What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[morricab]

dave

This echoes my feelings exactly. Most of us are subjectivists in this hobby but the extreme nature to which Frank has presented his arguments IMO are no where near the truth nor do I believe that in the absence of all explanation of the Laws of Physics the argument left boils down to ASA. I think if that were the case why would anyone have a different system if all we needed to do is tell ourselves that our mind is filling in the blanks and the hell with the laws of physics.

I rarely take sides in any of these debates but this one has stirred a spot inside me and I believe that rebuttal by me to express my position is necessary. IMO DaveC and Frantz reflect my feelings exactly

On the brighter side the fact that we are discussing this cordially also IMO pays big dividends and thanks to every one for that

" are no where near the truth nor do I believe that in the absence of all explanation of the Laws of Physics the argument left boils down to ASA."

LOL! You dare to claim you know the truth? By claiming that Frank is no where near the truth you are implying that you have some idea where it is.

The laws of physics?? Praytell you give us a clue on what laws of physics you think he is violating.

Let's be clear: I know measurements, I make measurements as part of my profession and my measurements are always tied to the generation of specifications. But if those specifications have no meaning to the quality or performance of what I am measuring then they are useless bits of information. Data is nothing without interpretation and that interpretation is very complicated when it comes to predicting how a HUMAN will respond based on that data.

Do you have any idea how much distortion your system generates? Do you have any idea of what order and level that distortion is and how this affects things psychoacoustically? Have you tried to apply Shorter's equation on the measured data for your equipment or better yet Cheevers T.A.D score for a given SPL level? For sure these numbers won't tell you HOW it sounds in subjective terms but it will tell you if something is more or less likely to be more natural sounding to a human listener.

Now, I haven't heard your gear but given that you use Lamm electronics I know that Vladimir Lamm has taken some of the guesswork out of it by using his own hearing models (or so he claims at least...it is at least a clever marketing tool). The measurements I have seen in Stereophile and elsewhere support this at least for the ML2 and ML3 models. IMO, push/pull need not apply as it is far off the desired pattern by design. A friend has the LAMM M1.1 and I personally don't think these sound all that great...KR ate them for breakfast.

Now, I haven't heard your system and you haven't heard mine and I guess we would both pick each other's apart; however, I don't agree with you bandying words like "laws of Physics" around when most gear and speakers have no consideration for how human hearing really works. It is why so much of this hobby is hit and miss. Most gear misses by a country mile and the ones that are close are therefore something special.

Do I think Frank can tweak up fundamentally flawed designs and get realism?? No, I don't think he can. Can he use youtube videos to evaluate the relative merit of two different systems when recorded with the same equipment?? Yes, I think he can because I can hear what he is hearing there. These are two different topics that are getting conflated together in this thread because of knee-jerk reactions.

 

[DaveC]

THat is a good point Dave. when I had electrostats and ribbons, as long as I kept them 1 to 1.5 meters from the back wall they worked great in my about 20 square meter listening room even though the speakers were quite close to the side walls. That figure 8 radiation pattern minimizes the first reflection and the line source behavior minimized ceiling and floor bounce.

I had some heavily modded Acoustat 1+1s and a pair of Silvaweld OTL reference monoblocks, which were simply amazing when they worked correctly (about 20% of the time) and a friend came over with his ballerina girlfriend. She had been complaining to him that he wasted his money on hifi and couldn't understand why he cared so much about the sound because it didn't sound close to live.

We plopped her down in front of that system (Voyd/Helius Cylene/Lyra Skala fed into Silvaweld phonostage to Silvaweld preamp to Silvaweld OTLs) and put on some piano trio music (I know that that particular system cannot do big orchestra convincingly...dynamics are too great for the excursion of the speakers) and her jaw hit the floor. She looked at him and asked "Why doesn't your system sound like this????!!!!". When we put other electronics on this speaker the magic largely disappeared...at least until I got KR Audio gear and then it was back...albeit somewhat different in presentation.

The room, BTW. , was completely untreated and it was completely unnecessary to do so. I never had to treat that room as it already had fast decay. I treated on bass mode that was intrusive with a Behringer DEQ2496, which when used digital in and digital out, is invisible other than what you have it do. In this case I cut a bump at 62Hz by about 10db with the parametric EQ function. Imaging and soundstaging were spot on and not blurred...a common problem in a room with too long sound decay. Intelligibility with speaking was pretty good as well. Perhaps in Europe with the concrete walls it is better conditions overall, roomwise?

Conventional speakers with wide dispersion are really playing into the room and it will impact the sound more strongly. Now I have horns and they are quite directive so I have a strong toe-in with them this again minimizes the room and I get great sound without any treatment other than my record shelves, which act a bit like a diffuser.

Yeah, it's great when you get a system to such a high level!

I have a small house, but the living room where my system is has ~13 ft high ceilings and is open to the dining room and kitchen. With my conventional reference speakers I can hear things aren't quite ideal but with the directive speakers it's much better in exactly the same room. All I really did is add some absorption to reduce decay times and compensate for asymmetry, this is all the directive speakers really need but my conventional speakers do need a bit more work with room acoustics to achieve similar performance... even then they won't be able to quite match the other speakers in soundstaging... my speakers create a 3-D soundstage that is hard for conventional speakers to match, they are capable of projecting images into the room and also far behind the front wall. I also do have my speakers a bit wider apart and with more toe-in than would be considered normal, this works well for these speakers.

On dipoles, Sanders usually shows in a normal hotel room without ANY treatments at all, this works for his system while it is a disaster for many other systems!

 

[PeterA]

Yeah, it's great when you get a system to such a high level!

I have a small house, but the living room where my system is has ~13 ft high ceilings and is open to the dining room and kitchen. With my conventional reference speakers I can hear things aren't quite ideal but with the directive speakers it's much better in exactly the same room. All I really did is add some absorption to reduce decay times and compensate for asymmetry, this is all the directive speakers really need but my conventional speakers do need a bit more work with room acoustics to achieve similar performance... even then they won't be able to quite match the other speakers in soundstaging... my speakers create a 3-D soundstage that is hard for conventional speakers to match, they are capable of projecting images into the room and also far behind the front wall. I also do have my speakers a bit wider apart and with more toe-in than would be considered normal, this works well for these speakers.

On dipoles, Sanders usually shows in a normal hotel room without ANY treatments at all, this works for his system while it is a disaster for many other systems!

Dave, is there anything that your conventional speakers do better than your directive speakers? It sounds like you are getting great results with the directive speakers in terms of believability.

 

[DaveC]

" are no where near the truth nor do I believe that in the absence of all explanation of the Laws of Physics the argument left boils down to ASA."

LOL! You dare to claim you know the truth? By claiming that Frank is no where near the truth you are implying that you have some idea where it is.

The laws of physics?? Praytell you give us a clue on what laws of physics you think he is violating.

Let's be clear: I know measurements, I make measurements as part of my profession and my measurements are always tied to the generation of specifications. But if those specifications have no meaning to the quality or performance of what I am measuring then they are useless bits of information. Data is nothing without interpretation and that interpretation is very complicated when it comes to predicting how a HUMAN will respond based on that data.

Do you have any idea how much distortion your system generates? Do you have any idea of what order and level that distortion is and how this affects things psychoacoustically? Have you tried to apply Shorter's equation on the measured data for your equipment or better yet Cheevers T.A.D score for a given SPL level? For sure these numbers won't tell you HOW it sounds in subjective terms but it will tell you if something is more or less likely to be more natural sounding to a human listener.

Now, I haven't heard your gear but given that you use Lamm electronics I know that Vladimir Lamm has taken some of the guesswork out of it by using his own hearing models (or so he claims at least...it is at least a clever marketing tool). The measurements I have seen in Stereophile and elsewhere support this at least for the ML2 and ML3 models. IMO, push/pull need not apply as it is far off the desired pattern by design. A friend has the LAMM M1.1 and I personally don't think these sound all that great...KR ate them for breakfast.

Now, I haven't heard your system and you haven't heard mine and I guess we would both pick each other's apart; however, I don't agree with you bandying words like "laws of Physics" around when most gear and speakers have no consideration for how human hearing really works. It is why so much of this hobby is hit and miss. Most gear misses by a country mile and the ones that are close are therefore something special.

Do I think Frank can tweak up fundamentally flawed designs and get realism?? No, I don't think he can. Can he use youtube videos to evaluate the relative merit of two different systems when recorded with the same equipment?? Yes, I think he can because I can hear what he is hearing there. These are two different topics that are getting conflated together in this thread because of knee-jerk reactions.

I don't think so... and I don't think he needs to evaluate and measure his own gear to know that many of Frank's statements are over the top and obviously false. For example, if your electronics are good enough room acoustics cease to matter anymore. The idea he can modify cheap electronics to perform at extremely high levels. The YouTube vids as well, there was an obvious contradiction between his evaluation vs people who were actually there.

IMO, the blowback is well deserved and while some of what Frank says does make sense most does not and it's incredible to me that anyone pays any attention to anything he says. He's a troll on the level of Blizzard imo, not much difference between them really. Both insist their points are true and correct despite people with actual experience saying otherwise.

 

[DaveC]

Dave, is there anything that your conventional speakers do better than your directive speakers? It sounds like you are getting great results with the directive speakers in terms of believability.

Yes, vocals are probably just a touch clearer with my conventional speakers.... waveguides/horns will add their own sound to the mix depending on their material properties. Many manufacturers go to great lengths to damp their horns or make them out of material that will add pleasant colorations. However, the coloration due to the horn/wg is somewhat like an omnipresent smell, you get used to it and the brain filters it out. Also, my conventional speakers are Pioneer S-1EX which use the same mid/tweeter as the TAD Evolution series and not many speakers can match this coax driver, especially the vapor deposited beryllium tweeter.

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Dave

However, the coloration due to the horn/wg is somewhat like an omnipresent smell, you get used to it and the brain filters it out.

What type of horn's/ waveguides are you using??

Rob

 

[DaveC]

Hello Dave



What type of horn's/ waveguides are you using??

Rob

We've already had this discussion. I know you don't believe it, but it is true imo. Otherwise manufacturers wouldn't go to great lengths to mitigate the issue. And I believe it IS mitigated to the point it's barely audible, but it is audible in every horn speaker that exists, and some of my horn-speaker designer friends feel exactly the same way about the issue.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, it's one of those things the brain deals with easily, so it's only noticeable in direct comparisons. Ron also noticed this recently...

 

[jkeny]

We've already had this discussion. I know you don't believe it, but it is true imo. Otherwise manufacturers wouldn't go to great lengths to mitigate the issue. And I believe it IS mitigated to the point it's barely audible, but it is audible in every horn speaker that exists, and some of my horn-speaker designer friends feel exactly the same way about the issue.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, it's one of those things the brain deals with easily, so it's only noticeable in direct comparisons. Ron also noticed this recently...

It's kinda ironic that you say what's in bold above & this "somewhat like an omnipresent smell, you get used to it and the brain filters it out" from a post back - because it's the main point that Frank & I both have about rooms - within reason they become acclimatised to by the auditory processing system & become mostly immaterial. It's one of the ways our auditory perception works - we expect to hear the auditory space from which the sound is emanating & we analyse the soundfield, splitting out this auditory space effects from the actual sound. Once this remains consistent our auditory processing accommodates to it & it is largely unimportant to "believability"

However, both Frank *& I & others find that the variability in the electronic processing of the sound doesn't lead to this accomodation by the brain & auditory perception focus is drawn to it thus disturbing the "believability of the playback illusion"

This was/is the main point made at the start of this thread - remember this refers to ordinary rooms with ordinary speakers. Can both be improved? Yes but is this really affecting to any large extent "believability" when you, Frank, I & others all agree that the brain filters out stuff that it expects to hear - it's the anomalous stuff that causes the retreat from accepting the illusion.

Despite Frank coming in for much criticism, I feel he has made many good points - points on which I mostly agree - people seem too willing to exaggerate & distort some of what he says & build their strawman arguments around this

 

[Robh3606]

We've already had this discussion. I know you don't believe it, but it is true imo.

Hello Dave

I never said all horns are free of coloration. Some are very good indeed, to me I can't hear the coloration, others not so good at all. I was curious what you were using, are they tractrix like Bruce Edgar, exponential, Oblate Spheroid like Earl Geedes and so on. I use second generation Bi-radials and wave-guides both PTH and M2's. I know what I like curious what types you found listenable.

Rob

 

[thedudeabides]

On dipoles, Sanders usually shows in a normal hotel room without ANY treatments at all, this works for his system while it is a disaster for many other systems!

Also seems to work well with MBL's. They don't use any in shows that I've attended. The only thing I treat in my system is a couple of bass panels to address some minor room nodes.

 

[DaveC]

Hello Dave

I never said all horns are free of coloration. Some are very good indeed, to me I can't hear the coloration, others not so good at all. I was curious what you were using, are they tractrix like Bruce Edgar, exponential, Oblate Spheroid like Earl Geedes and so on. I use second generation Bi-radials and wave-guides both PTH and M2's. I know what I like curious what types you found listenable.

Rob

Ok, it's a 340 Hz Le Cleach horn made from thick fiberglass but the production ones will likely be CNC'ed plywood. It is very short but has enough gain to linearize the 4.5" driver I'm using, which is a custom unit with a very light (2g) paper cone, compliant suspension and big motor. It's a bit unconventional in how short the horn is and how open the throat is (throat area > Sd) but this is what worked to accomplish my goals, which weren't necessarily to make a horn speaker, but to find a more ideal implementation of a 4.5" full range driver vs what's typically used by Fostex, Feastrex, etc... which I find to be flawed and limited, but these kinds of drivers also have attributes I really love. So my speaker sounds a lot like a very good 4.5" full range driver but with full frequency extension and high SPL capabilities. It sounds like a point source horn and can even be used nearfield!

On the horn I wasn't super happy with the fiberglass and I tried coating it with a thick layer of plasti-dip... I went through quite a few cans of it! ...this worked very well, as did damping it with Mortite. These changes reduced and altered the contribution the horn was making to the sound. Other designers have commented that it's always going to be there, but is a minor issue and I'd tend to agree. I was talking with a designer/luthier who works for a high end woodworking shop that may make my cabinets and she suggested trying hot-molded leather for the horn's interior, I'm definitely going to try this, at the very least it will look cool and I can then say my speaker has a leather interior.

 

[microstrip]

I don't think so... and I don't think he needs to evaluate and measure his own gear to know that many of Frank's statements are over the top and obviously false. For example, if your electronics are good enough room acoustics cease to matter anymore. The idea he can modify cheap electronics to perform at extremely high levels. The YouTube vids as well, there was an obvious contradiction between his evaluation vs people who were actually there.

IMO, the blowback is well deserved and while some of what Frank says does make sense most does not and it's incredible to me that anyone pays any attention to anything he says. (...)

I think people foccus too much on the personality and "pseudo achievements" of Frank and do not try to understand the main ideas, perhaps because they just are not interested in discussing them.

I easily accept that someone with large experience, even with little theoretical knowledge can modify decent electronics to achieve exceptional performance in some specific aspects for his particular environment. It is mostly a tuning process, not a general development. I have seen people doing it, unfortunately just for a couple of recordings - as soon as you changed the recording it sounded miserable and lousy.

Although I was a kit builder in my youth and swapped many capacitors and resistors, my only serious experience as a I modifier was carried with an outdated Sony X7 CD player that used the top BB PCM63k converters. I suppressed all the analog stage, replacing it with a 51 ohm high quality precision resistor, carrying the IV conversion, connected through a simple LC filter built with high quality components directly to the hard wired output. In some systems, with appropriate simple recordings, the player sounded exceptional. Much better than any of the top price CDs, such as Theta, Krell or EAD. It had 3D, palpability, holography. But with many recordings is was simply poor.

Playing with Soundlab's can be a dangerous experience. They do some things so exceptionally well that you risk focusing just on them and loosing control of the process as an whole. Sometimes I feel that I have reached the point, the sound is so natural, that I should not ask for more. But as I listen to a wide spectra of music, often just getting a new recording puts new challenges.

And yes, we can learn a lot reading the articles from the so called "japanese school", who developed DIY electronics optimized for systems that, according to testimonies of the past, sounded great and natural, with great "believability" in the acoustics of their typical houses.

OK, it is now time to listen to Carl Orff "Trionfo di Aphrodite" !

 

[DaveC]

It's kinda ironic that you say what's in bold above & this "somewhat like an omnipresent smell, you get used to it and the brain filters it out" from a post back - because it's the main point that Frank & I both have about rooms - within reason they become acclimatised to by the auditory processing system & become mostly immaterial. It's one of the ways our auditory perception works - we expect to hear the auditory space from which the sound is emanating & we analyse the soundfield, splitting out this auditory space effects from the actual sound. Once this remains consistent our auditory processing accommodates to it & it is largely unimportant to "believability"

However, both Frank *& I & others find that the variability in the electronic processing of the sound doesn't lead to this accomodation by the brain & auditory perception focus is drawn to it thus disturbing the "believability of the playback illusion"

This was/is the main point made at the start of this thread - remember this refers to ordinary rooms with ordinary speakers. Can both be improved? Yes but is this really affecting to any large extent "believability" when you, Frank, I & others all agree that the brain filters out stuff that it expects to hear - it's the anomalous stuff that causes the retreat from accepting the illusion.

Despite Frank coming in for much criticism, I feel he has made many good points - points on which I mostly agree - people seem too willing to exaggerate & distort some of what he says & build their strawman arguments around this

We've already discussed this too and I partially agree, and I've been very clear I partially agree with Frank too. But otoh in a lot of things he's claiming are simply impossible and horribly misguided.

The part I don't agree with is lumping all room effects into one basket. Some room effects are almost completely inaudible and/or benign and others are not and do a lot of damage. The key is understanding what matters and what does not!

For example, placing the listening position near the rear wall is bad. It will cause the soundstage to collapse into a flat 2-dimensional presentation because of the short reflections off the back wall. However, move the listening position further from the back wall and there will come a point where the reflections are no longer an issue.

 

[jkeny]

We've already discussed this too and I partially agree, and I've been very clear I partially agree with Frank too. But otoh in a lot of things he's claiming are simply impossible and horribly misguided.

The part I don't agree with is lumping all room effects into one basket. Some room effects are almost completely inaudible and/or benign and others are not and do a lot of damage. The key is understanding what matters and what does not!

For example, placing the listening position near the rear wall is bad. It will cause the soundstage to collapse into a flat 2-dimensional presentation because of the short reflections off the back wall. However, move the listening position further from the back wall and there will come a point where the reflections are no longer an issue.

Again, I have the feeling that this is a problem for certain speakers & not others? That's why I started the other thread about what makes a "great" room as it had become a mantra that was constantly being used on this thread. It has become apparent to me that what's being talked about is not a "great" room at all - what's being talked about is adjusting speaker/room interaction. So maybe the rear wall listening position isn't a bad spot for certain speakers - I've seen quotes about DML speakers that their reflection energy is far different to normal speakers

But again, I would say that if a room displays a consistent benign "quality" it can generally be listened through & it doesn't affect the "beliavability" of the presentation.

One last point - remember that we listen to live sounds in all sorts of acoustic environments & within reason, we don't have issues about "believability", we deal with & incorporate the various acoustic spaces into our auditory processing analysis & yes all this is explainable through Auditory Scene Analysis.

The problem that people seem to have with Franks argument (& by association, with mine) is that we may seem to be dismissing the idea that a different room may well provide a different (better?) presentation? As far as I'm concerned he's not saying this & neither am I - we are talking about "believability" which is a different thing to many of the other things being spoken of in this thread -presence, etc.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

We've already had this discussion. I know you don't believe it, but it is true imo. Otherwise manufacturers wouldn't go to great lengths to mitigate the issue. And I believe it IS mitigated to the point it's barely audible, but it is audible in every horn speaker that exists, and some of my horn-speaker designer friends feel exactly the same way about the issue.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, it's one of those things the brain deals with easily, so it's only noticeable in direct comparisons. Ron also noticed this recently...

I am with you on the horn coloration. Don't get me wrong, horns can and are hugely enjoyable and some people can filter out the colour, whilst others simply can't. I could not live with horns myself even though I can appreciate their immense virtues.

 

[DaveC]

Again, I have the feeling that this is a problem for certain speakers & not others? That's why I started the other thread about what makes a "great" room as it had become a mantra that was constantly being used on this thread. It has become apparent to me that what's being talked about is not a "great" room at all - what's being talked about is adjusting speaker/room interaction. So maybe the rear wall listening position isn't a bad spot for certain speakers - I've seen quotes about DML speakers that their reflection energy is far different to normal speakers

But again, I would say that if a room displays a consistent benign "quality" it can generally be listened through & it doesn't affect the "beliavability" of the presentation.

One last point - remember that we listen to live sounds in all sorts of acoustic environments & within reason, we don't have issues about "believability", we deal with & incorporate the various acoustic spaces into our auditory processing analysis & yes all this is explainable through Auditory Scene Analysis.

The problem that people seem to have with Franks argument (& by association, with mine) is that we may seem to be dismissing the idea that a different room may well provide a different (better?) presentation? As far as I'm concerned he's not saying this & neither am I - we are talking about "believability" which is a different thing to many of the other things being spoken of in this thread -presence, etc.

But there's a massive difference between live music and it's reproduction... the reflections and ambiance of a live performance is part of that performance and it's our goal to reproduce this without the listening room contributing it's own spatial information, which is entirely capable of obliterating the spatial information in the recording even if the electronics and speakers are capable of reproducing it.

So yes, the room CAN kill the believability of a system by mangling fine detail. Certain kinds of reflections do this while others do not. As I said, understanding the difference is key.

 

[ddk]

After my initial comments I dropped out of this thread to see how it develops, unfortunately it looks like it hasn't gone that far perhaps because the concept of believable illusion of reality in your & Frank's terms remains illusive to most. Simplicity isn't the first thing that comes to mind in high end audio, in fact the opposite seems to be true. Frank says he hit on it right at the start in my case, I had it but didn't recognize it and went off the other way for over a decade chasing my proverbial audiophile tail. The two are completely different approaches and not complementary in my opinion. Setting aside equipment and setup for the moment the main contested subject seems to be the role of the room in the final equation. I doubt you're arguing that there aren't better and worse rooms out there but the point here is since the room is part of one's natural environment it will not negatively affect the illusion of reality. My personal approach is the same if one is comfortable with the size of space and its acoustics during normal conversation then it won't hinder believability and naturalness of the reproduced sound, in this case proper setup of the system which includes the power plant is far more crucial than the room to achieve the illusion of reality. My aim isn't perfect frequency response, nor is it imaging, staging, or other audiophile paraphernalia for its own sake but a natural believable experience without the imposition of a designer room or impressive system. Easier said than done, specially if you've never heard such setup. I also agree that if you know what you're doing the natural sound can be achieved with very modest investment in equipment as well as in a money no object setup.

david

It's kinda ironic that you say what's in bold above & this "somewhat like an omnipresent smell, you get used to it and the brain filters it out" from a post back - because it's the main point that Frank & I both have about rooms - within reason they become acclimatised to by the auditory processing system & become mostly immaterial. It's one of the ways our auditory perception works - we expect to hear the auditory space from which the sound is emanating & we analyse the soundfield, splitting out this auditory space effects from the actual sound. Once this remains consistent our auditory processing accommodates to it & it is largely unimportant to "believability"

However, both Frank *& I & others find that the variability in the electronic processing of the sound doesn't lead to this accomodation by the brain & auditory perception focus is drawn to it thus disturbing the "believability of the playback illusion"

This was/is the main point made at the start of this thread - remember this refers to ordinary rooms with ordinary speakers. Can both be improved? Yes but is this really affecting to any large extent "believability" when you, Frank, I & others all agree that the brain filters out stuff that it expects to hear - it's the anomalous stuff that causes the retreat from accepting the illusion.

Despite Frank coming in for much criticism, I feel he has made many good points - points on which I mostly agree - people seem too willing to exaggerate & distort some of what he says & build their strawman arguments around this

 

[Audiophile Bill]

But there's a massive difference between live music and it's reproduction... the reflections and ambiance of a live performance is part of that performance and it's our goal to reproduce this without the listening room contributing it's own spatial information, which is entirely capable of obliterating the spatial information in the recording even if the electronics and speakers are capable of reproducing it.

So yes, the room CAN kill the believability of a system by mangling fine detail. Certain kinds of reflections do this while others do not. As I said, understanding the difference is key.

Absolutely agree, Dave. I was actually about to write the same post.

 

[jkeny]

But there's a massive difference between live music and it's reproduction... the reflections and ambiance of a live performance is part of that performance and it's our goal to reproduce this without the listening room contributing it's own spatial information, which is entirely capable of obliterating the spatial information in the recording even if the electronics and speakers are capable of reproducing it.

So yes, the room CAN kill the believability of a system by mangling fine detail. Certain kinds of reflections do this while others do not. As I said, understanding the difference is key.

I agree that there's a massive difference between live & recorded music but I would have two points to make:
- as far as our auditory perception is concerned, the soundwaves are processed in exactly the same way & background acoustic space is analysed & differentiated from the music itself or to put it another way, we accommodate to the acoustic space.
- a lot of the music we listen to (the vast majority) doesn;t have a naturally recorded acoustic space - it is a manufactured "acoustic space"
- You talk about the room "obliterating the spatial information" & "mangling fine detail" but these are abnormal rooms to me & would likely be of low intelligibility for speech & live music also

So yes a speaker/room combination (rather than just "room") can kill the "believability" but is it the most important element in the whole playback chain as far as "believability" is concerned? No, I don't believe so.

Can a speaker/room be changed to provide a "better" sound - yes, sure but is this increasing "believability of the illusion" more than say some changes to electronics can provide - my experience says, no - electronics win out in this battle as far as I'm concerned but I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong.

 

[jkeny]

After my initial comments I dropped out of this thread to see how it develops, unfortunately it looks like it hasn't gone that far perhaps because the concept of believable illusion of reality in your & Frank's terms remains illusive to most. Simplicity isn't the first thing that comes to mind in high end audio, in fact the opposite seems to be true. Frank says he hit on it right at the start in my case, I had it but didn't recognize it and went off the other way for over a decade chasing my proverbial audiophile tail. The two are completely different approaches and not complementary in my opinion. Setting aside equipment and setup for the moment the main contested subject seems to be the role of the room in the final equation. I doubt you're arguing that there aren't better and worse rooms out there but the point here is since the room is part of one's natural environment it will not negatively affect the illusion of reality. My personal approach is the same if one is comfortable with the size of space and its acoustics during normal conversation then it won't hinder believability and naturalness of the reproduced sound, in this case proper setup of the system which includes the power plant is far more crucial than the room to achieve the illusion of reality. My aim isn't perfect frequency response, nor is it imaging, staging, or other audiophile paraphernalia for its own sake but a natural believable experience without the imposition of a designer room or impressive system. Easier said than done, specially if you've never heard such setup. I also agree that if you know what you're doing the natural sound can be achieved with very modest investment in equipment as well as in a money no object setup.

david

Yes, David
I too had dropped out of the discussion but I saw Frank coming in for a lot of negative criticism & representing him as someone who had lost touch with reality, which seemed to miss the points he was making. So I decided to butt in again much as you have now done - to reiterate what the thread is about

Mind you the focus on rooms & speakers did push me to investigate this area a bit more & I believe it's room/speaker interaction that is meant, rather than "room". I had already found some info on DML speakers & their different radiation pattern & way of energising the room - which to me shows that "room" is a variable which depends on speakers.

You summarise it well, David, thanks

EDIT: BTW, I don't make any claims to "ultimate believability" for my part - IMO believability is a scale but comes in jumps & the jumps I've experienced have all come from dealing with the electronics side of the equation - speakers/rooms give me a different presentation but not a jump in believability. ASA gives me some explanations for this experience as it seems to do with Frank. also - I see "believability" as the auditory processing system not having to deal with too many confusing elements in the signal that it isn't expecting - in other words the interrelationship between the elements of the signal are what is expected (this expectation is what has been built up from our exposure to audio in the real world - this is how all our auditory processing systems work & what ASA research is about)