The goal is to get SQ good enough so that Room Correction is a meaningless concept - I find it bizarre the amount of effort people go to, playing with this; what most in the audio world don't understand is the power of the illusion that capable replay throws up to completely dominate your listening space - the latter then becomes a tiny fragment of what the ear/brain registers, and any fiddling with it plays only an extremely minor part of the whole. Spending money and effort improving the quality of the playback chain is a vastly better ROI for creating a realistic soundscape - because then the listening brain doesn't have to constantly struggle to filter out the giveaway anomalies in what is emerging from the speakers ...

Over and again I see comments, and reactions, which show me that many people are still a long, long way from understanding what they need to do to get competent SQ. Hardest to shift is the belief that expensive gear is the only way to reach nirvana, and that anything less makes it impossible to get there. And next is the wanting to think that items like noise interference are only a minor annoyance, and can be largely ignored. What seems to be completely missed is the fact that the designers and makers of expensive gear which does deliver capable sound have worked hard, very hard to eliminate the noise and other weaknesses - and that's what you're paying for, . In part. The magic is not the bling, and the other guff that comes with the component, but that the 'engineering' has been done where it actually counts.

But you don't have to pay the big money for get the same quality ... I'm sorry to tell you, the magic sauce ain't because you pay big bucks for the kit; it might get you over the hump - but no guarantees, .

Smart buying buying of the right, value for money, gear these days; and careful tweaking afterwards will provide nearly everything that the most expensive rig out there can do - the law of diminishing returns kicks in savagely with hifi these days; a bit silly to ignore that, IMO .

There's nothing new under the sun ...

Just came across some writings by a loudspeaker designer, Jeff Bagby, "A Theory On Loudspeaker Imaging" - which is his take on what makes, ahem, "loudspeakers disappear". Of course, every half decent setup can do this under certain circumstances, if listened to in exactly the right place, etc, etc - the performance of a setup in this regard is a continuum, and IME at the best levels it makes it completely impossible to locate a speaker, even if only inches directly in front of a driver - a blindfolded person would literally trip over a working speaker, because he wouldn't "hear it".

So why does this happen? I've stated my position, and so I now find what Jeff had to say; in 2001, mind you ...

Quote

Here is a personal experience to describe this:  Many years ago my wife and I were visiting a
high-end audio salon.  I was (foolishly) discussing the virtues of digital music and also my belief
that expensive turntables had nothing to offer over less expensive ones.  The salesman
chuckled and asked if I would be willing to take part in a little experiment, to which we said,
“sure”.  He proceeded to set up some music on a Rega turntable (which is actually a decent
table) and we listened for a while.  Then, through the same system, he played the same music
on a Linn Sondek with an Ittok arm (I don’t recall the cartridge, but believe it was a Linn as
well).  It only took a few seconds for both my wife and I to look at each other and exclaim the
difference we heard.  The sound was almost 3-dimensional over the Linn, it was virtually “flat”
sounding over the Rega.  I inquired as to how this could be, and the salesman explained that
the suspension on the Linn made it possible to pick up much lower level information that
contained this 3-D space.  We then listened to a CD of the same music.  It was even “flatter”
than on the Rega.  This is just one example.  Localization cues are very low level on a
recording, just as they are in life.  If information retrieval is cut off before reaching this level a
loss of imaging could result.

Yes. The realism of what you perceive vitally depends on the clarity of the low level information - if you largely fail to retrieve that, or blur it, the realism vanishes. By contrast, a completely convincing illusion can be thrown up by an optimum system, and will work at any desired SPLs.

So, it's been said before - the question is, why is there so much resistance to really coming to terms with this? Many reasons, and a lot would be to do with the "I've spent a lot of money on my rig, and what it delivers, at the moment, must be the best that one can get!!" factor ... unfortunately, that's not gonna cut it, as an explanation, .

To go the next step, one must explore what's needed to improve the clarity of that low level information - and, this currently is not the easiest journey. Solutions do exist - but it requires a decision to follow a course of action to make it happen ... which may entail changing one's way of thinking, .

Poor bloke still doesn't have enough popcorn, you realise ...?

Might hark back to the first post in this blog, at the top ... the recording, there, Five Live Yardbirds, is why a normal standard audio setup is never going to be good enough for me - if someone claimed that they had an accurate rig, and they wanted me to hear it, this CD is one of those that I would use to test this claim - I would wind the volume right up, and see what it delivers ... .

Fair enough to have a setup that makes the recordings that you want to hear sound good - however, that's a limitation that I'm not interested in .

A bit of posting about multi-channel at the moment, in AS ... IME such add-ons are merely a workaround for less than capable playback; the latter can't produce an intense, immersive listening experience just using two channels, so a solution is to add some processing to 'enhance' the experience - I remember the fuss about the Yamaha box back in the 1980s(?).

For me, unless the original recording very, very specifically had extra channel information recorded, and that forms part of what was intended to be a presented sound picture, then MC is pointless. I have never heard anything MC that even slightly interests me - far more is gained by improving the integrity of the two channel reproduction chain.

This caught my eye,

Quote

In the midrange, something was missing.  We felt that it might also have to do with placement.

... from

Ummm, no. If the midrange sounds wrong, then the system has a problem. Fiddling with positioning is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic - you're not dealing with the true problem; and any workaround is merely pushing the problem out of sight, for the moment ... it is almost guaranteed to always be lurking, ready to re-emerge at the slightest provocation ...

What is encouraging about the future of audio, is that some of the companies at the leading edge of product refinement have a better understanding of what's possible - an example, which was pointed out also in a post on AS some time ago, gives a sense of where things are heading, with regard to thinking on the importance of recording quality, and listening room setup,

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/msb-technology-about-us-and-new-developments.33341/

A response to this would be considered OT; hence here.

"Audio people" is just an alternative to "audiophiles", "audio enthusiasts", etc.

Which laws of physics are destroyed by the concept that if a room is not ideal, then your listening experiences won't be worth anything?

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which laws of physics are destroyed by the concept that if a room is not ideal, then your listening experiences won't be worth anything?

None.

But the laws of physics do dictate that the room will matter, in that the room will have an effect on the sound.

Anyway, I can measure the impact the room has on the sound of my system. These measurements correlate with my own subjective experience listening to my system. In part, this correlation relates to the enjoyment of my listening experience. This is a very important aspect for me.

It may not be for you, which is fair enough, but remember - I am an audio person, you are not. 

Yes, people listen in different ways - this was made clear several times over the years in the company of, ahem, audiophiles; as side by side we listened to some system. To me, they were reacting to technical aspects of the sound, rather than the gestalt of what they were hearing - and that's fine, if that's what gives them the kick.

I'll bring up a variation of a thought experiment that I've mentioned several times: pick a favourite concert hall that you visit, for real, and consider the best seat for a performance. Then replace that seat with your listening chair, and then have carpenters come in, and build a perfect replica of your listening room, within the concert hall, that is in correct alignment to your seat - the big difference is, that the copied room shell only stretches in front of you, top, sides and bottom, to an imaginary vertical plane through where your speakers now are - you have an empty hole beyond the nominal speaker locations, looking out into the performance space.

Now, how important would the details of the room shell to the sides and behind you be to your listening pleasure; for a live performance in that situation?

Your above thought experiment does not make much sense to me, but the room shaped box you mention would change the acoustics at the listening seat, but not in quite the same way as actually having music producing speakers inside the box.

Let's try a different one.

In another thread we discussed how on some Led Zep albums John Bonhams's drums were recorded in the stairwell at Headley Grange workhouse.

So lets imagine:

a) We listen to John Bonham's drumming in stairwell at Headley Grange.

b) We record John Bonham's drumming in an anechoic chamber, and then play this back on an accurate audio system in the stairwell at Headley Grange.

c) We record John Bonham's drumming in stairwell at Headley Grange, then play then play this back on an accurate audio system in the stairwell at Headley Grange.

d) We record John Bonham's drumming in stairwell at Headley Grange, then play then play this back on an accurate audio system in a fully acoustically treated room.

From b to d, which would sound most like a?

Or perhaps the question should be...

From b to d, which would sound most like a, for a, ahem, audiophile. 

10 hours ago, Confused said:

Your above thought experiment does not make much sense to me, but the room shaped box you mention would change the acoustics at the listening seat, but not in quite the same way as actually having music producing speakers inside the box.

Ignoring whether it makes sense, how much do you believe it would detract from the live performance happening in front of you? Unlike some thought experiments, this, given enough madness and money , could actually be done - so real results could be derived.

Why it makes sense, is because competent replay creates just such an illusion ...

10 hours ago, Confused said:

 

 

In another thread we discussed how on some Led Zep albums John Bonhams's drums were recorded in the stairwell at Headley Grange workhouse.

That video was good to see - it explains how what one hears was actually created - yes, if one focuses on the drums while listening, what you "see" is what it would have been like standing a bit behind the microphone(s) picking up the drums - the microphone...speaker link is what allows you to be "at that place".

10 hours ago, Confused said:

So lets imagine:

 

a) We listen to John Bonham's drumming in stairwell at Headley Grange.

b) We record John Bonham's drumming in an anechoic chamber, and then play this back on an accurate audio system in the stairwell at Headley Grange.

c) We record John Bonham's drumming in stairwell at Headley Grange, then play then play this back on an accurate audio system in the stairwell at Headley Grange.

d) We record John Bonham's drumming in stairwell at Headley Grange, then play then play this back on an accurate audio system in a fully acoustically treated room.

 

From b to d, which would sound most like a?

 

Or perhaps the question should be...

 

From b to d, which would sound most like a, for a, ahem, audiophile. 

 

Would be d) - the part that's unnecessary is the "fully acoustically treated" bit; yes, it would make it technically more accurate, but it's only of marginal value - the acoustic of the recording space, especially there, is so powerful it completely overrides any tiny echo addition in a normal room. IOW, when you listen you always hear two acoustics - that encoded in the recording, and that of the listening space. Lower than optimal playback makes it difficult for the listening brain to separate the two, the 'boundaries' are blurred - competent replay makes it easy for the mind to perceive the musical event space as being independent.

Deleted ...

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Ignoring whether it makes sense, how much do you believe it would detract from the live performance happening in front of you? Unlike some thought experiments, this, given enough madness and money , could actually be done - so real results could be derived.

 

Why it makes sense, is because competent replay creates just such an illusion ...

This is missing the point. With the above the instruments producing the sound are not within the room / box you envisage.

For speakers in a room, they are "in the box", by definition. I simply cannot see the point of what you are describing here. For what it is worth, if you did try this for real, the effect would be to lose some of the ambient sound in the concert hall, as sound would be reflecting on the side of the box, and not directly reaching your ears.

Here is a very simple experiment to try at home. The room shaped box with one open end is pretty much a garage, with the garage door open. So get a mobile audio device, a radio, boom box or whatever. Place it a few feet in front of the garage outside, then listen to how it sounds from the back of the garage. Then move it into the garage, and observe if the sound changes. You could even try this with your Edifiers and the extra long power lead that you have. (assuming you have a garage of course!) You could even try it with a Aussie V8 muscle car, does it sound different in the garage versus just outside?

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Would be d)

Why not b) ?

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

the acoustic of the recording space, especially there, is so powerful it completely overrides any tiny echo addition in a normal room.

It is not a "tiny echo". A very large percentage of what you hear is reflected sound. (40% or so) In terms of the effect of nulls and reinforcement, this can easily be measured, and in many rooms is significant +/- 15dB(A) would not be unusual. Plus these kinds of numbers are independent of how "optimal" or otherwise the quality of playback is, they can be calculated, measured, and have nothing to do with sound quality.

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

IOW, when you listen you always hear two acoustics - that encoded in the recording, and that of the listening space.

On this we finally agree. So what exactly is wrong with trying to eliminate the acoustic of the listening space, so you just hear the acoustic on the recording?

9 hours ago, Confused said:

This is missing the point. With the above the instruments producing the sound are not within the room / box you envisage.

For speakers in a room, they are "in the box", by definition. I simply cannot see the point of what you are describing here. For what it is worth, if you did try this for real, the effect would be to lose some of the ambient sound in the concert hall, as sound would be reflecting on the side of the box, and not directly reaching your ears.

As do you, . That the speakers producing the sound are in the box, your room, is objectively true; but subjectively that's not what you perceive. The illusion can be at the level that matches the the box inside the concert hall thought experiment - yes, you would lose some of the ambient sound because the box blocks the direct echos. It is not meant to be a perfect analogy, but to reinforce what high quality reproduction can be like to experience.

9 hours ago, Confused said:

Here is a very simple experiment to try at home. The room shaped box with one open end is pretty much a garage, with the garage door open. So get a mobile audio device, a radio, boom box or whatever. Place it a few feet in front of the garage outside, then listen to how it sounds from the back of the garage. Then move it into the garage, and observe if the sound changes. You could even try this with your Edifiers and the extra long power lead that you have. (assuming you have a garage of course!) You could even try it with a Aussie V8 muscle car, does it sound different in the garage versus just outside?

You're changing the experiment ... it's all about you being inside the box; not, the source of the sounds. That the speakers are in fact inside the room doesn't matter, because the illusion is, that the sound that they're producing has nothing to do with the box you're in!

9 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Why not b) ?

Yes, b) would also work ... but I don't think Bonham would have been happy playing in such a space - d) is the one that most closely matches what a good system does.

9 hours ago, Confused said:

 

 

It is not a "tiny echo". A very large percentage of what you hear is reflected sound. (40% or so) In terms of the effect of nulls and reinforcement, this can easily be measured, and in many rooms is significant +/- 15dB(A) would not be unusual. Plus these kinds of numbers are independent of how "optimal" or otherwise the quality of playback is, they can be calculated, measured, and have nothing to do with sound quality.

Yes, the physics say this - but at this point everyone leaves out the ability for the brain to do massive signal processing to compensate for all the craziness of real world nulls and peaks. Consider being in a room with a live piano playing the same simple riff, over and over again; if you went around the room with a microphone, registering the spectrum as you went, it would be a mad dance of the FR going all over the place - just looking at the figures, you would swear he's playing different bits of music all the time. Yet to your listening ears, it's the same piano, playing the same piece over and over again - this is the power of the mind to discard the huge anomalies in actual sound waves impinging on the body - and how we in fact deal with sound every second in our normal lives.

Competent SQ allows the same mental mechanism to switch on - the replay is 'real', and our mind compensates as necessary.

9 hours ago, Confused said:

 

On this we finally agree. So what exactly is wrong with trying to eliminate the acoustic of the listening space, so you just hear the acoustic on the recording?

Umm, I've been in such "listening spaces". In Australia, in homes of enthusiasts. And they're 'orrible ... yuck, to the level 11 .

They're a workaround, to compensate for the weakness of the rig to retrieve the acoustic cues in the recording - a crutch, because the auditory legs of the playback are not strong enough, to support the weight of the recorded musical event.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

As do you, . That the speakers producing the sound are in the box, your room, is objectively true; but subjectively that's not what you perceive. The illusion can be at the level that matches the the box inside the concert hall thought experiment - yes, you would lose some of the ambient sound because the box blocks the direct echos. It is not meant to be a perfect analogy, but to reinforce what high quality reproduction can be like to experience.

Agreed, I was missing the point here. I can see what you are saying now, this is a description of how a system might subjectively sound. Which is fine.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

You're changing the experiment ... it's all about you being inside the box; not, the source of the sounds. That the speakers are in fact inside the room doesn't matter, because the illusion is, that the sound that they're producing has nothing to do with the box you're in!

Yes indeed, I am changing the experiment. Some plus points for my proposed experiment. It is very easy to perform, at zero cost. It is also relevant to topic being discussed here. I might even try it myself at the weekend, see if I observe or learn anything interesting.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, the physics say this - but at this point everyone leaves out the ability for the brain to do massive signal processing to compensate for all the craziness of real world nulls and peaks. Consider being in a room with a live piano playing the same simple riff, over and over again; if you went around the room with a microphone, registering the spectrum as you went, it would be a mad dance of the FR going all over the place - just looking at the figures, you would swear he's playing different bits of music all the time. Yet to your listening ears, it's the same piano, playing the same piece over and over again - this is the power of the mind to discard the huge anomalies in actual sound waves impinging on the body - and how we in fact deal with sound every second in our normal lives.

 

Competent SQ allows the same mental mechanism to switch on - the replay is 'real', and our mind compensates as necessary.

The above is an interesting explanation. Reading the above I can now understand our different views on this topic.

The thing is, I have spent a lot of my time in venues with live instruments (acoustic) playing or setting up for a performance. I have noticed very clear differences in how the sound of a specific instrument changes as I move around the room, or indeed if the instrument moves on the stage area. My ear brain combination hears this kind of thing very clearly, any compensation in play is very much limited. I hear things as the laws of physics would dictate they should be heard. My mind does not discard the huge anomalies in actual sound waves, rather I hear this.

So for me this is not an effect triggered by "competent SQ", and never could be if real instruments do not trigger this. You cannot get better than real.

So maybe "competent SQ" does trigger something for you that makes the room irrelevant, or less relevant at least. This is fair enough, but to be clear it will never work for me for the reasons stated above.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Umm, I've been in such "listening spaces". In Australia, in homes of enthusiasts. And they're 'orrible ... yuck, to the level 11 .

 

They're a workaround, to compensate for the weakness of the rig to retrieve the acoustic cues in the recording - a crutch, because the auditory legs of the playback are not strong enough, to support the weight of the recorded musical event.

There is an error of logic here in terms of causality. The above seems to be stating that a system in an acoustically treated room is by definition a poor system as the room is a workaround.

Yes, you could have a poor system in a properly acoustically treated room, and it will still sound like a poor system.

But what would a 100% fully sorted system to your satisfaction sound like in an acoustically treated room?

9 hours ago, Confused said:

The above is an interesting explanation. Reading the above I can now understand our different views on this topic.

 

The thing is, I have spent a lot of my time in venues with live instruments (acoustic) playing or setting up for a performance. I have noticed very clear differences in how the sound of a specific instrument changes as I move around the room, or indeed if the instrument moves on the stage area. My ear brain combination hears this kind of thing very clearly, any compensation in play is very much limited. I hear things as the laws of physics would dictate they should be heard. My mind does not discard the huge anomalies in actual sound waves, rather I hear this.

Yes, this is the "different people listen in different ways" scenario - you have had lots of experience actually adjusting for real situations, with live instruments; so your hearing is very sensitive to such factors.

9 hours ago, Confused said:

So for me this is not an effect triggered by "competent SQ", and never could be if real instruments do not trigger this. You cannot get better than real.

What gets triggered by competent SQ, is that the illusion of realness is switched on. For me, anything lower than that standard just sounds like a hifi system squawking away - tolerable as a means of hearing the contents of a recording, but ultimately no more satisfying than a kitchen radio chattering. This situation is made far worse when what you're listening is supposed to be, "really good!" .

9 hours ago, Confused said:

 

There is an error of logic here in terms of causality. The above seems to be stating that a system in an acoustically treated room is by definition a poor system as the room is a workaround.

Nope. A competent setup in an acoustically treated room will be more accurate, technically, in the way you would personally more appreciate. But for me it would have little benefit, because it does nothing to enhance the illusion. To appreciate how powerful this 'mirage' can be, you can lean over a speaker, so that your head is now just behind the back of, say, the left speaker - and you still 'see' the performance in front of you! A true mono recording is the best for experiencing this effect - this is what I got over 3 decades ago; and of course all normal playback, still, is well short of such ...

The acoustics of a heavily treated room disturb me - the uncomfortableness of the echoing not being normal is just unpleasant.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

The acoustics of a heavily treated room disturb me - the uncomfortableness of the echoing not being normal is just unpleasant.

I have read that being in an anechoic chamber can be quite disturbing. That said, it is something I would personally very much like to experience, I think it would be absolutely fascinating.

I have never known someone being disturbed by an acoustically treated room though? Is the lack of echoing not similar to being somewhere that does not echo much anyway, such as my back garden for example? I mean, in nature we do not tend to have walls and ceilings, so less echo than a typical room.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

To appreciate how powerful this 'mirage' can be, you can lean over a speaker, so that your head is now just behind the back of, say, the left speaker - and you still 'see' the performance in front of you!

I'll try this with my Blades. I'll need to hang myself from the ceiling though as they are over 5 feet tall. Something for the weekend.

9 hours ago, Confused said:

 

I'll try this with my Blades. I'll need to hang myself from the ceiling though as they are over 5 feet tall. Something for the weekend.

To save doing extreme gymnastics, try a variation: stand in a normal position, and then move over in a direct line to that left speaker, to the inside edge of the cabinet. And then move forward so your head passes close by the side of the speaker, so that you would be able to see the cable connections on the back.

A fully invisible scenario would mean that at no time doing this, that the illusion of the performance happening "in front of you", fail - this is something that amazed me, the first time I experienced it.

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

To save doing extreme gymnastics, try a variation: stand in a normal position, and then move over in a direct line to that left speaker, to the inside edge of the cabinet. And then move forward so your head passes close by the side of the speaker, so that you would be able to see the cable connections on the back.

 

A fully invisible scenario would mean that at no time doing this, that the illusion of the performance happening "in front of you", fail - this is something that amazed me, the first time I experienced it.

This is slightly puzzling and not clear to me.

Would it be possible to produce a simple sketch, showing the position and orientation of the head relative to speakers, and indicate where the center of the sound stage (if that is what you are referring to by "in front of you"?) should appear?

59 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

This is slightly puzzling and not clear to me.

 

Would it be possible to produce a simple sketch, showing the position and orientation of the head relative to speakers, and indicate where the center of the sound stage (if that is what you are referring to by "in front of you"?) should appear?

The position of one's head is not really important; this was to give just one unusual place where the illusion occurs - to put it another way, you walk over to check the connections on the back of the speaker, on the in between side, without actually putting your head down.

The sound stage appears in front of you, in the same way as, say, the moon is always in the same position relative to yourself as you go along in a car at night; it "follows you". You go right, it goes right, etc. So, in respect to that position beside the speaker, the centre of the sound stage is now in line with the inside edge of the left speaker - spooky, eh ... ?

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

The position of one's head is not really important; this was to give just one unusual place where the illusion occurs - to put it another way, you walk over to check the connections on the back of the speaker, on the in between side, without actually putting your head down.

 

The sound stage appears in front of you, in the same way as, say, the moon is always in the same position relative to yourself as you go along in a car at night; it "follows you". You go right, it goes right, etc. So, in respect to that position beside the speaker, the centre of the sound stage is now in line with the inside edge of the left speaker - spooky, eh ... ?

How does this relate to the "dive test"?:

When you put on a pure mono recording, and you stand in the centre, and then move slowly to one side, left or right - how far can you go before the sound dives into the nearer speaker?

9 hours ago, Confused said:

How does this relate to the "dive test"?:

 

When you put on a pure mono recording, and you stand in the centre, and then move slowly to one side, left or right - how far can you go before the sound dives into the nearer speaker?

 

It's the same thing. Different way of expressing the concept that the sound never dives into the speaker, no matter how far you push it ... as said many times, this just happened one day out of the blue, that very long time ago. I was flabbergasted of course - "What the hell is going on!!!". It means that the sound stage is so rock solid that it becomes impossible to break the illusion, no matter where you listen from.

My current active speakers haven't really broken through this barrier yet - when I get very close, I'm still able to pinpoint the drivers. But they do so well otherwise I'm not so fussed about this aspect, at the moment.

Since you mention this, how does your setup fare in this regard?