Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 A home audio system, just cannot realistically bring the Boston Symphony into your living room, and I seriously doubt if it ever will. We have to be content that we are listening to such an ensemble through a large, open, picture window. I.E. it can sound good, but it never quite crosses that threshold from sounding like a good recording to sounding like either there's a symphony orchestra in your listening room, or that you have been transported to some concert hall where the performance is taking place. 

 

The large, open picture window is the 'right' analogy. When working at optimum what you get is that the room that you're in is decapitated along a vertical plane in line with the speakers; that area of the room beyond the speakers is completely removed, and the area of the room you're physically in is now attached to the performance space of the illusion.

 

Yesterday I slightly improved my current NAD setup, and the first disk I tried, to assess the result, was this, https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-winter-trombone-mw0001804815. Yes! Very deep acoustic, tons of space; the instruments were way beyond the french windows; the speakers were almost invisible - still far from being as good as I've heard from audio replay, but definitely acceptable. The impression from another room is that you are listening through a side door of a concert hall, as to what's going on inside - the sense of bigness, and space, comes through loud and clear.

 

 

[fas42]

Just to again mention, for those are certain that read errors are a core problem for "digital sound", that my old NAD CDP is if anything getting worse at picking up signal from burnt CDRs - I have a stack of old ones of these, and the sound is a disaster, for those who are adverse to LPs with severely damaged grooves - 'cause that's what it sounds like! At times, it skips grooves backwards, several times - until finally clearing the barrier . Yet in spite of the madness of the spluttering sound, what comes through still has all the qualities of good presentation; the acoustic and fine details are still there; which are only lost in the severest points of the playback struggling.

[gmgraves]

23 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Agreed. Who has the room to bring the Boston Symphony into their living room?

Oh, I don't know. It would be a tight fit, certainly, but I suspect it could be done (The "Stateroom Scene" from A Night At The Opera with the Marx Brothers comes to mind here!).😉

 

[fas42]

George just had a gentle dig at me for using Sharp speakers , but it allows me to again mention that when one achieves convincing sound from a setup, and investigates - that it turns everything on its head. Speakers become the least important part of the rig, and everything before them becomes super critical - why speakers seem so dominant on a system that's only presenting conventional quality playback is because they are a tremendous filtering mechanism on the audible anomalies of the replay chain; every dip or bump in the response, say, reinforces or subtracts from the spectrum of those artifacts - "changing the sound". What you are listening to is the dance of the distortion, and that from the electronics is the most powerful in determining the subjective qualities of the musical event captured.

 

A competent setup allows one to completely hear "through the speakers" - you connect completely to the performance that was in front of the microphones, say; your mind is discarding all aspects of the sound image that are caused by just having two boxes doing their thing in the room. And the drivers and speaker cabinet are largely irrelevant to this behaviour, unless one listens to more extreme volume levels, or is highly focused on deep bass being 'correct'.

 

The only advantage I've heard to date of having premium speakers is that in the case of an ultra simple, ultra pure recording of a solo instrument - classical guitar is a good example - that the tonality of a single note being struck has distinctly better quality. If one listens exclusively to these sort of recordings, then my thoughts on the relative importance of speakers are not so useful.

[semente]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

If one listens exclusively to these sort of recordings, then my thoughts on the relative importance of speakers are not so useful.

 

Wait 'till you listen to 'em through a good pair o' speakers. 😉

[fas42]

But I enjoy the texture of complex music making. If the rig can't do a big orchestral climax without falling into a heap, or makes a mess of sophisticated synthesizer sound elements interplaying, then it's not worth it. To me.

 

I've listened to too many expensive speakers sounding awful. Wilsons in particular come to mind here. The general rule is, the more ambitious the speaker, the more likely you can put on a recording which sounds abysmal - not my cup of tea.

[audiobomber]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

I've listened to too many expensive speakers sounding awful. Wilsons in particular come to mind here. The general rule is, the more ambitious the speaker, the more likely you can put on a recording which sounds abysmal 

So Sharp boombox speakers sound better than Wilsons. Why are I even reading this thread?

[opus101]

I went to a private demo of Wilson's most recent flagship offering which I think they called 'Master Chronosonic', last year. Price tag well into six figures I think. They sounded worse than my mid-three figures Taobao speakers without any doubt whatsoever.

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

So Sharp boombox speakers sound better than Wilsons. Why are I even reading this thread?

 

If you're not willing to consider that the parts of the chain prior to the speakers are absolutely critical to best sound, then there is no point. Brilliant source recording + mediocre DAC + mediocre amp + brilliant speakers = mediocre subjective presentation - the weakest link determines vital parts of the SQ, not the 'best' link.

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

George just had a gentle dig at me for using Sharp speakers , but it allows me to again mention that when one achieves convincing sound from a setup, and investigates - that it turns everything on its head. Speakers become the least important part of the rig, and everything before them becomes super critical 

 

I am focusing just on this little part. I think speakers are the most critical part of any system.

 

I  believe this so because a slight flaw in a speaker is many times more apparent than almost any flaw further up the chain. Some kind of log scale I think, though I have not done the research necessary to validate and accurately measure that. It just seems like common sense.

 

A speaker that is well matched to the listener will sound good to that listener on just about any system, and allow the listener to detect flaws further up the chain.  The speakers do not necessarily have to be expensive, but they do have to be well matched to the listener.  I think that matching a speaker to a listener is determined more by the physical hearing properties of that particular listener than anything else. A slight bit of hearing damage can really change what a person hears. 

 

But all in all, I would suggest speakers are much more important - at least to the listener -  than any other component of an audio system.

 

YMMV, IMNSHO, etc. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

 

 

[fas42]

Fair enough, Paul ... but I got to this point of thinking over quite a number of years, decades. What gave the game away was that the original rig came good with speakers that were relatively low cost compared to the CDP and amp - and I then went and listened to supposedly good demo systems, with very expensive speakers - and they weren't doin' it ... . My experiments following all confirmed the 'theory' that the electronics were critical, and I haven't heard anything yet to sway me.

 

Yes, the speakers reveal the flaws further up the chain - and when you sort all of those out, all you hear is the soundspace of the recording - the signature of the speaker 'disappears'. To make the point forcefully: you could have a box speaker, omnis, and panel speakers behind a curtain - 3 entirely different approaches, and on a competent system most would be struggling to pick one from the other.

[esldude]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Fair enough, Paul ... but I got to this point of thinking over quite a number of years, decades. What gave the game away was that the original rig came good with speakers that were relatively low cost compared to the CDP and amp - and I then went and listened to supposedly good demo systems, with very expensive speakers - and they weren't doin' it ... . My experiments following all confirmed the 'theory' that the electronics were critical, and I haven't heard anything yet to sway me.

 

Yes, the speakers reveal the flaws further up the chain - and when you sort all of those out, all you hear is the soundspace of the recording - the signature of the speaker 'disappears'. To make the point forcefully: you could have a box speaker, omnis, and panel speakers behind a curtain - 3 entirely different approaches, and on a competent system most would be struggling to pick one from the other.

Results of Harman research doing exactly and precisely what you describe indicate you are very wrong.  Or maybe I should say completely wrong.  They haven't just theorized, they've done the experiment you described.  Didn't turn out at all the way you are saying.  Groups from audiophiles, students, people from multiple cultures, recording pros, highly trained listeners, all of them, every group could hear and differentiate between omni's, panels and good box speakers.  The results all lined up the same way with the same speakers coming out on top in all those groups.  

 

Speakers are quite simply the most important part of the playback chain.  It is a stunning bit of self deception to think otherwise.  A stupefying level of delusion.  

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

But all in all, I would suggest speakers are much more important - at least to the listener -  than any other component of an audio system.

 Paul

 Yes, but many members also manage to obtain quite decent sound from their office/ PC secondary system.

 

Alex

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Paul

 Yes, but many members also manage to obtain quite decent sound from their office/ PC secondary system.

 

Alex

Which in no way refutes what Paul said.  

[sandyk]

46 minutes ago, esldude said:

Results of Harman research doing exactly and precisely what you describe indicate you are very wrong.  Or maybe I should say completely wrong.  They haven't just theorized, they've done the experiment you described.  Didn't turn out at all the way you are saying.  Groups from audiophiles, students, people from multiple cultures, recording pros, highly trained listeners, all of them, every group could hear and differentiate between omni's, panels and good box speakers.  The results all lined up the same way with the same speakers coming out on top in all those groups.  

 

Speakers are quite simply the most important part of the playback chain.  It is a stunning bit of self deception to think otherwise.  A stupefying level of delusion.  

 

It's also a stupefying delusion to think that the source electronics don't matter,

 It doesn't matter how good the speakers are if the front end Is  a cheap laptop or a bog standard Mac Mini using basic USB !

[semente]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

If you're not willing to consider that the parts of the chain prior to the speakers are absolutely critical to best sound, then there is no point. Brilliant source recording + mediocre DAC + mediocre amp + brilliant speakers = mediocre subjective presentation - the weakest link determines vital parts of the SQ, not the 'best' link.

 

 

I can do that too:

 

Brilliant source recording + brilliant DAC + brilliant amp + mediocre speakers = mediocre subjective presentation - the weakest link determines vital parts of the SQ, not the 'best' link.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 Paul

 Yes, but many members also manage to obtain quite decent sound from their office/ PC secondary system.

 

Alex

 

Probably have speakers they like on those systems.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Results of Harman research doing exactly and precisely what you describe indicate you are very wrong.  Or maybe I should say completely wrong.  They haven't just theorized, they've done the experiment you described.  Didn't turn out at all the way you are saying.  Groups from audiophiles, students, people from multiple cultures, recording pros, highly trained listeners, all of them, every group could hear and differentiate between omni's, panels and good box speakers.  The results all lined up the same way with the same speakers coming out on top in all those groups.  

 

Speakers are quite simply the most important part of the playback chain.  It is a stunning bit of self deception to think otherwise.  A stupefying level of delusion.  

 

That type of research has never used playback of the standard that's required - if the playback chain is not capable of being transparent to the recording, then all bets are off. Rigs below the necessary standard will always "sound like their speakers", because your subjective attention is to the sounds that they are making, rather than the presentation that they are throwing up - this might seem like a moot point, but for those who explore audio reproduction working to this level, it's everything.

 

Just think of the best audio reproduction you have ever heard, throughout your years of this interest in audio; even if the experience lasted only for a very short time. Ignore what you thought were the reasons for that quality - and consider that that is the standard that should always be in place.

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 

I can do that too:

 

Brilliant source recording + brilliant DAC + brilliant amp + mediocre speakers = mediocre subjective presentation - the weakest link determines vital parts of the SQ, not the 'best' link.

 

If that is truly the case, then you would be right, yes. Would you believe I had trouble finding a "bad enough" speaker, at one point in my experimenting, to get the audible misbehaviour of the driver to be so obvious that it damaged the illusion?

 

Yes, cheap speakers quite often have silly, cost cutting weaknesses: rubbishy push on connectors, poor connections to the terminal posts, inadequate capacitors in the crossovers, poor organising of internal wiring. These are relatively easy to sort - which I do - and then I make sure that they are stable on their mounting surface; this is sufficient to get quality which exposes all the weaknesses in the driving chain.

 

If all the electronic components are "brilliant" in themselves, this may not ensure that the overall electronic chain is "brilliant" - the weaknesses often lurk in the " + " areas, the connections between the items.

[esldude]

50 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

That type of research has never used playback of the standard that's required - if the playback chain is not capable of being transparent to the recording, then all bets are off. Rigs below the necessary standard will always "sound like their speakers", because your subjective attention is to the sounds that they are making, rather than the presentation that they are throwing up - this might seem like a moot point, but for those who explore audio reproduction working to this level, it's everything.

 

Just think of the best audio reproduction you have ever heard, throughout your years of this interest in audio; even if the experience lasted only for a very short time. Ignore what you thought were the reasons for that quality - and consider that that is the standard that should always be in place.

I have and find your argument completely unconvincing.

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

I have and find your argument completely unconvincing.

 

That exemplary playback was giving you a whiff of what the raw sound of the recording was - minus the signature of the playback chain. IOW, conventional playback is layering too much distortion over the sound for your listening brain to be able to discard its influence - the absence of that, yes, veiling accompaniment is a revelation, and allows all the qualities I mention to be part of the experience.

 

If rigs were transparent to the source, they would all sound identical. Instead, they stink of highly distinctive 'character' - a polite term for the distorting makeup they nearly always apply. So, the choice is, do you want to use recordings to show off your likeable system; or for the system to 'invisibly' present what was captured in the recording session?

[audiobomber]

I've heard the "source first" vs. "speakers first" arguments. IME, neither results in best bang for buck. I believe in a  balanced system, with source, amplification and speakers that are somewhat matched in cost and performance. Equally important is that they complement each other sonically, which can only be determined through listening.

 

Neither Sharp boombox speakers nor Wilsons belong in a system with NAD components.

[Paul R]

Well, I do think Fas42 is right in that cost is not an accurate predictor of the quality of an item. Especially when we get up into the stratospheric pricing range, but I think it also applies in almost every price range.

 

I’ll take a well matched set of $600 speakers with a little NAD over a not well matched set of $5000 speakers with the same NAD any day.  Or a $10k DAC with a $1500 integrated amp, if they sound good together. Of course, that is me and my goals in audio are not so much to achieve the “absolute sound”,  but to achieve one or more systems that maximize my enjoyment of listening.

 

Watching a movie , especially a ballet or musical requires one kind of environment.  Listening while working requires another. Critical listening to write up a review or evaluation, yet another.  Studying online  courses requires a listening environment that is even more different. So many factors... ideally, one system custom designed for each task, but that is rarely practical. 💸

 

Bias - rather satisfying a bias - also plays a huge part in matching up a system. I enjoy a system more if the speakers and components look good. Shallow of me perhaps, but denying it will only mean I am less pleased with a system than I could be. That’s a waste.

 

Consequently, I will “hide” NAD components, because they sound great but are often butt ugly. They look a lot Iike avionics. Electrical tape over the blinking lights....

 

I tend to display components like the Peachtree Nova and Harbeth P-3ESRs because (I think) they are beautiful and I enjoy looking at them. 

 

But overall, I think that finding a reasonable set of speakers you enjoy listening to at the dealer, then building a system around that is a pretty safe way to go - for me. Other folks should start with an amp, or turntable, or DAC, or... whatever they really enjoy. It will all work out in the end.  

 

Only the folks who really groove on playing with the hardware really fit into the “design a balanced system before you buy anything” mold, at least in my view of the universe. Definitely, YMMV on that! Purely personal opinion! I offer it only in the sense it is a bit different from Fas42’s, and it would be a bit fun to hear opposing or different opinions. 🤪

 

 

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

Well, I do think Fas42 is right in that cost is not an accurate predictor of the quality of an item. Especially when we get up into the stratospheric pricing range, but I think it also applies in almost every price range.

 

I’ll take a well matched set of $600 speakers with a little NAD over a not well matched set of $5000 speakers with the same NAD any day.  Or a $10k DAC with a $1500 integrated amp, if they sound good together. Of course, that is me and my goals in audio are not so much to achieve the “absolute sound”,  but to achieve one or more systems that maximize my enjoyment of listening.

 

Watching a movie , especially a ballet or musical requires one kind of environment.  Listening while working requires another. Critical listening to write up a review or evaluation, yet another.  Studying online  courses requires a listening environment that is even more different. So many factors... ideally, one system custom designed for each task, but that is rarely practical. 💸

 

Bias - rather satisfying a bias - also plays a huge part in matching up a system. I enjoy a system more if the speakers and components look good. Shallow of me perhaps, but denying it will only mean I am less pleased with a system than I could be. That’s a waste.

 

Consequently, I will “hide” NAD components, because they sound great but are often butt ugly. They look a lot Iike avionics. Electrical tape over the blinking lights....

 

I tend to display components like the Peachtree Nova and Harbeth P-3ESRs because (I think) they are beautiful and I enjoy looking at them. 

 

But overall, I think that finding a reasonable set of speakers you enjoy listening to at the dealer, then building a system around that is a pretty safe way to go - for me. Other folks should start with an amp, or turntable, or DAC, or... whatever they really enjoy. It will all work out in the end.  

 

Only the folks who really groove on playing with the hardware really fit into the “design a balanced system before you buy anything” mold, at least in my view of the universe. Definitely, YMMV on that! Purely personal opinion! I offer it only in the sense it is a bit different from Fas42’s, and it would be a bit fun to hear opposing or different opinions. 🤪

 

 

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. In particular, I agree that

• Cost and sound quality don't correlate in any precise or reliable manner.
• "Bias," that is, one's listening/sonic preferences, are an important and reasonable - essential, in fact - factor, since the whole point is that our systems should sound the way we want them to sound.
• The appearance of one's equipment, and any other aspect of it, is a totally valid factor - again, this is all about enjoyment, and so I you like how a certain piece of equipment looks, then go for it - buy it and display it prominently in your setup.

The only issue I have is when people aren't sufficiently honest or self-aware to distinguish between their personal sonic preferences on the one hand, and fidelity on the other. Ditto for appearance, buzzword features, and so on: all good if that's what one finds important, but not the same thing as fidelity.

 

If you say, "I like this gear because it's voiced in a way that I really enjoy, and it looks awesome and makes me happy," and someone tells you that you shouldn't like it or the you wasted your money, then that person's just being a snob.

 

But if someone likes their gear because of its voicing and its looks, and they try to argue that their gear is higher-fidelity than other gear without having measurements or any objective or reasonable explanation to back up that claim, then they deserve whatever critical responses they might get.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I've heard the "source first" vs. "speakers first" arguments. IME, neither results in best bang for buck. I believe in a  balanced system, with source, amplification and speakers that are somewhat matched in cost and performance. Equally important is that they complement each other sonically, which can only be determined through listening.

 

Neither Sharp boombox speakers nor Wilsons belong in a system with NAD components.

 

IME best bang for the buck comes from dealing with areas most people don't regard as so important. I have about 8 sets of speakers here, most of which are much more "audiophile" than the Sharp units. But I'm not using them because they are too bulky, heavy for how I've got the rig - which is effectively on a workbench. Think of those cheap speakers being used in the same way as small studio monitors, "to hear what is going on" - I will add, I did a round of listening to the available active monitors, in the pro shops, some years ago - and was surprised to hear how bad they were, especially the big name brands - the Sharp boxes are vastly superior to listen to, because the driving chain is being sorted out, than any of the 'right' names.

 

Voicing is another expression for choosing your poison - one is fine tuning the audible distortion so that it is 'nicest' for yourself. I'm not interested in that, I want to hear what's on the recording - and the rig is actually in the way of me getting that - it has to completely disappear in the auditory sense; I have no interest in it apart from being a means to an end.

 

It turns out that it's much harder to get the electronics to 'vanish'; speakers are relatively easy, so I'm not so fussed about them.