Hi Tom, I'm not talking about a group of listeners agreeing, I'm saying ALL the listeners that I have demonstrated imaging to are able to identify where singers are positioned within the soundstage. Now if I was to play the same track on a lower resolution/fidelity system, they would not be able to do so. Fact.Hi, my first posting on WBF
I think tima’s comments here are spot on. In the big picture there are three elements going into the listening experience of reproduced music: The media/system, the room and the listener. Human senses vary, on which it is not possible to establish an objective standard. Hearing ability varies and listening to music is about connecting to one’s emotional capital, which of course also varies between individuals. That’s why we like and prefer different genre of music, and the analytical part and the emotional part blend in a listening session. Thus, by definition, it is not possible to establish an objective standard on individual’s perception of music/sound to form that reference of objectivity we would be looking for.
One may of course swap the human ear for a measurement tool. A measurement tool can bring objectivity as one would be able to set some defined measurement references and furthermore apply a systematic approach (results to be control tested). But swapping the human ear for a measurement instrument is really to look for the missing key under the light pole, just because this would be the only spot you would see something. Measurements will tell something about the sound quality, but then again, those measured results would be of variable value or inconsistent to individuals as listeners. There is no other tool than our ears/our hearing (except physical impact of LF) to experience sound. And that experience end up being individual and subjective. A group of listeners may agree on some aspects of sound listening to the same piece of music, but I see no way that agreement on aspects by the group of individuals can be brought out of that listening session to be used in other listening sessions as a reference in any objective way.
Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.
- Thread starter Rexp
- Start date
I honestly have difficulty relating what you wrote to my initial comment. I won't comment further
Ok let me try again with audiophile and simpler terms. Audiophiles have developed language that is descriptive but not related to technical description of the phenomena being described. For instance audiophiles use the term “layers of veil” to describe degrees of transparency which is a visual descriptor but it is something that has no technical meaning.
Another term or description that audiophiles like to throw around is “a system that gets out of the way of the music”, again this has no technical meaning. What I referred to in my previous post as “transfer function” is the technical description to what audiophiles refer to as “signature” or “system signature”. It is that inherent sound of the system that is heard on every song.
In your post you advocated for a system that does not homogenize the sound. You, and others, long for a system that “differentiates” each song.
In my post I made the point that even if the system’s signature was transparent, and I even went further and said that even if the combination of the system’s and room’s signatures were transparent to let the music come across untouched, you still could not avoid the homogeneity and normalization of human hearing & perception. So rather than focus on ideals, there are ways to achieve greater differentiation in spite of the system’s, room’s and ear’s signatures.
Last edited:
I know where you are going (...your remastering process!).
Anyway, differentiation is not an ideal, it is very real and you can experience it (just listen to a really cheap system and then compare with a better one).
Last edited:
Yes, the better a system, the less monochrome it gets, as it were, and the more the presentation adjusts to the recording instead of being a one-trick pony. I do get Carlos' point about a room signature which introduces homogeneity. That is unavoidable, but can be greatly ameliorated by proper acoustic room treatment (which is not something Carlos seems to believe in, but it very much works).
I’m not really a big fan of many audiophile terms. They are often too vague or open to interpretation, words have different meanings for different people. Some words and terminology for describing sound I like include but are not limited to,
Endlessly Entertaining
Intelligibility
like electrostatics, IMAX frame speed
Squeaky/slippery
Growl
Puffiness
Crunchiness
Solidness/Density
Wallop
Endlessly Entertaining
Intelligibility
like electrostatics, IMAX frame speed
Squeaky/slippery
Growl
Puffiness
Crunchiness
Solidness/Density
Wallop
Last edited:
Both the cheap system and the better one will have their own transfer function, sound signature, which will impart their resultant sound. Is this not homogeneity by definition on both instances?
This is mostly due to design limitations of both systems. For instance if one system has a frequency response from 50Hz to 12KHz, and another one has a frequency response from 30Hz to 19KHz, the second system will sound more resolute simply because it is able to convey more information to fill in the musical passage. Then there is dynamic range and harmonic distortions. If you compress the bass it will give you greater impact, we have all heard that one note bass from cheap systems that “thumps” but lacks bass extension and articulation. Tubes, transformers, chokes, and magnetic tape all have a level where they reach a saturation stage and start to both compress and produce harmonic distortions, believe it or not some of this sounds very euphonic. So which one is the “better” system? The ones that tells it like it is? Or the one that adds color and fireworks to the sound? It is not so straight forward. In the lab, one will be clearly declared a better performing system and in the listening room it could go the other way.
It is not that I don’t believe in room treatments. It is that most are not knowledgeable on how to apply them and just end up changing the room acoustics to something else and declare that they actually addressed an issue when they have not. For instance, we often read “I added some absorption at the spot of first reflection”. The point where the sound wave impacts the side walls varies with frequency, according to the loudspeaker design’s polar dispersion/wave-propagation radiation pattern. Most of these guys are just guessing and adding material on the sidewalls without any real understanding or knowledge of the acoustic profile. Rather than trying to solve that problem I set up my speakers so that my ears get direct sound and then I let my brain deal with reflections, which with my set ups are not only attenuated but also delayed sufficiently to be arbitrated.
Last edited:
I would add to the last comments that Tube Traps don’t always work in room corners, sometimes they should be placed a foot or more away from the corners. they can hurt the sound if not in the precise location(s) dictated by the room acoustics. What can happen is assumptions are made up front and never corrected so one lives with whatever happens forever.
The same comment applies to resonators in general such as tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, Helmholtz resonators, crystals, Mpingo discs, etc.
My other comment involves speaker placement. I appreciate that audiophiles sometimes place their speakers far apart and toed in, the idea being that that configuration provides the best soundstage depth and width. The best locations generally speaking in most rooms is probably 4.5 to 5.5 feet apart. But not 8 to 10 feet apart.
IMHO speakers generally should be placed close together rather than far apart and should nit be toed in. This allows the speakers’ natural radiation pattern to fill in the middle of the soundstage and to provide the best overall soundstage.
Furthermore, the ideal location of the speakers should be determined by a TEST CD speaker placement track like the one on XLO Test CD. The out of phase track demonstrates that when the sound is the most diffuse when system out of phase it will be the most focused when it’s in phase. Without a methodology such as XLO CD or similar speaker set up track, it’s like trying to find a needle in the haystack, the Chances of stumbling on the absolute best locations for both speakers in any room is akin to solving x simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns.
The same comment applies to resonators in general such as tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, Helmholtz resonators, crystals, Mpingo discs, etc.
My other comment involves speaker placement. I appreciate that audiophiles sometimes place their speakers far apart and toed in, the idea being that that configuration provides the best soundstage depth and width. The best locations generally speaking in most rooms is probably 4.5 to 5.5 feet apart. But not 8 to 10 feet apart.
IMHO speakers generally should be placed close together rather than far apart and should nit be toed in. This allows the speakers’ natural radiation pattern to fill in the middle of the soundstage and to provide the best overall soundstage.
Furthermore, the ideal location of the speakers should be determined by a TEST CD speaker placement track like the one on XLO Test CD. The out of phase track demonstrates that when the sound is the most diffuse when system out of phase it will be the most focused when it’s in phase. Without a methodology such as XLO CD or similar speaker set up track, it’s like trying to find a needle in the haystack, the Chances of stumbling on the absolute best locations for both speakers in any room is akin to solving x simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns.
Last edited:
One of the reason that I encourage people to save their money instead of embarking on one of these ”acoustically engineered” bespoke listening rooms is that there is no things as one size fits all when it comes to room acoustics. Rooms themselves do not produce any sound of their own. It is the acoustic source, speakers output, that serves as the excitation for the rooms. Every acoustic source, speakers, has in own acoustic profile dictated by their design, and their excitations of the rooms changes based on the spectral content of the driving signal. So while these rooms look nice and suggest that a great deal of care and attention has been put into their designs, they are not even designed with the systems‘ spectral energy in mind and every time the configuration of these systems changes the system-room interaction changes.
I tried mine in different places, but corners were the best. However, it's probably a good idea to check if I can fine-tune slightly more. Thanks for the suggestion.
That will all depend. It's too easy to fall into generalizations. My speakers are 6 feet 1 inch apart (tweeter to tweeter) and 7 feet 11 inches tweeter to ear. They have quite a bit of toe-in, my previous speakers had much less. Again, it depends, no rule fits all.
When it comes to technical matters, there is right, there is wrong, and there is no grey area in between.
Unfortunately, speaker positioning *is* solving simultaneous equations. It's bass response including balance of low to mid- and upper bass, soundstage, level of transparency, treble response, coherence of sound, perceived dynamics etc. Just concentrating on where the speaker sounds most "focused" is simply too simplistic.
It's advisable to spend a substantial amount of time on speaker placement, it's one of the most important things when it comes to the sound of a system.
And yes, you should do it methodically, "stumbling" upon a speaker position is not a good idea.
I was referring to x + n unknowns for x simultaneous equations, not simultaneous equations per se. You can only find local maximums if you’re just moving a little, listening a little, without a methodology.
Also, when one uses a methodology such as I am suggesting, XLO CD or equivalent, you should already have employed some degree of room treatment, otherwise it won’t really work because there are too many acoustic anomalies. And you won’t be able to get complete diffusion of the sound with the out of phase track. Ideally you should hear the sound coming from all around the room, with no direction.
To summarize - The XLO CD or similar Test CD method finds the absolute best locations for both speakers. you can forget about the “variables” you mentioned, you’ll probably have to deal with them one at time separately. the x or x + 1 unknowns I’m referring to mathematically are not really “variables” in the sense you’re using the word.
Plus, once you get to that point, whenever you change/add/delete/move any room treatments guess what? You need to use the XLO CD or equivalent again.
Also, when one uses a methodology such as I am suggesting, XLO CD or equivalent, you should already have employed some degree of room treatment, otherwise it won’t really work because there are too many acoustic anomalies. And you won’t be able to get complete diffusion of the sound with the out of phase track. Ideally you should hear the sound coming from all around the room, with no direction.
To summarize - The XLO CD or similar Test CD method finds the absolute best locations for both speakers. you can forget about the “variables” you mentioned, you’ll probably have to deal with them one at time separately. the x or x + 1 unknowns I’m referring to mathematically are not really “variables” in the sense you’re using the word.
Plus, once you get to that point, whenever you change/add/delete/move any room treatments guess what? You need to use the XLO CD or equivalent again.
Last edited:
Total wrong ,
Your technical matters all are simple mathematics without any meaningful relation to music listening experience
It is funny you are mixing and confusing Subjective listening experience and objective technical meaning. Read wikipedia and learn those are different
I don’t need to read Wikipedia, I have a good handle on the matter. Do as I do and try to learn why things are so.
Right and wrong. And you have proved my point. Your incapable of moving you eyeballs from the shinny object in front of you and approaching something from another perspective. Its very common for people of very high intelligence to encounter this difficulty.
I do not think that is an accurate assessment. Evidence shows that I have left very few stones unturned in my audio explorations. When I was in college I was training to be a theoretical physicist, in that capacity it would have been detrimental to not consider, explore and asses other perspectives. My mentally is to consider everything and to use my knowledge and understanding to separate fact from fiction. What exactly in your estimation have I not approached from a different perspective? Please speak with specifics.
For fun, I asked an AI bot:
Yes, the statement "Some hi-fi systems are objectively better at reproducing spatial information within a recording" can be considered correct.
When comparing hi-fi systems, certain systems may objectively excel in reproducing spatial information based on measurable and verifiable factors. These factors can include:
1. Frequency response: A hi-fi system with a flat and accurate frequency response across the audible range can better reproduce spatial information without significant frequency imbalances that could affect localization.
2. Imaging and soundstage capabilities: Some hi-fi systems are designed with specific technologies or speaker configurations that enhance imaging and soundstage reproduction. This can result in a more accurate and realistic portrayal of spatial cues within a recording.
3. Low distortion: A hi-fi system with low distortion, both in the speakers and the electronics, can faithfully reproduce the spatial information present in a recording without introducing unwanted artifacts that may affect localization.
4. Controlled dispersion: Speakers with controlled dispersion patterns can help create a more precise and focused soundstage, improving the accuracy of spatial information reproduction.
5. Room integration: Hi-fi systems that consider room acoustics and offer options for room correction or speaker placement optimization can enhance the spatial reproduction within a given listening environment.
These objective factors can contribute to a hi-fi system's ability to reproduce spatial information more accurately. However, individual preferences and subjective listening experiences still play a role, so what is objectively better for one person may not be the same for another. It's important to consider both objective measurements and personal preferences when evaluating the spatial reproduction capabilities of hi-fi systems.
.
Yes, the statement "Some hi-fi systems are objectively better at reproducing spatial information within a recording" can be considered correct.
When comparing hi-fi systems, certain systems may objectively excel in reproducing spatial information based on measurable and verifiable factors. These factors can include:
1. Frequency response: A hi-fi system with a flat and accurate frequency response across the audible range can better reproduce spatial information without significant frequency imbalances that could affect localization.
2. Imaging and soundstage capabilities: Some hi-fi systems are designed with specific technologies or speaker configurations that enhance imaging and soundstage reproduction. This can result in a more accurate and realistic portrayal of spatial cues within a recording.
3. Low distortion: A hi-fi system with low distortion, both in the speakers and the electronics, can faithfully reproduce the spatial information present in a recording without introducing unwanted artifacts that may affect localization.
4. Controlled dispersion: Speakers with controlled dispersion patterns can help create a more precise and focused soundstage, improving the accuracy of spatial information reproduction.
5. Room integration: Hi-fi systems that consider room acoustics and offer options for room correction or speaker placement optimization can enhance the spatial reproduction within a given listening environment.
These objective factors can contribute to a hi-fi system's ability to reproduce spatial information more accurately. However, individual preferences and subjective listening experiences still play a role, so what is objectively better for one person may not be the same for another. It's important to consider both objective measurements and personal preferences when evaluating the spatial reproduction capabilities of hi-fi systems.
.
