Audiophile Sonic Terms Redux

[Elliot G.]

I am not proposing Jeff Day’s words as truth. I simply said I could relate to them. These are just opinions. Where do you get the idea that they are presented as truths? Karen started this thread talking about language and Jeff Day discusses language in his article.

Peter, you should read the entire post and the comments made by the original poster before you make a stsatement that doesnt reflect what was said.

"Here's an article that makes suggestions to amend and append to our audiophile jargon that resonates with me. You'll need to scroll down to the second section beyond the description of the system - not that one should brush off the system; Misho's Audio Antiquary equipment is world class, and is how I stumbled upon this article:"

 

[adamaley]

There are sonic attributes that do not get the light of day when folks speak about systems they're evaluating, recounting, or theorizing on. This article resonates with me because it uses descriptors that are usually missed or not even considered. It also somewhat reimagines some of the well-known terms.

Language typically impacts our way of thinking, hence, in general, it empowers us all as audio enthusiasts. It also doesn't deviate from the gestalt of the OP's article. I'm confused as to why this would not be a good thing for all.

Let's also be careful who we credit the sonic descriptors in the article to.

In transitioning to the section titled "A Musical Language for Evaluating Audio Performance", the article states "Many thanks to Andy Moore for telling about his audio system. Beautifully done, Andy! Now let's hear from Andy about the vocabulary he uses to articulate audio performance". This would imply, at least to me, this section has nothing to do with Jeff Day and is rather Andy's contribution.

 

[Stefan]

I am intrigued and enthralled by Karen's post and general philosophy towards the challenge of reproducing music in our home environments. I share her scepticism about the typical "audiophile" vocabulary used by the enthusiast or the press. The concepts she refers to, such as pinpoint imaging, etc., are far removed from music terminology and concepts, such as tone/pitch, rhythm and dynamic shading. I have been advocating opting for the latter rather than the audiophile concepts when choosing and evaluating a system or product.

The second theme that I take from her input is how the press and manufacturers are in a dance to either actively promote this set of audiophile fixations or are perhaps being complicit and unintentionally creating an echo chamber that reinforces the focus on these fixations.

Then the next theme relates to the effect of the room on what we perceive, and I think that few would deny the impact of the room as a critical component of the holistic system, especially the interaction of the room with the speakers and the other components, although to a lesser degree.

I am, however, curious about how she will build the narrative that the heart of the dilemma is the nature of the listening room, those of the reviewer, and our listening rooms. As far as I am concerned, there is a jump in the logic, from the terminology discussion to the quality of the listening rooms. I look forward to reading her thoughts as she continues building her narrative.

I came across the following musing from someone in the industry from Hong Kong, a distributor with an interesting take on the same topic.

Say No to Hi Fi. — Audio Evidence

First of all, let me get off my chest one or two pet hates! I really dislike the expressions "audiophiles" and "Hi Fi" and I will only use these terms in a pejorative way. I know they are used frequently in "our hobby" but I dislike the expressions, and I will explain w

www.audioevidence.com

 

[Salectric]

I am intrigued and enthralled by Karen's post and general philosophy towards the challenge of reproducing music in our home environments. I share her scepticism about the typical "audiophile" vocabulary used by the enthusiast or the press. The concepts she refers to, such as pinpoint imaging, etc., are far removed from music terminology and concepts, such as tone/pitch, rhythm and dynamic shading. I have been advocating opting for the latter rather than the audiophile concepts when choosing and evaluating a system or product.

The second theme that I take from her input is how the press and manufacturers are in a dance to either actively promote this set of audiophile fixations or are perhaps being complicit and unintentionally creating an echo chamber that reinforces the focus on these fixations.

Then the next theme relates to the effect of the room on what we perceive, and I think that few would deny the impact of the room as a critical component of the holistic system, especially the interaction of the room with the speakers and the other components, although to a lesser degree.

I am, however, curious about how she will build the narrative that the heart of the dilemma is the nature of the listening room, those of the reviewer, and our listening rooms. As far as I am concerned, there is a jump in the logic, from the terminology discussion to the quality of the listening rooms. I look forward to reading her thoughts as she continues building her narrative.

I came across the following musing from someone in the industry from Hong Kong, a distributor with an interesting take on the same topic.

Say No to Hi Fi. — Audio Evidence

First of all, let me get off my chest one or two pet hates! I really dislike the expressions "audiophiles" and "Hi Fi" and I will only use these terms in a pejorative way. I know they are used frequently in "our hobby" but I dislike the expressions, and I will explain w

www.audioevidence.com

Now that is a great article! I can relate to a number of the author’s comments but especially to his complaint that modern Hifi journals focus too much on visual effects and visual terminology (pinpoint imaging and soundstage depth for example) and not enough on musical terminology (timber, tonal balance for example). I remember reading one online review that went on and on about imaging and soundstaging and never actually described how the equipment sounds!

I lay the primary blame for this misplaced focus on visual artifacts with HP. Despite all the praise for HP in this thread and throughout WBF and many other forums, he is the one who first started talking about soundstage, 3-d depth, being able to hear the back wall or side walls of the stage, etc. Unfortunately the focus on imaging artifacts has led directly to the lean and bright character of so much audio gear today.

 

[Elliot G.]

Language typically impacts our way of thinking

I fully agree with that statement . I do believe however that language has been corrupted to take over the sound. THis endless quoting and requoting followed by verbal sparing over the meaning of the words rather than the sound is baffling to me. These terms have been turned IMO to worthless tennis balls being lobbed back and forth over a net that represents nothing.
I am not an audiophile and in fact find that term insulting when called it. I love music period. I got into this becasue I can't live without music. The endless parade of "new" experts as presented online and in the magazines which play catch with the audiophile semantics is really offputting.
When talking to people they want to endlessly quote terms ( many of which they do not know the real meaning) use others as an appeal to authority ( look it up its an old advertising gimmick) but few can either produce good sound in their room or even understand what that is exactly.
Playing audiophile approved pop records with every manipulation of the sound possible to make the voice as large as a semi or have birds fly over your head from behind or have dogs back in the distance are not music friends they are gimmicks and tricks. Fun? perhaps.
IMO HP was correct trying to reproduce unamplified music and instruments in a space is a reasonable goal. I listen to everything but there needs to be a starting point in order to get to somewhere of it being real sounding ( choose the words you prefer) .
I have no issue with anyone assembling a system and a room and liking what they have , or loving what they have, its the insistance that this is a one way road and they are the keepers of that path. A good quote ( use of words LOL) is from Dirty Harry "A man's got to know his limitations". or for me in audio terms one needs to realize he does not it all and should try to accept what he doesn't know.
My last thing to get critized and hung out to dry is this.
I have heard some really wonderful sounding systems over my years however they are few and sadly far between. I think there are more examples today than in the past and that the gear has IMO gotten better and we as a whole have learned more in how to get to a quality place. I have been far more disappointed by those telling me how great they have it when to be honest its far from that and makes you wonder how they arrived at that place. I think its that many pigeon hole themselves into not getting much live music experience and/or choosing only music that is like an animated film, by this I mean it just ain't natural, and so it just is a completely different subject. Most popular music is not made with a group of players in the same room , same acoustics, same time, same gear. In fact this is very far from the process so the end result is impossible to predict nor ever determine what it is supposed to sound like.
The game is about finding gear, assembling it and positioning it and a room that works in giving you that sense of being real, creating an illusion that there are people playing music for you, being a time machine and transporting you to varies places in the world, or back in time to hear something wonderful and maybe magical.
If you have this then be thankful since you are definetly in the minority.

 

[adamaley]

I fully agree with that statement . I do believe however that language has been corrupted to take over the sound. THis endless quoting and requoting followed by verbal sparing over the meaning of the words rather than the sound is baffling to me. These terms have been turned IMO to worthless tennis balls being lobbed back and forth over a net that represents nothing.
I am not an audiophile and in fact find that term insulting when called it. I love music period. I got into this becasue I can't live without music. The endless parade of "new" experts as presented online and in the magazines which play catch with the audiophile semantics is really offputting.
When talking to people they want to endlessly quote terms ( many of which they do not know the real meaning) use others as an appeal to authority ( look it up its an old advertising gimmick) but few can either produce good sound in their room or even understand what that is exactly.
Playing audiophile approved pop records with every manipulation of the sound possible to make the voice as large as a semi or have birds fly over your head from behind or have dogs back in the distance are not music friends they are gimmicks and tricks. Fun? perhaps.
IMO HP was correct trying to reproduce unamplified music and instruments in a space is a reasonable goal. I listen to everything but there needs to be a starting point in order to get to somewhere of it being real sounding ( choose the words you prefer) .
I have no issue with anyone assembling a system and a room and liking what they have , or loving what they have, its the insistance that this is a one way road and they are the keepers of that path. A good quote ( use of words LOL) is from Dirty Harry "A man's got to know his limitations". or for me in audio terms one needs to realize he does not it all and should try to accept what he doesn't know.
My last thing to get critized and hung out to dry is this.
I have heard some really wonderful sounding systems over my years however they are few and sadly far between. I think there are more examples today than in the past and that the gear has IMO gotten better and we as a whole have learned more in how to get to a quality place. I have been far more disappointed by those telling me how great they have it when to be honest its far from that and makes you wonder how they arrived at that place. I think its that many pigeon hole themselves into not getting much live music experience and/or choosing only music that is like an animated film, by this I mean it just ain't natural, and so it just is a completely different subject. Most popular music is not made with a group of players in the same room , same acoustics, same time, same gear. In fact this is very far from the process so the end result is impossible to predict nor ever determine what it is supposed to sound like.
The game is about finding gear, assembling it and positioning it and a room that works in giving you that sense of being real, creating an illusion that there are people playing music for you, being a time machine and transporting you to varies places in the world, or back in time to hear something wonderful and maybe magical.
If you have this then be thankful since you are definetly in the minority.

I was referring to the expansion of said language beyond what is typically thrown out. When language is expanded it improves our ability to think. Also allowing the realignment of some of the already existing lexicon can only be a good thing.

Take neutrality, for example. I've realized to some it's a positive term, but to others it's negative. You will even find that people in the anti-neutrality camp have varying definitions of this neutrality they so despise. The same goes for the pro-neutrality folks. Therefore, the language needs to be realigned, and perhaps other terms need to be introduced to aid in doing so. To borrow from the article, I believe wetness can be a helper term for neutrality. The absence of wetness could be what those in the non-neutrality camp despise, not necessarily a tipped up sound, etc.

We are all better off by this initiative @Karen Sumner and others have taken. Long may it continue.

 

[Elliot G.]

I was referring to the expansion of said language beyond what is typically thrown out. When language is expanded it improves our ability to think. Also allowing the realignment of some of the already existing lexicon can only be a good thing.

Take neutrality, for example. I've realized to some it's a positive term, but to others it's negative. You will even find that people in the anti-neutrality camp have varying definitions of this neutrality they so despise. The same goes for the pro-neutrality folks. Therefore, the language needs to be realigned, and perhaps other terms need to be introduced to aid in doing so. To borrow from the article, I believe wetness can be a helper term for neutrality. The absence of wetness could be what those in the non-neutrality camp despise, not necessarily a tipped up sound, etc.

We are all better off by this initiative @Karen Sumner and others have taken. Long may it continue.

the words arent the issue as much as the meaning of said words. Harry Pearson tried to find the words/language to describe what he was exploring and listening too. I know this since I was there as was Karen and others. I speak from first hand knowledge not interpolating. Harry was not interested in audio tricks he was a serious music lover and specifically a classical music lover. He was very knowledable in the area and attended live concerts reqularly. I know this since I was there and these experiences for me were very helpful in learning about orchestral music , chamber, opera etc.I was a young man and had little experience nor knowldege of these musical forms. He and others discussed what they heard and tried to replicate some of the sensation of being in the concert hall. You have to remember there was little language before this time to attempt to describe the musical reproduction at home. The gear also was undergoing a dramatic change in its abilities to sound more like the music. These discussions amplified the speed of change and many designers visited Harry to hear what he had put togther and I am telling you these people were getting an education to what was possible from an audio system. Most of them had no "reference systems"
How do I know this? I was there, not with all of them but with many of them, Harry was not trying to do anything but describe what the music was sounding like in his room. Harry was not perfect, far from it, but he was very passionate and a serious and good listener. IMO without HP most if not all of the audio hobby and business would be very very different and most likely not in a good way.

 

[Scaena1]

I read the Jeff Day list of sonic evaluation attributes. Perhaps, some will find that useful in evaluating audio systems or components.
I must demur. In filling pages, the audio press has compiled an ever-increasing number of attributes and characteristics of an audio system in their reviews. But do all of these really help the consumer to make satisfactory choices in evaluating equipment and systems?

The Jeff Day article contained twenty-two (22) evaluation items from "wetness" to "tyranny of the frequency extremes". So, if I hear Satchmo's spit more clearly (Jeff's " wetness" example) on one system than on another- is that the better and more musical presentation? Can a system have less spittle and still sound more realistic overall? Do I have to listen for 21 more things? I'm not sure I could do that, but I am sure I would not want to.

In my other endeavor as a labor attorney, I was counsel for several years for the now defunct Florida Philharmonic Orchestra. I was privileged to attend concert performances and numerous practice sessions. In perfecting the Orchestras performance in practice, these terms were not used. The areas concentrated on were primarily in the cohesiveness of the players, the timing and intensity of their parts and the amplitude of their playing vis a vis the rest of the orchestra- all for the purpose of painting a cohesive sonic picture to serve the composition. When the players congeal as a whole- magic happens. And when that happens there is a response that we have to live music, an experience that we have, that I believe most listeners are trying to recreate in their homes.

For my part when I listen to a system, or a component, or even a component part in our loudspeaker (which sadly I must do as a manufacturer) - I am focusing on primarily- does it sound more realistic? Does it get me closer to that live music response, that experience? I'm not saying some other parameters don't go into making that determination, but I tend to listen to the whole and then dissect what parameter(s) might be improved upon in making our product sound more realistic. But I have to do this. Consumers only have to determine their preference-which I hope is by-does one sound more real?

Of our Best Sound at Show presentation at CES 2011 Jonathan Valin, wrote “We all know ‘real’ when we hear it, we don’t even have to think about it. This was that real” (The Absolute Sound-April 2011).

Whether JV was correct in his assessment or not is irrelevant. In the absence of a need to fill pages, this simpler test for almost all consumers seems most useful. Occam's razor applied to sound. And no one can better judge your emotional response to music than you.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

roughly translated

More things should not be used than are necessary

 

[Elliot G.]

I read the Jeff Day list of sonic evaluation attributes. Perhaps, some will find that useful in evaluating audio systems or components.
I must demur. In filling pages, the audio press has compiled an ever-increasing number of attributes and characteristics of an audio system in their reviews. But do all of these really help the consumer to make satisfactory choices in evaluating equipment and systems?

The Jeff Day article contained twenty-two (22) evaluation items from "wetness" to "tyranny of the frequency extremes". So, if I hear Satchmo's spit more clearly (Jeff's " wetness" example) on one system than on another- is that the better and more musical presentation? Can a system have less spittle and still sound more realistic overall? Do I have to listen for 21 more things? I'm not sure I could do that, but I am sure I would not want to.

In my other endeavor as a labor attorney, I was counsel for several years for the now defunct Florida Philharmonic Orchestra. I was privileged to attend concert performances and numerous practice sessions. In perfecting the Orchestras performance in practice, these terms were not used. The areas concentrated on were primarily in the cohesiveness of the players, the timing and intensity of their parts and the amplitude of their playing vis a vis the rest of the orchestra- all for the purpose of painting a cohesive sonic picture to serve the composition. When the players congeal as a whole- magic happens. And when that happens there is a response that we have to live music, an experience that we have, that I believe most listeners are trying to recreate in their homes.

For my part when I listen to a system, or a component, or even a component part in our loudspeaker (which sadly I must do as a manufacturer) - I am focusing on primarily- does it sound more realistic? Does it get me closer to that live music response, that experience? I'm not saying some other parameters don't go into making that determination, but I tend to listen to the whole and then dissect what parameter(s) might be improved upon in making our product sound more realistic. But I have to do this. Consumers only have to determine their preference-which I hope is by-does one sound more real?

Of our Best Sound at Show presentation at CES 2011 Jonathan Valin, wrote “We all know ‘real’ when we hear it, we don’t even have to think about it. This was that real” (The Absolute Sound-April 2011).

Whether JV was correct in his assessment or not is irrelevant. In the absence of a need to fill pages, this simpler test for almost all consumers seems most useful. Occam's razor applied to sound. And no one can better judge your emotional response to music than you.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

roughly translated

More things should not be used than are necessary

Well said Alan!

 

[tima]

When I write the "what does it sound like" portion of a review I tend to describe what I hear listening to a particular piece of music rather than abstracting sonic 'characteristics' then claiming the component has these. What it is like to experience using the component rather than saying what it is. With the exception of psychoacoustic phenomena, the score tells you a lot about sonic characteristics: timbre, dynamics, timing.

 

[dcathro]

"The closest approach to the original emotion"

A quote from an article by Makus Sauer more than 20 years ago that had a profound influence on me

God is in the Nuances

It is a very long read, but I think it is relevant to this discussion.

 

[PeterA]

"God is in the Nuances." What a great title for an article about audio. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe is smiling down from the top of his Seagram building.

 

[Elliot G.]

Both Mozart and Debussy said "music is in the space between the notes"
I personally prefer to leave religion out of this discussion. I dont want to go their anymore than politics on a this site.

Describing in words, what is almost when done right being undescribeable, is a impossible task. The feeling that music can give can provide almost every possible emotion. I know the good reviewers are searching for this magical combination of letters and punctutation to try to express and explain these sensations however when their vocabularies vary and their use of these words have different meanings,we are all left trying to interpret what we were not privy to attend. For me I find it rather simple , it either does it for me or it doesn't. I don't require a ton of verbiage to feel it. In fact too much discussion kind of ruins it. When I sit down at a friends home who has different everything from me and I can get lost in the music then its GOOD. If I can't no words or excuses change anything.
If you aren't feeling it then what do the words mean?

 

[wil]

"The closest approach to the original emotion"

A quote from an article by Makus Sauer more than 20 years ago that had a profound influence on me

God is in the Nuances

It is a very long read, but I think it is relevant to this discussion.

Unfortunately, this article was written 23 years ago. Digital audio has come along way since then. I think the results of the testing and the conclusions would likely be different today.

 

[Stefan]

A few years ago, which must be almost ten years, I wrote a short piece in which I grappled with the same issues that Karen raised far more eloquently than my attempt. For what it is worth, here is what I shared with friends and on a local hifi forum.

I have not met many if any, audiophiles who would not espouse the idea that it is the experience of music that started their interest in this hobby of ours. I think we could easily mislead ourselves; passion and obsession are often about sound and not music. I realise that is an extreme view, and it is not intended as criticism but an attempt to shift a paradigm, and I include myself at the receiving end of the argument.

In essence, my argument is centred around the following principle taken from the so-called new sciences:

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (of course this is a lamer reference, I know)

In short, I think the more we focus on the sound, the less we appreciate the music; we cannot do both. Look at the language that is used in the discussion in these forums. The 1st thing most people will say when they want to endorse or promote a hifi component is to say it’s detailed. extended, neutral or similar words are a close second. We rarely hear about the component or, rather system's ability to convey the emotions of the recorded music well or draw the sound together in a meaningful whole where the sum is more than the parts.

The challenge I put out there for us all is to focus and talk more about the tune, tone, timbre and tempo and less of detail, bass extension, and transparency at the top. Soundstage and imaging should perhaps be banned in the new paradigm or maybe it is not such a new one, but where we all started – love or interest in music. We have been misled and allowed it to happen by designers, reviewers and our audiofools friends.

If Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has merit, the message is clear; it's either sound or music, but not both simultaneously.

To further build on the premise of the idea I started off I want to refer to the "figure-background" principle that is part of the knowledge we have gathered around perception (combined efforts of psychology and neurosciences) Edgar Rubin (1886-1951).Rubin demonstrated the phenomenon by creating his classic example of an ambiguous figure-ground situation:


We perceive one aspect of an event as the figure and the other as the ground. In Rubin's figure, there is no true figure and ground. It is a drawing that pretends to be an object. The ambiguity of it forces us to use the shifting attention we give to the vase or to the faces to see one thing or the other.

So in the end, it is either the sound or the music at a given moment but not both.

As a caveat, although involved in the audio industry, I am a registered psychologist in practice (not an academic or researcher). To the frustration of many on a local forum, I have shared my ponderings about various topics that deal with the last mile in the sense-making process, from the artist's intend to the subjective sensemaking and experience by the listener. Topics such as Confirmation bias, is it a one or two way street/The psychological use of music and how it relates to personality/ Is our strive towards accuracy counterproductive to engaging and enjoying music.

My general impression is that the audio world is much more comfortable in debating at length the electro-mechanical part of the musical journey, ie the recording to the playback steps in the process, even as how it relates to our hearing on a mechanical and physiological level but much reluctant to deal with the subjective part of the process(very messy of course). I am of the firm belief that the whole process matter, and an attempt to ringfence the easy part won't help us to advance our shared interest.

Thanks for reading(apologies for the length), and once again, thanks to @Karen Sumner for your refreshing views and posts.

 

[wil]

I would challenge that assertion that Sound and Music cannot be appreciated simultaneously.

They are woven into the same cloth. How can you even presume to separate them?

Unless, you’re talking about listening to “sound” only in an analytical audiophile sense (which is for me a miserable, perverse, but sometimes necessary chore).

There are different and shifting nuances in how we listen to music. One can lean more towards the emotional, intellectual, abstract, etc. Or, best in my opinion, it can be a complex amalgam of all of the above.

 

[Elliot G.]

I would challenge that assertion that Sound and Music cannot be appreciated simultaneously.

They are woven into the same cloth. How can you even presume to separate them?

Unless, you’re talking about listening to “sound” only in an analytical audiophile sense (which is for me a miserable, perverse, but sometimes necessary chore).

There are different and shifting nuances in how we listen to music. One can lean more towards the emotional, intellectual, abstract, etc. Or, best in my opinion, it can be a complex amalgam of all of the above.

I might suggest to you and others following this some video's I watched over the weekend which I think are really well done and eloguently explained. Mr Weiss at OMA did a series of 4 video's on LISTENING and why we should and why it is important. They are on youtube on the OMA channel. I don't want to post someone elese's content so I am just mentioning this so if interested they can be watched.
The last time I posted one I got less than the expected outcome

 

[wil]

I might suggest to you and others following this some video's I watched over the weekend which I think are really well done and eloguently explained. Mr Weiss at OMA did a series of 4 video's on LISTENING and why we should and why it is important. They are on youtube on the OMA channel. I don't want to post someone elese's content so I am just mentioning this so if interested they can be watched.
The last time I posted one I got less than the expected outcome

His thoughts on sound and the meditative act of listening are eloquently stated.

Also, I highly recommend another of his vids where he tells the story about the development of his Ironic (iron) speaker.

 

[Elliot G.]

His thoughts on sound and the meditative act of listening are eloquently stated.

Harry Pearson and I always talked about the "time machine" effect of a great audio system. Television and movies can entertain me but they never transport me. They never take me to another reality a different mental plateau, they don't change my mood and my physiology, only music does that. Listening is very different than hearing. Hearing is casual listening is not. Hearing is a birthright listening is a learned skill. I love JW passion and I think he does a wonderful job expressing the "magic" of what music can bring.

 

[Robh3606]

Here’s why the high-end audio echo chamber seems to be so well sealed from music-loving interlopers. Unfortunately, in most homes where there is a substantial audio system set-up in rooms that are built according to standard residential construction methods, it is very unlikely that a person can play a wide range of different types of music at believable volume and dynamic levels and achieve across the board full natural tonal balance; i.e., reproduce the critical 100Hz -1000kHz range to the same level that it is actually recorded on the source material. The energy that results from amplifying the critical emotional-connection frequencies overloads most of these rooms resulting in frequency nodes and cancellations and out-of-phase reflections that cover up the very qualities that the audio press has tried to teach us should be the priority; hence, the solution to this conundrum is to strip away that energy, the life of the music, that is so important to creating an emotional connection by selecting components that reproduce music in a way that is natively leaner than what is on most source material and by speaker set-ups that emphasize the frequency extremes.

One can only imagine how disheartened some music-loving audiophiles might be when they discover that in their home environment, they can play perhaps a dozen songs from a small handful of albums that deliver truly musically satisfying results. Some have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on individual pieces of equipment that have been deemed ground-breaking by the audio press only to find that their systems and listening environment are unable to reproduce music in an emotionally compelling way. This is not a sustainable model for customers, dealers, or manufacturers. No one has told the simple truth: that everything matters, including listening space.

Hello Karen

I am having a hard time believing that anyone who is investing in hi end systems does not understand the basics. Speaker placement and the influence of the room are basic principles in the hobby. I remember reading Julian Hirsch reviews in Stereo Review in the 70's and these were topics that were well covered in the various magazines including High Fidelity and Audio Magazine.

Setting up your first system it becomes blatantly obvious moving things around how important these basics are.

Does the industry as a whole have a very unsophisticated clientele??

I find that hard to believe.

"reproduce the critical 100Hz -1000kHz range to the same level"

The Schroeder frequency is typically 20 to 3-400hz is where the room has the most effect WWT nulls and peaks

I don't know why you are concentrating on 100-1K?? Yeah that's where the meat is but if the rest is off it doesn't matter how good you are over that narrow bandwidth.

Like you said everything counts

Rob