What Are the Best Sounding Speakers UNDER $2,500 that You've Ever Heard.?

[semente]

Keeping to something somewhat recent, and something I have heard, I would suggest the recently discontinued Revel Concerta F12 speakers.

 

I have heard Vandy 2C variants. Terrific speakers for the price. Have heard and owned various Maggies which also can be excellent speakers for the price. The F12 is better than those. And for $1500 when discontinued last year. Revel has replaced those with the F35, which assuming is an improvement, go for $1500 or the F36 which goes for $2K/pair. Obviously there are more speakers than any one person has heard in or near the $2500/pair price range. These I suggest are seriously good items in my experience. Revel/JBL/Infinity/Harman are onto something good with their design methodology. If this is your market, you should audition these before making a decision.

 

I own Soundlabs, and have experience of several Wilsons and other more expensive speakers. So this isn't a suggestion without experience of some more expensive gear. I might have a rep of thinking most modern gear sounds similar, but that isn't my opinion of speakers. Speakers is where the money should go and are what will limit your listening pleasure and experience. Modern quality speakers is where the real tangible improvements have accrued.

 

I agree with your recommendation of the F12s.

The technical performance as measured by Soundstage is vey good and I was quite impressed by the Ultima 2 Studios.

I would add PSB to the Harman group as a manufacturer who's products should be shortlisted.

 

R

[semente]

Very nice speaker, especially if you are looking to let go of the large screen Magnepans.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31110[/ATTACH]

 

SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com - SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com

The measurements look fine except for the huge baffle step at around 1 kHz.

 

 

I wouldn't be able to live with it.

 

P. S. In fact the whole of the "presence" region in recessed in a very wide plateau which should give the speaker quite a bit of character.

[semente]

Guess you'd better not get a pair then eh?

 

PS. What would that recess give as far as sound to you?

PPS. Obviously you've heard these....

 

By the way, love those Stirings. Wish they were $2500!

 

They were actually $2200 ex-demo.

[semente]

Or the ACTIVE ones: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M65KZ5Q

I wonder if they have solved the exaggerated tweeter output problem with the active version...

Have you seen any measurements?

The remaining measurements are first class (though I'd still not use them without a pair of subs).

 

R

[semente]

I think of most speaker manufacturers as cabinet makers, as the components are very often sourced elsewhere. There seems to be a little, some, but little real research happening with speakers these days. It seems like a mature industry to me especially compared to the digital audio side.

And yet many speakers don't perform as well as they could (should?)...

Makes you wonder.

 

R

[semente]

Several people have recommended the Vandersteen 2Ce IIs but judging from Sphile's measurements these speakers are probably quite bright and forward sounding.

 

 

I wouldn't bother with a listen and perhaps try the 3s instead.

 

R

[semente]

Are you serious? This is the problem with many of you who only use measurements to 'listen' to audio. They are anything but that in the real world. Go listen for once and then you could come to the boards with real thoughts on how they SOUND and not measure. The audio community has had plenty of components over time that may not measure perfectly, but are musical and sound great. These speakers don't smear or distort the way so many others do in their price range. There is a reason these have been considered a best buy in their price ranges since the 80's in all their forms and updates. Since Vandersteen isn't a strong marketer, there is probably a reason so many reviewers and manufacturer's in the industry who own and love Vandersteen's for their own personal use.

 

Not saying that measurements aren't important, but they don't always tell the full story. Just saying.

 

I am not saying that they will not "sound great" for many people (surely not me) but I have learnt from experience how to correlate some measurements with the actual sound, by measuring the speakers I have own, some DIY experiments I did and looking at measurements of speakers I have listened to.The frequency response plot, even a weird one consisting of averaging several very wide averagely spaced measurements such as this one, tells us about the tonal balance of the speakers, the accuracy with which it reproduces "colours".

 

In this case the upper midrange and lower treble are shelved some 5dB above the remaining spectrum denoting poor midrange driver integration.

 

R

[semente]

That figure is JA's in-room response and I suspect it is an artifact of interactions in his room and how he measures over a "listening window" rather than where his ears are. This puts 1st order speakers at a disadvantage in this test. Also, this graph is quite different than his quasi-anechoic measurement!

 

May I kindly suggest it is well worth bothering with a listen rather than rely on JA's dubious in-room measurement? Many folks have suggested Maggies on this thread. Can you imagine how *those* would look using JA's measurements!

 

Planar speakers, especially large ones, are difficult do measure.

But let's not change the subject; we are not talking about Maggies.

 

But since you are dismissing the significance of JA's in-room measurement here's another plot, this time a gated near field measurement which is quasi anechoic above 350Hz:

 

 

R

[semente]

Well the spectral decay plot looks similar in overall trend.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31181[/ATTACH]

 

The Maggie 1.6 speakers look like this:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31182[/ATTACH]

 

The spectral decay like so. Plenty of hashy upper midrange there. Almost as bad as something like the electrostatic panels I listen to.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31183[/ATTACH]

 

I think read somewhere that the hash in panel speaker measurements results from the near field mic picking up reflections from the panels...

 

For such speakers I would rather look at a listening spot measurement.

 

 

 

As for Stereophile measurements in general, one should note that the frequency response is not made on-axis but consists of averaging several very wide spaced measurements and produces an artefact in the bass, namely a ~6dB bump at ~100Hz.

 

I believe that the waterfall plot shows the on-axis response.

 

 

This is why I prefer Soundstage's measurements which are made in Canada's NRC anechoic chamber.

 

R

[semente]

Perhaps, but I've never heard a pair of Vandersteens I didn't find appealing and musical. One of the great buys in audio, along with Maggies and the lower-priced Focal lines.

 

Unfortunately those comments are only meaningful to you; people liking the sound of speakers or enjoying music reproduced through them doesn't make them universally appealing or more importantly accurate transducers.

People's tastes vary wildly and many audiophiles don't listen to classical music and as such accuracy is often not a requirement.

 

R

[semente]

Hi Ricardo -

 

Two speculations from me of possible interest regarding the Vandersteen measurements:

 

- The extremely comprehensive setup guides in the Vandersteen speaker manuals (well worth reading for setting up *most* speakers, not just Vandys) strongly suggest using very little if any toe-in. I don't know whether JA's measurements were done on-axis, or if off-axis by how much; that's a possible explanation for a difference between measurement and listening experience.

 

- Regarding integration of the midrange, Vandersteen's avowed goal was to maintain correct phase and time response, so first-order crossovers are used. (See, e.g., SoundStage! Interviews Richard Vandersteen of Vandersteen Audio Part One (08/1998).) Use of a first-order crossover in order to serve Vandersteen's design priorities (which I feel as an owner pay off handsomely in terms of imaging and localization of instruments and vocals) may be in part responsible for that aspect of the response measurement.

 

Hi Jud,

 

Regarding your first hypothesis, unfortunately JA didn't publish the horizontal response plot but the one he made for the previous version seems to point in the opposite direction, namely that there is little off-axis attenuation of the offending frequency band:

 

 

 

 

As for correct phase and time response, there are several aspects of speaker design that influence performance but not all aspects affect performance with the same magnitude.

 

Many designers, such as Siegfried Linkwitz, dismiss the audibility of phase and time alignment:

 

Sound reproduction is about creating an auditory illusion.

When the recorded sound is of real instruments or voices there is a familiar, live reference in our auditory memory.

The illusion of hearing a realistic reproduction is destroyed by distortion that is added anywhere in the signal chain from microphone to loudspeaker, but the speaker is by far the biggest culprit.

Every designer focuses on the on-axis frequency response as if it were the all determining distortion parameter.

Sometimes great attention is paid to the phase response in an attempt to preserve waveform fidelity, which at best can only be achieved for a single listening point in space.

Ignored usually, though of much greater importance, is resonance in drivers and cabinets and the slow release of stored energy that goes with it.

Furthermore, the uniformity and flatness of the off-axis frequency response which we hear via room reverberation and reflections is rarely a design goal.

You can check the naturalness of the timbre by listening from another room.

Does it sound like a loudspeaker is playing?

The imbalance in the speaker's power response between low and high frequencies destroys the illusion

 

(...)

 

Now, a first-order crossover can be made phase-perfect at one point in space, but I feel quite strongly that you cannot just look at a speaker's performance at one single point in space.

The off-axis response is also very important to a speaker's overall performance in a real room, because the radiation in these other directions will add, through reflected and reverberant interactions, to what you hear.

Typically, we don't listen to speakers outdoors or in anechoic chambers.

 

And, just as he mentioned, the midrange cone resonances do seem creep up in Vandersteen's designs:

 

Vandersteen 2Ce Signature II

 

 

Vandersteen Model Seven

 

One could say that driver resonance coloration is not an issue for many audiophiles just as correct phase and time response might not be to other audiophiles.

I guess we all have our expectations, requirements and taste but the one thing about measurements is that they provide information on a particular aspect of loudspeaker performance with respect to accuracy, regardless of taste.

 

 

 

There's no way around it, speakers have to be listened to.

And ultimately most people will end up buying the ones that sound better to them.

 

R

SaveSave

Save

Save

[semente]

Hi Ricardo -

 

 

The Vandersteen speakers I've owned definitely had/have a defined "sweet spot," which is fortunately not a problem for me, since I've set up the speakers and room so I sit in it.

 

 

Have you heard any of the Vandersteens? For some reason I was under the impression you had.

 

I listened to the 2Cs if I remember correctly (could have been the 1Bs) but it was many years ago.

I took a 10year break from audiophilia in the early 90s...

My knowledge and expectations have changed a lot.

 

R

[semente]

More Vandersteen 2 measurements

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31230[/ATTACH]

This is the in-room response of the Vandersteen 2C from a 1986 review. That's very near ideal even for a $$$ speaker. This is also JA's room . . . in Santa Fe rather than NY. But, it's always possible that RV made better speakers 30 years ago!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31231[/ATTACH]

This one is from the 2Ce review in 2000 and comes from RV as he took exception to how JA measured his product. This is missing the nearfield from the woofer but see esldude's post above.

 

If you're shopping at this price point (or even up to $5K) and have space for a largish floorstander (and can live with it's monolith appearance), the Vandy 2 Sig IIs deserve an audition. I have no regrets and am still happy 8 years in. I'd like to upgrade to the Treos but might simply buy current production Sig IIs - RV has made several changes since they were introduced including replacing the midrange with the one he used to put in the Model 5.

 

I will not exclude the possibility of a problem with the 2Ce Sig IIs but considering that JA has been using the same setup and methodology for a few decades that possibility should be quite remote.

 

Here are the tweeter axis listening window frequency response plots of the 2Ce, 2Ce Sig and 2Ce Sig II:

 

Vandersteen 2Ce

 

 

Vandersteen 2Ce Signature

 

 

Vandersteen 2Ce Signature II

 

 

R

[semente]

Well, having been an audiophile for over 40 years, I've observed that a consensus develops among experienced listeners as to what brands or models tend to bring satisfaction to a large number of listeners at a reasonable price over a long period of time--"classics," if you will, that display enduring design and construction quality. I think it helps newcomers or those seeking upgrades to know what those are. That said, I trust that everyone reading this forum knows it's just an opinion, but opinions, in the end, matter a lot more than measurements.

Not to me.

 

Measurements don't replace listening (even less so in the case of speakers) but they are very informative and correlate reasonably well with listening (more or less depending on the measured parameter).

They remove the self ("taste") from the equation; that is very important because listening reports generally describe how the speaker sounds according to the listener's taste.

And taste, as you well know, is personal and can vary wildly from listener to listener.

 

R

[semente]

of course, one can also measure opinions

Yep, you can weigh them.

[semente]

Yes we all hear differently, but to make a statement that basically says only listeners of classical music care if their music playback is distorted is just incorrect and does nothing to support anything you post.

 

My opinion doesn't say that.

 

But I have been participating in web forums from different countries for 10 years now and I have been led to believe that many audiophiles do not have accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal.

This is obvious from the equipment choices they make although it may not be a conscious choice for studio recordings of amplified or electronic music are not really adequate for evaluating accuracy through listening, not in my opinion at least.

 

R

 

R

[semente]

Then you are too easily led, my friend. I've never encountered an audiophile who didn't seek what he or she considered to be accurate reproduction. The problem is that we don't all hear things the same way, so I may think a system is accurate while you think it's highly colored & vice versa. What's true is simply that many audiophiles do not have your concept of accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal. This is not a problem - we're all entitled to our own opinions. You need to respect that even if you don't agree with any of them.

Apparently we don't agree on the meaning of accuracy.

 

 

For me (and I'd dare say most engineers and designers) accuracy means reading, amplifying and transducing the signal with as little distortion as possible.

It's high fidelity to the recorded signal.

Good recordings will sound good, bad recordings will sound bad.

 

It has nothing to do with getting an "enjoyable" / "exciting" sound from your system or making recordings sound more "real" which is what I understand most people are pursuing (especially because studio recordings do not sound "real" in the first place and they're not supposed to).

 

In my opinion and experience critical listening (for accuracy in reproduction) requires the use of minimally mic'ed recordings of acoustic instruments playing in natural reverberant spaces and knowledge of both live (unamplified) and reproduced sound.

And because listening is fallible (in my opinion and experience) we also need to rely on measurements for evaluating accuracy.

 

R

[semente]

If you can't shed your "I'm the only one who knows what's right" schtick and accept that someone somewhere might actually have a different but equally valid opinion, there's no point to attempted communication with you. No one is intentionally buying speakers he or she thinks are inaccurate - you just don't agree with them that their choices achieve the goal.

 

What they hear as accurate you hear as inaccurate. That's fine - if we all heard things the same way, we'd all have the same systems or cost-controlled variants thereof. Your self-described understanding of "what people want" is in reality your self-generated interpretation of what they have.

 

How about simply telling us what you think are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard for under $2500? If you want to say why, and the answer is because you think they're the most accurate reproducers you've ever heard, that's wonderful. Your opinion would make me go out and find a pair to hear. That's how I found & bought many speakers: Rectilinear 3s in 1973, LS3/5as in 1976, IRSs in 1983, etc up to and including the Focals and JBLs I use now. They all shared a quality I perceive as accuracy - and after paying decades of dues to AFM local 77, I kinda think I might have some idea of what live music sounds like. You may disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

So help me/us out here. Recognizing that you prize what you perceive as accuracy over any & all other factors, what are the best sounding speakers you've heard under $2500? I'm sure my wife thinks we need another pair by now anyway.........

I agree that what I perceive as accurate you may perceive as inaccurate.

I don't doubt that my listening abilities are imperfect and can mislead my judgement.

 

This is why measurements are important.

They'll provide information about problems and shortcomings and will even help us understand certain peculiarities which we perceived through listening.

 

What people like and dislike has nothing to do with accuracy, even if I do acknowledge that the ultimate goal of the system is to provide listening pleasure.

That's just taste.

 

R

[semente]

I think the best approach is to listen for the experience of the music rather than the equipment. If it gives you the same tingle that you get from live performance of the music you prefer in the setting(s) you prefer, it's emotionally accurate. That, for me, is far preferable to the cold and sterile presentations I've heard from many systems with lower measured distortion and technically "better" specs.

 

I went over to a big box retailer to hear a cheap pair of Pioneer bookshelf speakers (SPBS22?) that got a rave review from Stephen Mejias a few years ago and listed for about $130/pair. Yes, they were incredible (especially for the price) despite their clear limitations, e.g. low bass - they had that special something that makes you hear the music through them. For those who haven't seen this interview with Andrew Jones (the designer of both the Pioneers and the TAD Evolution 1s), he offers some pretty sage counsel, e.g.

 

"In the design process, I firstly use music I am intimately familiar with, much of it music that I obtain from studios and engineers where I have either listened in when the recordings have been made, or am able to get the opinion of the recording engineers as to the capability of the speaker. This is generally the same music that I use at shows. Additionally, it is always music that I personally find emotionally involving. I rarely play music that is simply a “demo” piece. Even with the dynamically spectacular type pieces, they are still ones that I enjoy listening to. This way I know that if a prototype doesn’t give me that emotional connection, then it isn’t yet tuned correctly."

 

 

"Clearly, a good speaker is one that has wide bandwidth, low distortion, controlled directivity, and high resolution. However, it should not be resolving in a way that initially sounds impressive, but ultimately fails to be musically satisfying. I want to relax back in my seat when listening, not be on the edge of my seat. Too many systems sound like 'hi-fi!'”

 

 

The AJ-designed Pioneer series go on a list of "best speakers ever for under $300" for sure!

Here's another interview with Andrew Jones

 

First comes the measurement.

There are a lot of parameters in speakers that can be measured that are known to correlate well with listening.

The problem that I see so often from those who doubt such correlation exists is that they don't know how to measure accurately!

I see their curves and I see the artifacts in the curves that are the result of measurement errors and nothing to do with the behaviour of the speaker itself!

Accurate measurements and a sufficient set of measurements go a long way to revealing the performance, and allow us to get towards the final result very much quicker than with just listening alone.

My approach is to set a design goal for the measured performance, meet this as close as possible, then evaluate the result by listening, but ONLY once I believe I have met the initial design objective.

Then I try and honestly evaluate the result, and if (when……) I hear something wrong I go back and see if I can correlate this to the measurements.

Maybe I was too enthusiastic in my evaluation of having met my target.

Maybe my target is just wrong.

I go back and make changes based on the re-evaluation, then re-listen.

But I am always cross referring to the measurements.

 

I am not implying that we can measure everything that we hear.

But we can measure a lot so we can shorten the design process.

We can also however hear a lot of what isn't actually there!

We can be easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist.

With too many variables during the design process we can also become confused.

So we have to be as careful in our listening as we have to be in our measuring.

[semente]

Love those Stirling LS3/6's but couldn't find a pair nearly as reasonable as you found! I did however just buy a pair of very late manufacture Spendor BC-1's in mint condition which I believe were very similar in many ways to the Rogers LS3/6 back in the seventies. Of course modern manufacturing, modern materials have improved but they share design principles with each other and I am looking forward to having them play some music for the holidays!

I should receive them today.

Hope you'll enjoy them!

I'd start by measuring the frequency response of each speakers, outdoors if possible and compare the results to the original plots:

 

 

Some form or reconditioning may be in order (either way, I'd have them checked up).

 

R

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

[semente]

Speakers are clearly the part of the audio chain that remains farthest from perfection and most subject to mystery. Because of that, I think we, as consumers, tend to break into three classes:

 

a) Those who care about correct timbre above all else (tend to prefer Maggies and other dipoles);

b) Those who care about phase coherency (tend to prefer Vandersteens);

c) Those who care about room sound pressure/transient response (tend to prefer box speakers);

 

Hi @sdolezalek

 

I may be wrong here but I would have thought that phase coherent speakers would produce a more accurate transient response.

 

And what do you mean by correct "timbre"?

 

Why do you think that dipoles reproduce "timbre" or the signal (which encompasses all aspects from frequency response to phase coherence to unrestrained dynamics to low level detail retrieval to "silent" drivers and cabinets or frames) better than box speakers or horns?

 

As Jud mentioned, all topologies have specific shortcomings but having a flat frequency response should be a requirement for any speaker irregardless of it's topology, just as colour accurateness should be a requirement for TVs.

It's essential for correct "timbre".

 

I generally use the computer/video display calibration analogy because one can easily see the effects of a wrong balance:

 

 

 

 

One may of course choose to abdicate correct tonal balance for phase coherence (which will probably have a noticeable impact on imaging and little or no effect on "timbre") or for spectacular dynamic abilities or we may even find that flat is "boring" and we prefer "excitement" and "liveliness"...

Ultimately no speaker is perfect and tastes vary wildly.

 

R

[semente]

Well, that is the question, isn't it? There are quite of few of us fans-of-vintage-tech around (I have a wonderful reel-to-reel player I use almost as much as my turntable), and for those that know, SET amps pretty much are impossible to beat. Given that most new speaker-makers don't bother with high sensitivity, that means that perhaps some dumpster diving is in order. Failing that, some gently used or reconditioned speakers might do you right.

 

I had a pair of Model 17 Altecs, for example, that I had every intention of using with my favorite amp, a 7wpc tube amp from BorderPatrol. But alas and alack, after unpacking them and setting them up, I started sneezing. The sneezing continued every time I entered the room, and I quickly added some uncontrollable eye-watering and a hacking cough. So much for the Altecs. Caveat emptor -- and watch out for mildew.

 

Anyway, I would say that there's probably no need to fuss. Unless you're after a particular sound, most amps pushing more than a handful of watts will probably be just fine for most listening and with most speakers. I've happily said that "you can't have too much power", and I stand by that. The opposite is not true; some speakers need power, and under-powering speakers can be quite bad (and possibly dangerous to the lifespan of the speaker). But since I can still hear, I tend to listen at levels less than 90dB (average), which means that I just don't need 1kW to drive a 86dB speaker along just fine. Not all 86dB speakers are the same, however, and that's why home auditions are important. But, again -- all that said -- the Fritz use a very simple crossover. Reference3A does too. Single-driver speakers use none, obviously. Simplicity here means a higher degree of low-power-friendliness, but as always, YMMV.

 

I say all this not to mansplain or whatever -- I know that posts like these tend to be read by lots of folks, and for quite some time, so I wasn't trying to just skip-to-the-end in case someone was curious. Okay? Okay.

 

So, for me, I'd probably go look at another set of Altecs. Or maybe some Klipsch. But those GoldenEar, with the powered woofer section and overall 90dB sensitivity, will probably do just dandy with a low-powered amp. But if you're looking for jump factor, slam, and dynamic wow, Tekton and Zu top my current list for budget-priced speakers.

 

I do like horns, though. They're really fun, and while they might not be "perfect", they're entertaining. And isn't what this is supposed to be about? Anyway, I like what Volti is doing. Klipsch is really fun. I hear that those old Altecs can get you there, too.

 

But I'm always on the lookout for a great high-sensitivity speaker at a reasonable price. The Auditorium 23 Hommage Cinema is a bit beyond my reach, as is a Volti Vittora. Maybe that new Rival will be the thing.

 

In the meantime, I've been hugely impressed with Joseph Audio and Harbeth and DeVore. They all just sing with 20 watts -- counter-intuitive, perhaps, but true.

I think that flea powered SETs should be used with sensitive speakers >100dB.

They should also be run band-passed in an active configuration as they have quite high output impedance.

 

As for Zu speakers, they're one of the few that JA at Stereophile classified as rubbish, something almost unknown of in a day and age when magazines never publish negative criticism is something!

 

Steer clear, even if your ears... The fact that many speakers "sing" with little power is not enough in my view.

 

R

[semente]

If modern speakers are so much better than the old AR and Advent speakers then why can’t people get speaker manufacturers to play Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds and Abbey Road on their superior speakers at shows? Is it because the only song played without my requesting it from my reference albums at Newport was “Willin” off the Mobile Fidelity version of Little Feat’s Waiting for Columbus and it didn’t sound right to me?

These are good questions indeed...

 

I too have returned from shows with bleeding ears.

My guess is that despite the modern divers and cabinet construction, and the computer-aided design many speakers just have a "wrong" tonal balance (tilting up from bass to treble) and the response is not flat either on- or off-axis and the mid-woofer/midrange diver breakup resonances are audible.

 

But I agree with @ctsooner that, unlike most vintage speakers I listened to, some of the better (more accurate) modern speakers, in systems with "transparent" electronics, are able to really let the sound/music through.

Some of those vintage speakers may sound pleasant but there's a bit too much own sound which makes the reproduction more obvious...

 

R

[semente]

Pete Thank you hit the main difference between our preferences the 3D illusion and sound stage. My training and years of consulting mean I hear where a sound is coming from. As an example the last Cowboy Junkies concert I attended had a wider soundstage because the amplifiers were spaced wider apart than the previous concerts and to me flat because the amps were in a row. I’m perfectly content with this but you wouldn’t be. You prefer the illusion of the voices and instruments coming from the people and instruments. This is what you want when you listen. In my case I don’t want the drum kit width stretched and will gladly sacrifice sound stage depth to get it. Many modern speakers do mess with the mids to get bigger sound stage both in width and depth. I think this distorts things and is unnatural. It is the main reason I prefer vintage speakers. I got a half hour with Andrew Jones one on one at RMAF this year. We talked about silk dome tweeters and sound stage size. Steve

This is amazing.

I'd never heard anyone mentioning "soundstage" effects of depth and width in reference to a live amplified poprock concert before.

 

I certainly would not be able to focus on it let alone perceive it's characteristics.

And I'd probably have to be blind folded for that.

 

Do the sound people even worry about such trivia?

 

R

[semente]

Live sound reinforcement can get as granular as that and more, although few devote resources to trying to create "...the illusion of the voices and instruments coming from the people and instruments" because it's not easy and it's imprecise at best (and impossible for many bands in many venues).

(...)

Thanks for the deeply insightful reply.

 

I guess in a live concert or gig the soundstage cues come from your vision and take precedence over hearing.

 

R