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.
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.
.
I don’t think that you know my 35+ years in this hobby, the equipment and systems that I own or have been able to experience, or my achievements to advance what is possible in achieving desired results in a predictable manner as opposed to the traditional trial and error. As they say, know your audience. While you been playing with magic crystals and waves I have been demystifying this hobby With real science and technology.
I don’t think that you know my 35+ years in this hobby, the equipment and systems that I own or have been able to experience, or my achievements to advance what is possible in achieving desired results in a predictable manner as opposed to the traditional trial and error. As they say, know your audience. While you been playing with magic crystals and waves I have been demystifying this hobby.
Oh really, what are the objectives in both cases? The recording engineer’s objective is to capture the event as accurate as possible, although he does have some artistic freedom, while the audiophile objective is to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, although they do exercise artistic freedom. How do you reconcile trying to reproduce something accurately that you were not preview to? Which rendition out of the trillion of different ones is the most accurate one and how do we judge it to be so?
The line that you bolden is the classic audiophile objective. While it is the typical and most common adjective it certainly isn’t the only one. There are several but they revolve around that common theme.
I don’t think that you know my 35+ years in this hobby, the equipment and systems that I own or have been able to experience, or my achievements to advance what is possible in achieving desired results in a predictable manner as opposed to the traditional trial and error. As they say, know your audience. While you been playing with magic crystals and waves I have been demystifying this hobby With real science and technology.
Interesting topic, but also interesting example for this specific topic. As several has mentioned, imaging (and soundstage) are properties not easily measured. I guess they can still be objective qualities, but they are also affected by the room the system resides in (unless we count the room as part of the system).
I have also seen many claim improved imaging and soundstage due to changes in sources or amplifiers, while these qualities comes almost exclusively as a result of speakers + room.
As if that wasn't enough, not all people care about imaging / soundstage - I am not sure if it is part individual, and part as a consequence of taste in music (these are attributes less present in some genres than others), or a combination of the two.
In conclusion I think there is a considerable amount of subjectivity involved in assessing imaging and soundstage.
Except that pinpoint imaging is not a good thing. When I had my last set of two-way monitors I was fortunately able to "de-pin" their imaging. Performers in real music are localizable, at least if you're within a range where direct sound still overrides the contribution of reflected sound, but real music never has small and sharply outlined pinpoint size images. That's an objective fact, BTW.
It is actually possible to have a large soundstage and precise imaging at the same time, and in a way that doesn't make the sound sources feel small. That being said, I do agree that the sound (source) in a live venue are more immersive and less localizable than when reproducing music at home.
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).
I hate to bring the equipment up again. A BACCH system uses microphones to calibrate the signal so that spatial cues are enhanced. It is very audible. That alone say much. There is no human subjective variable. A computer is listening and adjusting what its microphone picks up. Objectively, its a better soundstage.
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.
I hate to bring the equipment up again. A BACCH system uses microphones to calibrate the signal so that spatial cues are enhanced. It is very audible. That alone say much. There is no human subjective variable. A computer is listening and adjusting what its microphone picks up. Objectively, it’s a better soundstage.
Rex as long as your desired resultant sound aligns with the BAACH’s algorithm’s target curve you should be okay but if it doesn’t you have no choice as the automated correction is going to do what it’s going to do. In the mastering studio world there are equipment and techniques that put you in charge of the spatial editing. I prefer option two because I know what to do to get the results that I desire but for all those that don’t want to fool around with adjustments or are not knowledgeable on these matters then the automated autocorrection from BAACH seems like a sensible option. From my understanding it is as good as it gets for those types functions in the audiophile world.
I hate to bring the equipment up again. A BACCH system uses microphones to calibrate the signal so that spatial cues are enhanced. It is very audible. That alone say much. There is no human subjective variable. A computer is listening and adjusting what its microphone picks up. Objectively, its a better soundstage.
I thought we were talking about certain aspects of a system being objectively better than some other. Imaging in particular being cited.
And I personally believe if 100 people listened to a system and said the singer was center imaged on 1 system and on another system the singer was out both speakers that one is imaging better than the other. This happened at an audio show while Audiophile Junkie was filming. He told the exhibitor the system sounded bad. They called him back later and said something was out of phase. When he listened again, he said it was much better. In this case there is a technical reason to support why the system is viewed as inferior.
