What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

I said something in another thread that raised a lot of objections, and this caught me by surprise.  (What I said was that I knew of many examples of measurable differences that cannot be heard, but did not know of any audible differences that cannot be measured.) I could not think of any such examples.

 

Anyway, if there are well-known, established examples of readily audible but unmeasurable differences (that stand up to various reality checks like blind testing, etc), please list them.

 

Many thanks in advance.  I've started this as a separate thread so as not to hijack others, and also because it seems that this is a fundamental point that comes up in many discussions here.

Excellent concept.  I am undoubtedly and unashamedly biased, but the premise that we (meaning most of us humans, not one individual) can readily hear things that are not measurable is a myth, IMHO.  

 

It is also quite different from the frequent audiophile complaint that there are sonic differences not shown by the measurements actually taken in many cases. That may be true sometimes, but it does not disprove the potential measurability of any truly audible difference.

 

We all know how these positions or misapplications of them get dragged into debates, and they probably always will.

 

But, I will be totally stunned if anyone can provide an example that answers the original question.  

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

3 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

First of all I'm afraid for some almost all sonic differences will be 'controversial' Whatever 'uncontroversial' means for you..

The very first questions that came to mind.

1. Can soundstaging (eg soundstage depth) be measured?

2. Can something that I call timbral richness (eg timbral difference between 2 different saxophones in the same recording) be measured?

I've read so many times reviews in which reviewers with lots of listening experience and lots of technical (measurements) knowledge admitted that gear sounded different from what measurements suggested it 'should' sound like... Never measured gear I listened to though.

BTW do objectivists really buy gear just because it measures well.? Without checking reviews or listening to it? Just be frank, guys

 

Yeah, well, we can't exactly measure "controversial", so we will just have to handle that issue subjectively and decide that by consensus. 

 

As to your suggested questions, first soundstaging.  Good one!  I do not think anyone denies soundstaging exists in our listening perception with stereo or Mch sources.  We rarely do see it measured, but I have some test CDs that move the recorded sound sources - jangling keys, spoken voices, etc. - around in controlled ways such that listener responses via laser pointer, etc. of changes in apparent position of the sound source could be measured.   Soundstage depth might be much tougher, but still doable.

 

Part of the measurement problem here is the illusion of soundstage is entirely dependent on speakers, dispersion patterns, room reflections, etc.  So, there is no absolute scale by which to judge soundstage reproduction.  For example, the same speakers would likely give a different perceived soundstage in a different room or if speaker position in the same room was changed, let alone if the listener changed position, turned his head, etc.  Different speakers in the same room might also have different "ideal" positions or maximum soundstage.

 

The point is what is the point of such measurements when there is no one absolute correct amount of soundstage width, depth or height for a given recording?  It all depends, but comparative differences could be measured for a given setup.  One setup could be determined to give a "bigger" soundstage with that recording by objective measures, except that is hardly ever done.  And, is a "bigger" soundstage "better", "more accurate", etc. for that recording?

 

Incidentally, one set of wacko experiments by Zelig and Clawson concluded that apparent soundstage height indicated by a listener with a laser pointer, was, in fact, a proxy for "system quality".  They made many measurements of that varying the electronics or WAV vs. Flac using the same music, trying to keep all else equal, like system and listener position.  I think they proved nothing and were in la la land, but the concept of measuring perceived dimensions (at least height) of the soundstage was definitely used in their misguided experiments.

 

But, Dr. Scott is the boss.  Does this truly qualify as a successful answer?

 

On comparative timbers like richness, that is easy.  I believe that is measurable by comparing traditional measurements, primarily just of frequency response,  of the two saxophones in your example. It is just like they do in spy movies when comparing voice signatures.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

55 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Mood and taste are two that pop to mind.    Not trying to derail, but add that emotional and spiritual biases cannot be measured but clearly have an effect on sq..especially if they arrive from the recording (i.e if all parties in a double blind are moved by the same music).

 

Regardless, this is a great topic, as I firmly believe that all we measure is not all important and that what IS important cannot all be measured ...and the corollary...we should not stop trying to measure things, as most important things can probably be measured at some point, we are just doing it wrong currently.  The quest for discovery is a wonderful thing. 

We could start a real quarrel here.  But, one of the issues we trip over all the time is the difference between "hearing" and "listening".  I think I heard Conductor Marin Alsop refer to that key distinction a few months ago as it affects an orchestra conductor.

 

I am just as guilty as anyone of carelessly misusing the terms hearing and listening interchangeably.  Audiophiles do it all the time when they say something like, "I trust my ears"  but then talk about the emotional involvement with the music, which clearly involves the brain and the intellect, and not just the ears.  Does anyone doubt that the human hearing/listening mechanism is very complex, involving different layers of sensory  (the hearing) plus unconscious and conscious responses (the listening) of the mind to sonic stimuli?  

 

Confusion and lack of clarity between hearing and listening explains many debates about audio perception, even about gear, measurements, etc.

 

I do not know about Dr. Scott, but I am willing to totally concede that measurements are useless beyond a certain point in our hearing/listening sensory system, particularly when when we are dealing with the emotional responses of our feeble brains.  So, those issues are automatically "controversial", in my view.  

 

Why?  I suspect most all our ears actually respond to aural stimuli in fairly similar ways.  But, when our much more diverse (or perverse) brains capture and process those similar stimuli, there is a huge difference in our individual response and what we think we perceive. Ergo, Chinese music does not sound good to me as music and I lack emotional connection with it. But, as just sounds, Chinese ears are just as good as my Western ones in hearing the sounds.

 

Audio and audio engineering cannot deal with all this, and they try to focus on the common denominator of sound via hearing.  That is all that audio can provide.  The hearing of great emotional things from that sound is entirely up to us in our individual way.  Even outside audio, there are no good measures of emotional responses to sensory stimuli.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, watercourse said:

A characteristic that I've heard a lot of people use, and that I believe people can distinguish between two systems under comparison is: "slam".

 

Sure, it's the dynamics and transient handling abilities of a system, and damping factor in the amp has something to do with it, as well as speaker driver characteristics, and interactions between the amp and speakers, but I'm not sure how the differences in "slam" would be measured, as it is usually spread across multiple frequencies and is more than just a measure of spls at a given point in time. Waterfall plots may show differences between systems, but how do these differences translate to what the listener perceives as more slam?

 

Also agree with "soundstage depth," "more realistic timbre," ... and I'll raise you "image density" and "imaging specificity." I'm having a hard time visualizing how these sonic qualities can be measured with repeatability.

 

I think that these additional qualities are not controversial concepts, but who knows? A lot depends on listener interest, acuity, and sensitivity. I, for one, have a hard time understanding what PRaT means... "pace" "rhythm" and "timing" seem redundant to me, or at least circle around too similar concepts to really be distinct in my mind.

Well, you have raised the question of "slam", then you have defined it in clearly measurable ways.  I am comfortable with your definition in terms of those measurable parameters.  What is it if it is not how you defined it?  And, we cannot hope to have measurements of something if that something is not  defined.  So, I do not think slam qualifies as unmeasurable, because its underlying attributes are measurable.

 

We also run into a problem with "image density" and "image specificity". What in the hell are they exactly other than terms invented by some reviewer tying to be cute?  They make sense, maybe, in video, but not in audio.

 

PRAT is just plain controversial, reviewer- and marketer-speak. It is not about sound at all, but, rather, some concoction of perceived musical qualities.  I grant you, we cannot measure it, because it has no exact definition.  It is just another example of cool audio speak invented by a reviewer, a guy in TAS originally I believe, that is pretty useless.  However, if somebody says, hey , that speaker has great PRAT, there is a serious problem, because speakers cannot generally change the pace, rhythm or timing of the signal in the physics we know. So, what are they talking about?

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, watercourse said:

 

I think I answered my own question by reading the linked article. According to the study, perceived "punch" is highly correlated with frequency curves, so this is likely a measurable characteristic that can be used to distinguish between systems or components.

 

 

"Image density" as I have heard it, can be described as giving the listener an impression of solid objects in the reproduced soundstage. In my experience, systems that have some leanness, e.g. lack midbass or have emphasized treble frequencies, will have less image density.

 

"Image specificity" means instrument(s) or voice(s) are more easily discerned and/or located in space (in the soundstage). This may have something to do with system self-noise and/or ambient noise levels, and likely treble reproduction characteristics.

 

I think I'm seeing these two as again likely based on spectral characteristics, and therefore likely measurable.

 

Good talk I'm having with myself!

Hey, you are getting there and we are all learning a few things.

 

But, we agree, there are layers here, sometimes even to bullshit ad-speak, which sometimes, if you drill down, translate to the good old measurable parameters of sound used in audio for a very long time.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 minutes ago, ted_b said:

I agree with these "reviewer" terms and use them myself occasionally.  At first I thought they were bs terms, as fitz implied, but as my system got more revealing and more involving I came to really rely on these aspects of the soundstage.  It's not enough that the drum kit is "there" but to have it well-defined in space and occupying at least 2 if not 3 dimensions, is required for better "believability".  Can these aspects be measured?  Not with anything I own, except my perverse brain.  To me it's likely quite psycho-acoustic.

Ted - I do not disagree, and we both know that images can be rendered extraordinarily well, especially with Tom Caulfield's DSD256 Mch recordings from Budapest and other places.  Wink, wink.  I know we both have them.

 

I also agree that traditional measures have taken us a long way, but that we have to get much more sophisticated about understanding and, where possible,  finding ways to measure our psychoacoustic responses.  I think that is the new frontier for audio.  But, it needs better definition before measurement is possible.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

11 hours ago, watercourse said:

 

So it sounds like there is some agreement that "image density" and "image specificity" are non-controversial.

 

@fas42I also agree that image density and image specificity are qualities of competent playback, and also increase listening enjoyment and suspension of disbelief depending on the recording. Some of this of course is fundamental speaker set up, controlling ground loops, and the influence (or control of influence) of the room (yes, I'm a big fan of Jim Smith's Get Better Sound).

 

I've heard some small monitors exhibit image specificity, so I agree that it is not necessary to have full range frequency reproduction to image well. Perhaps it is only due to lack of experience that I have not heard bass-shy or tipped-up speakers exhibit image density, but I haven't heard it (or at least I can't recall that I have). If it is the case that limited range speakers can and do exhibit image density, what would you say about this quality then that you can measure?

 

I will disagree with the second paragraph, for instance, some of my favorite punk, early jazz, and ethnic recordings will never have "rich" or "3-D sound", yet I love them just the same, and don't need to hear them on the best systems to enjoy them fully.

No so fast.  I have no idea what "image density" and "image specificity" actually mean.  I dare say you will not find those terms in any formal text on audio, nor even in the informal glossaries put together from time to time by audio pundits.  I think there is no wide agreement on what they mean, therefore they are controversial.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

Much as I hate to labour the point, if you assume that any two recordings that sound different (eg emotionally charged vs bland) must have a measurable difference, it is meaningless to seek an example of two recordings that sound different but which have no measurable difference.

Not sure I follow your logic or if it clarifies anything.  

 

I do not think emotional responses which may be induced by the music are at all useful in this discussion about sound. Sound is a building block of music, yes.  Music may evoke emotional responses, but sound is not directly linked to emotion.  And, emotional responses to music differ from person to person, or even from one hearing to the next in the same person.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Which means they are more dense which means they jitter around less. Ergo: audiophile hydrogen is better hydrogen.

I thought that was because, with the audiophile hydrogen molecule, there was a Sulfur atom as well, giving us the very pleasant smelling H2S to go with our music.  That emission increases musical pleasure immensely, as long as no one else is in the room.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 hours ago, watercourse said:

 

OK, maybe this is an issue of language or terminology. I've defined those terms as best I can in an earlier post, but it is likely imperfect and others have chimed in with additional thoughts.

 

In the Volk, et al. study, "spatial precision" and "spatial quality" are descriptors that are used, which may correlate with "image specificity" and "image density", respectively. Would you say these are not the same concepts, and if so, why not?

 

Also, at what threshold would you consider there to be "wide agreement"? Or maybe this is best left to the OP to decide?

I am not denying that there is much in the spatial realm that we hear from our sound systems.  I am a spatial fanatic, myself, and a hugely dedicated listener to hi rez Mch music because that provides the best rendition of the spatial properties of the musical event, IMHO.   I hear it, and I hear significant differences between systems and components in that regard.  But, someone also cited Sean Olive's issues with the many illusions related to spatial perception in audio, and they parallel what I said earlier.

 

I just do not think there is language yet in audio that is obviously self-defining or well standardized enough to properly define the terminology for any aspect of "spatial performance" in audio, at least not yet.  That, as I have said, is the main problem with these spatial terms.  They are still too vague and too subject to misinterpretation.  And, if we cannot define them reasonably well in a way we all understand, measuring them is just infeasible, a fool's errand.

 

Let's start in spatial terms with the widely used  "soundstage".  Is that just about width?  Is it about depth, too? Is height part if it?  Is the perceived sense of 3D dimensionality of instruments within the soundstage part of that, as in maybe "image density", but I am not sure.  Or, is the space between instruments also part of it, which is maybe akin to your "image specificity".  Incidentally, I have heard a lot of other descriptive terms, sentences or paragraphs that seemed to try to get to what is, maybe, something similar to your terms, but I am not entirely sure.

 

The problem is, in audio we are dealing with a perceptual illusion assembled by our brains, not our ears alone, from information gathered by our binaural  hearing system.  

 

Incidentally, I think the keys to "better" spatial presentation are not necessarily rocket science, and they start with good traditional measurements - excellent channel symmetry and balance, good frequency response, dynamics, S/N, low distortion, etc., etc.  Timing related measurements are also critical - impulse response, phase, interchannel delay, group delay, etc. And, spatial presentation is potentially improved significantly by increasing the number of discretely recorded and reproduced channels, again IMHO. 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

Yes, I think that is somewhat the point. 

 

For two things to pass reality checks of sounding different the signal has to actually be different.  So are there two versions that our current tech cannot measure as different, yet our ears in reality hear as different. 

 

 

Not sure why "our ears" would hear them as different in bias controlled, double blind listening tests.  Perhaps our brains would perceive them as different in sighted, uncontrolled listening.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's all outside the context of the original question. The perception of soundstage is determined almost entirely by the recording and the speaker placement. Unless they intentionally have high levels of distortion, the electronics make very little difference in this regard.

I don't disagree.  I am merely pointing out the definitional issues with even the most basic of terms in current usage regarding spatial imaging, let alone more esoteric terms. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

You have no clue about software, do you?

Unfortunately, he, jkeny of Ciunas, here under an alias, also knows nothing of audio measurements.  But, he likes to argue anyway.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

No one said, or implied any such thing. The subject is not about measuring cable impedance. I cite John Swenson's excellent answer here at the CA forum on why it's important to look at more than just cursory jitter measurement, or how certain types of "superClocks" affect jitter, and also what else is affected down the chain. As I mentioned, different DACs, are affected differently: some DACs "do better" with incoming noise than others. Also, the final "sound" of a DAC is based on more factors than just the DAC chips.

As always, his arguments would have greater credibility if he provided measurements supporting his statements.  Yes, often just the cursory measurements of anything are not sufficient. But, that does not prove there is no measurement that would reveal and correlate with claimed sonic differences.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

23 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

You call that "hate?" Does that make what I wrote invalid?

I am not attacking you.  But, he has published audio measurements for years in his weekly blog.  Where, might I ask, are your own experience and credentials in the field of audio measurement so that you can credibly criticize his methods, equipment, philosophy or mindset?  

 

So, on what basis is your opinion, to which you are fully entitled, have any validity beyond any other random opinion?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Kinda unfair? Especially given yours:

 

Gosh, you caught me.  Seriously, loved the movie.  Love Werner Herzog, the director.  Always mesmerized by actor Klaus Kinski. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

I love Herzog as well, my fav director/producer. But, - I don't need to say much more or another way than what I said above. No one needs to be "credentialed" to have a valid criticism against his agendae and gross, unscientific methodology and invalid results. (It is poor science designed to reach a specific outcome). This doesn't come from me, I am just one of the many voices who offer valid criticisms of his erroneous conclusions. The number of invalid tests performed do not make any of the bogus tests more valid.

Glad we agree on Herzog.

 

As to Archimago, in order to make the case as to the validity of your claims - "gross unscientific methodology", "invalid results",  "poor science designed to reach a specific outcome", etc.- I am afraid these accusations are not self evident.  You may say "many others" agree with you, but do they have any more credibility in those accusations than you?  So, where is the credible evidence that supports this diatribe of accusations other than just "many others", who are unnamed and whose specific claims are nowhere to be seen?

 

Note that I am not saying Archimago walks on water or is automatically right.  I am just suggesting that he has revealed way, way more about his measurements, the detailed whys and wherefores of them, than you or the mysterious "many others" have done. He is open to and is a fair target for objective criticism.  But, innuendo and vague, anonymous barbs are meaningless.  Anybody who does not have to back them up can do that.

 

So, what have you got in tangible terms other than general mud you wish to throw at Archimago?  Having been involved in similar threads in other forums on the very same subject, it is abundantly clear that the request for specific examples causes a sudden disappearance of the claimants.  But, if you have something other than unsubstantiated claims, we are all willing to listen.

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, mourip said:

 

True. I guess that I am assuming it was amplified due to the microphone placements and the large sound reinforcement arrays. It was also very loud even at our seats in the balcony. The last NSO concerts I attended were the same. Not sure where to hear a top level symphony orchestra in an un-amplified setting in my area.

As a long time concert goer to Philadelphia Orchestra and other local  concerts, my response to any symphony orchestra, opera company, chamber society, etc. that insisted on amplification of the live concerts would be my resignation as a subscriber, attendee or donor.  I suspect that I would be joined in this by huge numbers of others.  In fact, the Phiadelphia Orchestra absolutely does not electronically augment their concerts via a PA system in the hall, nor do the Philadelphia Chamber Orchestra or the Philadelphia Chamber Music Society or the Opera Company of Philadelphia.

 

Yes, I am aware that in some, maybe most, outdoor summer concert venues do provide auxiliary amplification.  The venue acoustics require that. That is why I do not attend those.  We have a summer series here in Philly at the Mann Center that features the Orchestra and others, but the wall-less venue, unfortunately, requires amplification.  I am willing to overlook that compromise due to the venue, except I avoid going.

 

But, I do not know what venue you were in.  Here in Philly, yes, there is an array of mikes to record to concerts.  Most every major orchestra records archivally every second of everything, even rehearsals.  But, the use of PA systems in the hall for playback to the audience is a no-no, unless there is absolutely no alternative.

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

I am sure there are quartets that play which gives the opportunity to hear individual instruments often up close. I'm not sure how good Baltimore is, but Peabody would likely have concerts. Philadelphia too far?

Philadelphia has a wonderful and very rich chamber music series run by the Philadelphia Chamber Music Society, which also manages the famous Marlborough Music Festival in Vermont.  The number of world class ensembles and soloists is mind-boggling, including more world-class, famous String Quartets and other chamber groups and soloists than you can believe.  Yet, the concerts are cheap, about $25 a pop, mostly in the wonderful acoustics of Perelman Auditorioum at the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia.  And, of course, here is NO electroacoustic augmentation of the concerts.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

So returning to the original question, we still have nothing. Right?

Yup, like me and others who are drifting seriously off topic, we still got nothin', boss.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Good - can we use college students?

Only if they are sober.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't know about clarity or dimensionality, but I have seen freq. response measurements relating to warm (and maybe lean/clinical) - warm often relates to mid high freqs. being a bit higher in level.  If too high the sound gets 'lush' or (as I put it) phat.

 

I had dismissed comments in the press re "a sense of pace" coming from different components for years or decades.  Then I changed my worn-out tube pre-amp to an ARC with new tubes, and upgraded my Maggies from 1.5 to 3.7i, and I was surprised to hear..... what could definitely be described as "a sense of pace" in the music.

 

So there is something to a more 'revealing' system.

 

and JGH was onto something too

The use of metaphors, often ones "swiped" from the other human senses like vision or touch to describe some subjective, perceptual aspects of audio, has been around since time immemorial.  The problem is, like most metaphors, they are inexact, but even worse, their meaning is not standardized.  And, of course, good luck trying to measure something you cannot define exactly.

 

For example, you think "warm" applies to mid/high frequencies in audio.  I am not saying you are wrong, because there is no official dictionary for this.  But, if you dig deeply back to JGH and his glossary of terms, I think you will find he defined it as a property related to an elevated midbass. In any case, strip away the BS, and it is just about frequency response linearity and possibly added low order harmonic distortion products or the lack thereof from deep bass fundamentals.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

 

"Sense of pace" or the related PRaT is even more meaningless since it cannot plausibly exist in sound, except as a result of something like an LP turntable running fast or slow or varying in speed under load.  Amps and electronics or speakers do not normally have signal storage capabilities.  So, what could those vague subjective descriptions possibly mean?  I am almost clueless, except my theory is that they describe a system with (rightly or wrongly) more elevated frequency response in the mid/lower bass which is the range where rhythm-oriented instruments like drums and bass guitars have their fundamentals.

 

The point is any subjective metaphor, and they are all lacking any accurate meaning, could be used to try to trip up the premise of this thread.  If you cannot define whatever it is you are talking about exactly in a way we can all agree we understand, what is your point?

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

58 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Few significant record labels do minimalist mic'ing nowadays, BIS is the only one I can remember.

I find Dorian's old orchestral recordings quite natural-sounding as well.

True.  Few labels do minimalist today.  But, also quite prominently there is Channel Classics that uses two stereo mikes and an array of 5 mikes in ITU configuration.  BIS, I believe, has said they may supplement ITU miking with a few accent mikes.

 

Note that both BIS and Channel plus many other small European labels are firm believers in ITU multichannel, as was Telarc in the US before its demise.  Also, many orchestra-owned private labels insist on ITU Mch, such as Concertgebouw, San Francisco, LSO, Mariinski, etc.  Note that these are world class organizations who would not employ gimmicks and who would insist on top-notch engineering to achieve quality sound.  However, minimalist stereo miking is still not widespread and far from showing any signs of a comeback.

 

Personally, I find discretely recorded ITU Mch, whether minimally miked or not, today's best reproduction in terms of faithfulness to my sense of live concert performance.  I am a frequent classical concert goer. I have no strong preference for minimalist vs. multi-miking.  I have excellent examples of both approaches, though a few non-commercial ITU Mch recordings done by an engineer friend using his own minimalist techniques and equipment at Channel Classics recording sessions are the best recordings I personally have heard.  Several very prominent recording and audio critics who have heard those recordings agree with that assessment.  

 

There are thousands of ITU Mch recordings available on SACD and BD, many truly excellent, though some, of course, are only so-so, as they are likely to be in any format or channel layout.  Such recordings have made up the bulk of my collection and listening over the past 10 years, quite happily I might add.

 

There are a number of typical reasons why ITU Mch is not more popular.  One is obviously the fact that its forte is classical music, which is itself a small niche in recordings.  There is also the ignorance about it by many audiophiles who have never experienced it in a properly set up system.  Dealers are just as ignorant about music in Mch, maybe more so, and they do not understand or support it.  Another reason is snobbishness as a result of its association with video and Mch home theater, with which it is quite compatible.

 

I have also seen several otherwise prominent, knowledgable audio gurus dismiss it and claim there are better ways which they have devised.  I have numerous anecdotes about that.  But, my view on hearing their claims is that they never gave it a fair hearing with proper recordings and setup, some quite clumsily.  But, it appears to be a mindset and a prejudice rather than something based on proper understanding of the theory underlying ITU Mch as well as listening experience.

 

Ralph Glasgal also has an alternative which he believes is better, and he claims fair knowlege of ITU Mch.  Maybe someday, I will give it a listen, which I have not done.  But, so far, I see no compelling reason to do so,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

classical meaning orchestral; not classical which includes chamber music (??)

 

2 other points:

 

1. it seems like a trend in cone speakers is to use multiple cones to approximate a line source

 

2. a plane source (or its approximation) also has  numerous benefits - you can erect a 'wall of sound' for a venue (if affordable or moveable); and at home you can buy a giant black monolith (or an electrostatic panel)

classical, with a small c, means many sub genres of music for everything from solo instruments up to orchestral and choral music, with many possibilities in between.  I listen to all of it and attend concerts including all those possibilities, including also opera, ballet and other performance arts set to classical music.  Classical with a big C usually refers to classical music from the Classical Period, roughly 1750-1820.

 

FWIW, ITU Mch also improves the realism of even solo instruments, because it captures much of the reflected sound of the performance space, which is inseparable from the direct sound and part of what we hear live even with solos.  And, unlike stereo, Mch reproduces that in a more angularly correct way, rather than redirecting all sound at you from just the front.  Like stereo, Mch uses phantom imaging between all the speakers.  And, no, your listening room reflections cannot reconstruct that sense of space at all accurately from two speakers.

 

On 2., I currently use 7 electrostat dipole hybrids plus a subwoofer in a 7.1 configuration, but mostly I listen in 5.1 per the input source.  I do not use any artificially synthesized methods to simulate Mch from stereo or 7.1 from 5.1.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

]Yes, they most certainly are, perhaps you should try using some?  

 

Nothing about using listening to tune or find the "right sound" for a piece of equipment negates normal engineering design skills.  There is a certain amount of requisite skill necessary to create anything in the first place. Talent is is what takes a textbook device and turns it into something extraordinary. 

Yeah, that is why we have or man @fas42.  He's got the skills, as he tells us over and over and over, and he can even do it with cheap HTiB's.  Except he grades his own papers.  So, watch out.

 

And, his secret sauce as revealed elsewhere is, roll of the drums, Bluetack.  Ta-da!  But, hey, as long as he is happy.