, violating the condition. I'll grant that it does mean you have to think outside those bounds when designing a system - for example, Benchmark make broadcast distribution amplifiers. They design them with a bandwidth to about 500 KHz because they know they're going to be daisy-chained in the distribution network, and the rolloffs add up. You just do what you have to do to keep the 20 Hz - 20 KHz range unsullied. I know that amplifier design is a lot easier than it used to be, when we struggled to maintain phase margins with the power transistors of the day with Ft below 1 MHz.

Sorry Don, they aren't going to let you get away with simply being right about this. Not sure how much more simply you could put it and not be understood unless someone just doesn't want to agree with you.

 

[esldude]

Steve recently went up to an amigos place to listen to speakers with a range of like 40hz to 15Khz at -3db each end! And it is perhaps the best system he has ever heard. There of course is a difference between audio phase due to bandwidth, and just exactly what frequencies (that is what music is made of) we can hear, if some of you more mature gentlemen can not hear a sinewave tone past 10Khz, you cant, plain and simple. Yes, atmosphere is banging on about phase shift, but as long as the net results in the ears audible range are not phase shifted then we meet a critereia of hi-fidelity to the source signal.

Why do I shout it out, well, tons of audiophiles prefer distorting systems sound to those that better replicate the signal. LP is one, it does not in any way compete to tape, but folks actually prefer what their LP system does to the sound. It does produce a different soundstage. It is different than the original tape because of what it adds and subtracts as well in the mastering process, and these things help plain old stereo sound better. And SET amps, whoa, those babies have very bad phase response, and FR issues with speaker dynamics, and boy, those damn things sound good to many...they sound interesting, more alive.

Audio science is a big tent, measurements are but a small part. However, there is nothing in an audio signal we can not look at, IF anyone was interested enough to apply the measurments capabilities we routinely use in other diciplines.....heck, we can place atoms around one electron charge and call it a new kind of amplification device, we can measure the spin of one electron, etc. Audio science just does not demand the attention of the best and most expensive science is because we are sort of stuck with leagacy systems, such as two channel stereo, and legacy ways of recording, and until someone want to "re-invent" the audio wheel ( I really wish they would) there is no game to be had in audio.

This is really a personal hobby, a preferential hobby of high proportions, just think, someone prefers the sound of speakers that are not only severly band limited but the FR response is way more than 0.5 db like the best speakers are today, and you know what, there is nothing wrong with that, and I have preached that limited bandwidth (not phase response in electronics...but that can also be limited as in SET amps) can actually sound better to the ear.

Its all about what sounds better to our ear, and while there can be some agreements as Amir has shown, there is still a lot of unique ear/brain systems we carry around with our own preferences.

We know stereo can not replicate the live event, we know its an attempt at an illusion, we know that stereo is an attempt to fool us, and we know that we probably are not relaying even 10% of the original live event, ....so with such a limited system to start with, who would invest a lot into it, face it, its OK for 1930 but it is far far away from being some kind of ideal system. You can only put so much polish on this legacy system.

Very well said.

 

[Al M.]

Sorry Don, they aren't going to let you get away with simply being right about this. Not sure how much more simply you could put it and not be understood unless someone just doesn't want to agree with you.

I completely agree with you guys. As long as the range 20Hz-20kHz is untouched, everything is fine. For example, brickwall filtering in CD playback is reported to induce nasty phase shift issues, among others, in the audible band. But what if you use other filtering? My Berkeley DAC upsamples the 44.1 kHz CD bandwidth to 4 x that (176.4 kHz) and filters from there with a shallow filter that induces no phase shift in the audible band, so everything should be fine. Higher sampling rates may currently still sound better for various practical technical reasons (theoretical ones are much more debatable), but the fact that higher sampling rates go to much higher frequencies than 22 kHz has nothing to do with that. The ear of a new-born cuts off at 20 kHz, that of an adult earlier, plain and simple. Just like we cannot see in the UV range (unlike bees; I have seen beautiful simulations how attractive flowers look for them in colors that we just can't see), we cannot hear beyond 20 kHz. To claim that somehow we can perceive frequencies above the measured range which is also scientific consensus, and that's why hirez digital and analog sounds better, is pure fantasy.

 

[Don Hills]

Actually Don 20-20KHz isn't good enough, plain and simple. You can't build an amplifier without phase shift if its bandwidth limits are at 20 and 20KHz. ...

Stop right there. I'm apparently not making myself clear. I'm not saying that the amplifier has to be limited to 20-20. I'm saying that within that range, its performance has to be "acceptable" (and these days, that can be pretty darn good). If the amplifier bandwidth has to extend to 500 KHz to achieve that, then so be it (although you run the risk of HF noise causing problems in the 20-20 range due to intermodulation etc).

... Even the AES, stodgy organization that it is, recommends amplifier bandwidth to at least 80KHz; this is done to insure intelligibility (ever wonder why its hard to make out the words in some songs? this is part of the reason why.) ...

This place needs a facepalm icon in the smilie set.

 

[microstrip]

Steve recently went up to an amigos place to listen to speakers with a range of like 40hz to 15Khz at -3db each end! And it is perhaps the best system he has ever heard. There of course is a difference between audio phase due to bandwidth, and just exactly what frequencies (that is what music is made of) we can hear, if some of you more mature gentlemen can not hear a sinewave tone past 10Khz, you cant, plain and simple. Yes, atmosphere is banging on about phase shift, but as long as the net results in the ears audible range are not phase shifted then we meet a critereia of hi-fidelity to the source signal.

Why do I shout it out, well, tons of audiophiles prefer distorting systems sound to those that better replicate the signal. LP is one, it does not in any way compete to tape, but folks actually prefer what their LP system does to the sound. It does produce a different soundstage. It is different than the original tape because of what it adds and subtracts as well in the mastering process, and these things help plain old stereo sound better. And SET amps, whoa, those babies have very bad phase response, and FR issues with speaker dynamics, and boy, those damn things sound good to many...they sound interesting, more alive.

Audio science is a big tent, measurements are but a small part. However, there is nothing in an audio signal we can not look at, IF anyone was interested enough to apply the measurments capabilities we routinely use in other diciplines.....heck, we can place atoms around one electron charge and call it a new kind of amplification device, we can measure the spin of one electron, etc. Audio science just does not demand the attention of the best and most expensive science is because we are sort of stuck with leagacy systems, such as two channel stereo, and legacy ways of recording, and until someone want to "re-invent" the audio wheel ( I really wish they would) there is no game to be had in audio.

This is really a personal hobby, a preferential hobby of high proportions, just think, someone prefers the sound of speakers that are not only severly band limited but the FR response is way more than 0.5 db like the best speakers are today, and you know what, there is nothing wrong with that, and I have preached that limited bandwidth (not phase response in electronics...but that can also be limited as in SET amps) can actually sound better to the ear.

Its all about what sounds better to our ear, and while there can be some agreements as Amir has shown, there is still a lot of unique ear/brain systems we carry around with our own preferences.

We know stereo can not replicate the live event, we know its an attempt at an illusion, we know that stereo is an attempt to fool us, and we know that we probably are not relaying even 10% of the original live event, ....so with such a limited system to start with, who would invest a lot into it, face it, its OK for 1930 but it is far far away from being some kind of ideal system. You can only put so much polish on this legacy system.

Tom,

The real question is that people do not prefer the systems just because they are limited in bandwidth or have distortion. It is a cumulative sum of many small and large effects, all of them of real importance and decisive in the process. We could expect audio science to bring us rules and systematic excellent stereo sound in a predictable way. Unfortunately (or fortunately to those who have access to them) we are left with empirical knowledge of experts, that surely mix some well known proved audio science with their own and personal large experience.

 

[jkeny]

.......
Its all about what sounds better to our ear, and while there can be some agreements as Amir has shown, there is still a lot of unique ear/brain systems we carry around with our own preferences.

We know stereo can not replicate the live event, we know its an attempt at an illusion, we know that stereo is an attempt to fool us, and we know that we probably are not relaying even 10% of the original live event, ....so with such a limited system to start with, who would invest a lot into it, face it, its OK for 1930 but it is far far away from being some kind of ideal system. You can only put so much polish on this legacy system.

Tom, I can understand where you are coming from & I agree that we have a legacy system that is limited in it's ability to create a realistic auditory illusion. Where I differ from you is that I feel that currently we don't yet know the boundaries of it's limitations & we won't until we can correlate measurements to auditory perception. Until that time it really doesn't matter whether superior sound is as a result of some distortions that are more realistic sounding to our auditory processes - we need to map the model for this auditory processing & correlate this to measurements - this is what audio science SHOULD be about & not legacy measurements that are more convenient rather than informational.

I've said it before but I'll say it again - we have reached a fairly reasonable sounding plateau in the development of audio devices based on these measurements but the doesn't mean we have reached the limit of what the existing audio technology can do - it may just mean that we have reached the limit of the existing measurements. When you have dealt with 1st order effects, 2nd order effects become noticeable & I believe that this is where we now are in the development of audio.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Tom, I can understand where you are coming from & I agree that we have a legacy system that is limited in it's ability to create a realistic auditory illusion. Where I differ from you is that I feel that currently we don't yet know the boundaries of it's limitations & we won't until we can correlate measurements to auditory perception. Until that time it really doesn't matter whether superior sound is as a result of some distortions that are more realistic sounding to our auditory processes - we need to map the model for this auditory processing & correlate this to measurements - this is what audio science SHOULD be about & not legacy measurements that are more convenient rather than informational.

I've said it before but I'll say it again - we have reached a fairly reasonable sounding plateau in the development of audio devices based on these measurements but the doesn't mean we have reached the limit of what the existing audio technology can do - it may just mean that we have reached the limit of the existing measurements. When you have dealt with 1st order effects, 2nd order effects become noticeable & I believe that this is where we now are in the development of audio.

Well said. I very much agree, as far as it goes. Except, that I believe there are also still major issues about where we focus our development efforts, and that there are big improvements available beyond - outside the box of - the traditional stereo sound system architecture as we know it.

For example, until the last decade or so, measuring and treating and/or EQing our rooms for what we have now awakened to as obvious problems, even by traditional measurements, had not been a major focus. Room measurement capabilities and the knowledge about how to use them had been esoteric, but now are increasingly available to audiophiles, even for DIY implementation. DSP Room EQ in particular is a major breakthrough. Audiophiles and the high end in general had been paying little attention to the room because the tools to measure, EQ and/or treat were lacking outside pro acoustician circles.

This is a new growth area and much has become available which now makes this possible, also with greater insights into the psychoacoustic aspects of it from audio science and what sounds best, e.g., target frequency response curves, etc. Unlike more mature areas of audio component development, this provides quite significant 1st order improvements. Meanwhile, electronics and speaker makers working in more mature product areas have, as you say, already pretty much conquered the 1st order problems and are focused now on 2nd, 3rd or higher order problems, which offer less obvious and more subtle improvements.

Speaker/room correction is still in its infancy and not yet audiophile main stream. Traditionalists still resist it, partly because it is measurement based and they abhor that. Meanwhile, DAC makers improve DACs, amp makers improve amps, speaker makers improve speakers, etc. all oblivious to the bigger elephant that has been there in the home playback system all along, which is the room itself. Traditionalists blissfully believe that the main path to better sound remains to focus on improving the traditional components in the system - electronics, speakers and wires - but, realistically, with ever diminishing returns.

Another more controversial example which has become more prevalent in the last decade or so is multichannel sound. This is not measurements based, but it is based on a superior model from audio science vs. stereo of how we hear live sound and how to reproduce it in the listening room. It, too, is not main stream for music listening because its benefits are not significant or relevant to the way popular, commercial recordings are made in studios. The classical music niche, my bailiwick, and home theater are the major areas of benefit today. But, this is another 1st order improvement in the realism of reproduced sound. It is still a niche in its infancy since having been made possible by developments in recorded media and their channel capacity.

 

[Al M.]

Well said. I very much agree, as far as it goes. Except, that I believe there are also still major issues about where we focus our development efforts, and that there are big improvements available beyond - outside the box of - the traditional stereo sound system architecture as we know it.

For example, until the last decade or so, measuring and treating and/or EQing our rooms for what we have now awakened to as obvious problems, even by traditional measurements, had not been a major focus. Room measurement capabilities and the knowledge about how to use them had been esoteric, but now are increasingly available to audiophiles, even for DIY implementation. DSP Room EQ in particular is a major breakthrough. Audiophiles and the high end in general had been paying little attention to the room because the tools to measure, EQ and/or treat were lacking outside pro acoustician circles.

This is a new growth area and much has become available which now makes this possible, also with greater insights into the psychoacoustic aspects of it from audio science and what sounds best, e.g., target frequency response curves, etc. Unlike more mature areas of audio component development, this provides quite significant 1st order improvements. Meanwhile, electronics and speaker makers working in more mature product areas have, as you say, already pretty much conquered the 1st order problems and are focused now on 2nd, 3rd or higher order problems, which offer less obvious and more subtle improvements.

Speaker/room correction is still in its infancy and not yet audiophile main stream. Traditionalists still resist it, partly because it is measurement based and they abhor that. Meanwhile, DAC makers improve DACs, amp makers improve amps, speaker makers improve speakers, etc. all oblivious to the bigger elephant that has been there in the home playback system all along, which is the room itself. Traditionalists blissfully believe that the main path to better sound remains to focus on improving the traditional components in the system - electronics, speakers and wires - but, realistically, with ever diminishing returns.

Another more controversial example which has become more prevalent in the last decade or so is multichannel sound. This is not measurements based, but it is based on a superior model from audio science vs. stereo of how we hear live sound and how to reproduce it in the listening room. It, too, is not main stream for music listening because its benefits are not significant or relevant to the way popular, commercial recordings are made in studios. The classical music niche, my bailiwick, and home theater are the major areas of benefit today. But, this is another 1st order improvement in the realism of reproduced sound. It is still a niche in its infancy since having been made possible by developments in recorded media and their channel capacity.

I agree that the room is often being neglected. Of all my upgrades the last 3 years the acoustic room treatments have been about half, and were at least as important as the gear upgrades, and probably more so. Room treatments were mainly ASC -- tube traps, sound panels, sub trap, window plugs -- but also a strategically placed large natural-fiber (wool) carpet from the local carpet store.

The nicest gear may not even reach 30 % of its potential in resolution, tonality and sound staging if your room isn't right, and you might not even know it.

 

[Al M.]

Tom, I can understand where you are coming from & I agree that we have a legacy system that is limited in it's ability to create a realistic auditory illusion. Where I differ from you is that I feel that currently we don't yet know the boundaries of it's limitations & we won't until we can correlate measurements to auditory perception. Until that time it really doesn't matter whether superior sound is as a result of some distortions that are more realistic sounding to our auditory processes - we need to map the model for this auditory processing & correlate this to measurements - this is what audio science SHOULD be about & not legacy measurements that are more convenient rather than informational.

I've said it before but I'll say it again - we have reached a fairly reasonable sounding plateau in the development of audio devices based on these measurements but the doesn't mean we have reached the limit of what the existing audio technology can do - it may just mean that we have reached the limit of the existing measurements. When you have dealt with 1st order effects, 2nd order effects become noticeable & I believe that this is where we now are in the development of audio.

I pretty much agree with this.

 

[Don Hills]

... The nicest gear may not even reach 30 % of its potential in resolution, tonality and sound staging if your room isn't right, and you might not even know it.

In short:
The elephant is the room.

 

[Al M.]

In short:
The elephant is the room.

Yes, but getting the room right is mostly much less sexy than having the latest piece of glittering gear that everyone drools about. Yet when it comes to actual listening pleasure, when the internet is off and it's just you and your system, the less sexy thing may be the more rewarding one. And I am not claiming that I am done with my room either (I'm not).