Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[STC]

Only audiophiles facing this problem of getting the sound correct. Not one videophiles would argue that 50s black and white or the 70s color TV was closer to reality compared to the current 8K format. 

 

To those with proper 5.1 setup knows that stereo sound can never  achieve the realism of the former and yet they steadfastly remain loyal to the stereo format. I have lost count of the number of times reviewers telling that with certain equipment they felt like being there in a live performance and yet this search continues.

 

It is not difficult to know where the weak link is but we have evolved to accept stereo sound itself as unique and forms its own flavour which somewhat similar to lover of vintage sports cars. That is, both are inferior compared current standards but they still appeal to some.

 

It is no longer about speakers or electronics. 

 

 

 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, 4est said:

This is so tired...

 

I attempt to use my source material to the best of my abilities. There just isn't enough multichannel material for me to wreck my living spaces with even more speakers. Especially because I prefer panel speakers (I own Sound Lab, Quad and Magnepan) which require addition space around them. And yes, I have done this. For awhile I was running 5 Quad 63s run by 5 EAR 509s. There just wasn't enough material to justify continuing it. The source material is the limiting factor IMO, and makes multi-channel merely a side gig at best.

 

Lack of multichannel material is secondary. I gave up chasing multichannel format because those are very limited and practical none for my preferred genre despite all of them were and are cinema sound track. 

 

The point is stereo itself and how to make them to sound closer to real performance. 

[STC]

8 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Of course but the resistance to this huge opportunity for improvement is "baked in" with audiophiles who have financial and personal investments that they want to conserve.

 

I don't think finance is an issue to most audiophiles. I believe it is some sort indoctrination over the years that real performance could be produced by two speakers stereo only.  

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not in my experience as a proselytizer for multichannel.  The biggest objections are that there isn't enough room for more amps/speakers and that spreading the available budget over 5.1 or more channels would mean that the cost per channel would decrease as would quality.  They offer this as an argument against MCH without realizing that its advantage over stereo trump any such concerns.

 

52 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

For a many people, multi-channel is a non-starter because of the space and equipment requirements. While a well set up multi-channel system for music will outperform an equivalent stereo one, that seldom apples to the typical multi-channel home audio video system.

 

It could be true where you live but over here, almost all the audiophiles do have a decent HT system and yet I have not seen any of them attempted to spend a fraction of the time they had spent on their stereo system to improve the HT for music listening.

 

In the mid-90s, one audiophile used to have one of the best HT systems and another one for his stereo system. During my visit along with other audiophiles he played Roy Orbison which sounded very good. In a way that was my first experience of audiophile setup. Up to that point, I only had a simple Hifi system.

 

Later, he played a DVD 5.1 live performance of Roy in his HT room. For me, that sound outperformed his stereo setup for realism and musical engagement. Unfortunately, not one of them agreed with me and insisted that HT sound is different and not natural. They laughed at me for my lack of taste. It has been more than 25 years, and none of them even attempted to listen to some music with their HT system.

 

IMO, It is not cost nor space but refusal to believe that a multichannel recording could easily outperform all their effort in perfecting stereo setup. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

That is why I call those issues excuses.   Their psychological investment is entirely wrapped up in stereo. 

 

Why? What were they chasing all these years? Fidelity or self-accomplishment of being best among imperfection? 

 

 

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

That's my point. The typical HT system seldom has the same degree of investment and optimization devoted to an audiophile stereo system. I am not saying that a multi-channel HT system cannot perform better that a stereo system. It most certainly can. But, in practice, most multi-channel HT systems are not set up to do so. Rather, as entertainment systems, they are more frequently devoted to movies and TV, where sound effects are typically more important than sound quality.

 

It is not that simple. Proper setup requires some understanding about the recordings itself. Firstly, we need true multichannel materials.  Then the next question is to determine whether the multichannel materials' extra channels are meant for object based sound or spatial information. Furthermore, all the senior audiophiles s grew up hearing stereo sound. Technically, those recordings will sound better with stereo, and artificial remastering for multichannel will sound so different that it is hard to enjoy the music. AND to some, they don't like the difference!

 

This difference or weakness in multichannel can be addressed easily. You can always convert your current stereo setup to a multichannel system with a small investment. You don't even need full range speakers for the surround. A good AV receiver can handle the extra channels. Just press stereo or multichannel to suit the material.

 

Cost is just an excuse. Another weak excuse is space. In the top range audiophile setups, the diffusers, bass trap, reflector take up far more space than the tiny surround speakers in comparisons. Kal is right. It is a psychological resistance. 

 

 

[STC]

18 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

No it isn't a weak excuse. in my apartment living room setup, I don't have bass traps or other room treatments that take up appreciable space. Nor do I have any convenient locations for additional amplifiers and surround speakers, let alone places to run the wires to connect the latter. In any case, I don't see any point in arguing about whether cost and/or space are excuses or realistic practical constraints. I am not knocking multi-channel, but perhaps you and Kal are getting somewhat carried away in your proselytizing for it by making such statements.

 

I understand that some do not have a dedicated room. I was addressing those with dedicated room for music. 

[STC]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

For the poor and lower middle class audiophiles it is both cost and lack of space.

 

I live in a studio apartment and I have neither the space or the funds for multichannel. I have one audio/video/computer system with a total cost for everything including Mac Mini computer, Teac DSD DAC, HDTV, Blu-ray/SACD player, tubed preamp, solid state power amp, 2 floor standing speakers and cables with a total cost of everything of less than $3.5K. Some of my equipment is over 30 years old.

 

Slightly over half of my SACDs have a multichannel program. So if I ever become rich I will rent a larger apartment with a dedicated living room and expand my stereo audio/video system to multichannel and give it a try. I don't see me getting that rich in this lifetime. My only income is Social Security.

 

Not everyone is as rich as you make people out to be.

 

 

I agree and this is the same for the space in my studio apartment. Not everyone has large rooms to put lots of stuff in.

 

 

I have never been to anyone's home which has a dedicated room for music. They either have a stereo or multichannel audio/video system in the living room or in their single room if they live in a studio apartment like me.

 

I thought only very rich people had separate rooms for video and audio systems. For the rest of us a single system is used for both audio and video. And many of the few I've been in with multichannel systems have the rear speakers setting on top of the front speakers because they don't want wires running along the walls. If one rents an apartment they cannot put wires in the walls. I suppose one could get wireless speakers for the rear. Oh, well. 

 

To be an audiophile you need to have high end equipment. This high performance equipment requires proper setup to bring out the best in them. 

 

The room acoustics is far more important than the speakers itself. I cannot emphasize the importance of room acoustics enough. 

 

 Perhaps, all aspiring audiophiles should sing in the bathroom, kitchen and in the various part of the house and ask why it sounds better in some places. Then ask if the sound could be better with a acousticslly better room. 

 

Hign end is all about bringing out the best from the recordings. It is hard to do that if we are constrained by space requirement. I have seen great setup in a 10 by 8 room. It can be done but we also need to aware of far more important things in family. 

 

Theresa, I agree with your point but I think it is hard to achieve the best sound without getting the other half correct. It also doesnt mean you need a dedicated room. It can be your living room but You must have the freedom to do the necessary with the living room to bring out the best from the speakers. It doesnt matter whether you listen to one, two or multi speakers. More than half of the sound you hear is not from yhe speakers. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

I too love surround sound for both movies and music, but the topic is stereo.

 

There are better ways to play the stereo recordings. 

[STC]

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

I'm more than a bit surprised at the lack of response to this statement. The term "audiophile" is often used pejoratively, e.g. as Ken Rockwell does:

• "Audiophiles are what's left after almost all of the knowledgeable music and engineering people left the audio scene back in the 1980s."
• "audiophiles don't have the experience or education to understand what matters"

But I think Rockwellians are a bit harsh in seeing pursuit of expensive audio equipment purely or primarily as ignorant and conspicuous consumption, despite their occasional confluence.  And if that were the context of the quoted post, I would have expected something like "To be an audiophile, you need to have fancy, costly, exotic, highly rated equipment".  Thankfully, it seems more like an innocently elitist term in the posted context - so I only have to take polite issue with it.  For me and multiple excellent dictionaries like Webster ("a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction") and Cambridge ("a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality"), being an audiophile requires only interest and enthusiasm.  I can find no hardware requirements.

 

Maybe I'm not a true audiophile.  Over the 60+ years I've been whatever it is that I am, I've generally spent 5% or less of the cost of contemporary "high end" systems on my own stuff.  Sadly, I had to settle for only about 90+% of the sound quality I could have gotten had I used my money for "better" audio equipment instead of education, guitars, cars, women, clothes, wine, travel, cameras, bicycles, motorcycles, family, house, and............music   And every once in a while, the audio gods allow the weaknesses in my system to cancel each other and grace me with an outstanding listening session, for which I am truly thankful (and aware that my approach to audiophilia does not merit such joy).

 

In retirement, I continue to struggle with the sonic & functional limitations imposed by less-than-high-end equipment.  Fortunately, I've been able to resist conscious depression, despite suffering from a 50 year old Thorens & SME, i3- and ARM-based computers, entry level Audioquest wires,  Emotiva and Wadia DACs,  powered JBLs, and Prima Luna amplification driving Focal 726s and Rogers LS3/5a  speakers, and similarly limiting stuff.  Even my piano is only a Yamaha.

 

Be aware that many others suffer the same pain in silence. But we soldier on, because we're -  - AUDIOPHILES!

 

 

Quote

For me and multiple excellent dictionaries like Webster ("a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction") and Cambridge ("a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality"), being an audiophile requires only interest and enthusiasm.  I can find no hardware requirements.

 

 

It was statement to emphazise the importance of room acoustics. Although, the term 'high end' often associated with expensive equipment, I meant it to be high(read good) quality equipment. Today, audiophile refers to lifestyle and branded equipment despite what they claim to be. Like the Audioquest and Wadia DAC that you are using.  

[STC]

4 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

In other words:  BLING 

 

It need not be so if you are only after high fidelity. But not exactly cheap either.

[STC]

46 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I doubt that there is ANYTHING which will be 'perfect' to me -- unless it is wired directly into me, or I am there at the performance.

 

Even if you a stereo recording wired directly into you, it will still sound imperfect. The problem is not in the recording or the speakers. It is the lack of understanding how human hear sound.

[STC]

25 minutes ago, esldude said:

Hmmmmmm, if we can't agree the speaker is the biggest problem in the reproduction chain I'm not sure what to think.  

 

OTOH, anyone not discussing this issue, telling us it isn't a problem with no data or evidence is off topic. 

 

Listen to Stradivarius violin  ( from a fixed distance) being played in a gym, bathroom concert hall, cave, open field, in your bed room, kitchen and etc etc. 

 

None of them is going to sound similar and only one or two going to sound great. Replace the violin with a boom box and listen again. At the same loudness level; the best sounding venue will be the same for the violin and boombox. So which one should be more important? Room acoustics or speakers?

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

things we can control on the playback end.

 

Exactly! Can you control the violin sound? You can’t. The level is more or less the same but the venue’s acoustics determine the performance SQ. 

 

The most common excuse during big audio show for poor performing state of the art speakers is the room. A reasonably a good pair of speakers can outperform  the  worlds best speakers placed in acousticly poor room. 

 

In the real world of orchestra musical performance, you hear 90% of the surrounding acoustics than the direct aound of the orchestra. That’s a fact. 

 

 

 

 

[STC]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Your ideas seems to be shifting.  Why couldn't a good boombox outperform the real thing in an acoustically poor room?

 

Let me rephrase that - "The most common excuse during big audio show for poor performing state of the art speakers is the room. A reasonably a good pair of speakers  in a good acoustics room can outperform  the  worlds best speakers placed in acoustically poor room.  "

 

 

Quote

 

My thinking was the same space will likely sound best for both the real sound and a recording over a boombox (though I can think of potential exceptions). 

 

No dispute there. 

 

Quote

 

But a good floorstanding speaker will also be experienced the same.  And the floorstanding speaker will outperform the boombox in all spaces and come in second to the real thing in all spaces.

 

Yes. No dispute when the room acoustics and the playback level is the same.

 

Quote

 

  So the importance of the speaker quality is still there without disagreeing that the space can greatly alter the quality of the sound .

 

Yes but the best speakers cannot perform better in a poor venue (acoustics wise) than a good speakers in a a good room.

 

Quote

 

The video I posted illustrates how much differently spaces can sound.  However, that isn't how our hearing would have performed.  Our hearing would reject much of the reflected sound and hear primarily the direct sound.  So hearing thru to the source of the sound in various spaces is what our hearing does and it reduces the effect of the space (reduces not eliminates).

 

IIRC, I was the first own who posted this video to illustrate how the surrounding acoustics can alter the direct sound. You are mixing up cocktail effect with precedence effect. 

 

Quote

 

In big spaces like orchestras in a large hall, 90% of the sound  reaching our ears is reflected, but even there our hearing reduces the perception to favor direct over reflected.  In a large enough space the difference is smaller, but still there. 

 

Again, you are mixing up with cocktail effect. Toole's research on lateral reflection will show how important is the delayed reverberation to increase the spaciousness of a performance.

 

Quote

 Even if you disagree with this, I'd think you would agree to flip things and say speaker is second biggest issue.

 

Speaker is second. Yes. 

[STC]

11 minutes ago, esldude said:

No not mixing up cocktail effect with precedence.

 

An example, posted here somewhere, is where I recorded music at my LP from speakers.  And from very close to the speakers.  The LP position sounds nothing like how it sounds.  Everything sounds too distant and almost echoey.  Because the recording picks up the direct sound and reflections.  Our hearing ignores some few milliseconds of the reflections, but can't do that if the reflections are in the original recording.  Enough in a small space that much of the room reflection is ignored.  Toole shows that for reflections arriving long enough after the sense of space is effected.  In most domestic situations that effect isn't zero, but it isn't much.   The up close recording gets rather close to how it sounded at the LP because it is much more direct sound and much lower level for reflected sound. 

 

You got the principle right but the application to your example is incorrect. Most of  delayed sound should originates from a different direction. Only a small amount of reverberation that originates from the frontal stage should be in the recording. If you were to record at LP then all the reverbs will originate from the same source as the direct sound. The brain will now consider them as first event which affects the clarity. Even those using binaural dummy head do not record them at LP but much closer to the performance.

 

It is incorrect to say the brain ignoring the reflection from the room, it receives and process them differently as compared to to the same sound played through the loudspeakers.

 

 

[STC]

32 minutes ago, esldude said:

That is what I was saying.  The delayed sound from speaker in room comes from another direction and delayed so your hearing processes it differently.

 

It is processing exactly how it supposed to process.

32 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

  You can uncover that by recording with a microphone so that all those reflections come from the speaker as a direct sound.  So you are hearing the part your hearing has ways of listening past and ignoring.

 

If you are insisting the brain is ignoring then you are saying it is cocktail effect. reverberation and localization fall in delays category.

32 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

The early reflections, and the early reflections are a result of the room.  But those are largely not noticed by you compared to the level at which they really exist. 

 

I do not understand. In any case, whatever you record will sound awful in a reflection free room. In your room, the room reflection colors the sound from the speakers, that is the recorded sound. How good or bad the coloration depends on the quality of the room reverberation. If you are listening to a typical audiophile vocal recording then the average room with 0.4 to 0.6s RT can sound very good indeed but to have classical recording to sound as in a concert hall then you need to have a reverberation of about 1.7s RT which physically not possible with a typical room dimension.

 

Let's start over. What are we arguing about?

[STC]

21 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Esldude and STC.....couple of points to aid your discussions

1. The brain does not ignore early reflected sound. It ignores the early time delay. So in a room with a lot of early reflections you will hear ‘louder and more intense’ sound.

 

Blackmorec, thank you for your input, but my understanding is different. The brain processes all delays which are crucial for localization. Perhaps delays below 22 microseconds are the ones that brain couldn't detect. Reference Blauert.

 

21 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

2. Audiophile vocal vs. Classical recordings.... the same optimised listening room should work perfectly for both. You don’t want your listening room to add reverb.

 

That depends. I use 22 speakers spaced in the configuration of a circle ( using time delay). I control the reverbs by using at least 48 individual impulse response of an actual concert hall which can be anywhere from 0.4 to 3.3s without echoes or other usual problem that you may have in a real room with long reverberation.  

 

My rooms original RT was 0.28s. I have modified the RT by adding diffusers over the absorbers and increased it to 0.4s. Unlike, the reverberation of the room the concert hall's IRs are smooth and the decay is a gentle slope which is hard to get in a typical room. 

 

With audiophiles vocals, they are at low RT value and good classical it can be at almost 1 to 1 ratio. Not my room's reverberation but a concert hall's reverberation. Reverberation is crucial for the feel of the ambiance. No one number fits all but thanks to today's technology now it is possible to do that with a single click of the mouse.

 

21 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

What you want is for your listening room to reproduce the reverb that’s on the recording, not add more.

 

 

A room cannot selectively reproduce the reverberation. It reproduces whatever sound that comes out of the loudspeakers reverbs plus direct sound. The actual amount of reverbs in the recordings usually around 0.3 or 0.4s long.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

 

For a violin to sound like it does in a concert hall it should ideally be played in a venue with a long RT. For the recording of a violin played in a concert hall to sound like its in a concert hall a listening room with an optimised RT of 0.2 to 0.6s is what’s required, given that you want to reproduce the reverb on the recording and not add reverb, which would be incorrect. 

 

This is correct but for a different reason. It is impossible to have a long RT in a small room. It cannot occur naturally and a concert hall reverberation is unique which the architecture of your room will not allow that to happen.

 

If you are speaking from your knowledge as someone involved in recording than it is correct. But this is about playback of a recording. A better understanding of this will be playing a violin recording in a concert hall and listen how good it sounds. AR 1960 live vs recorded demonstrated that it was hard to distinguish a real and recorded performance in a concert hall. The concert hall own reverberation would have overwhelmed the recording 's reverberation, but that did not happen because no recordings meant for playback over the speakers contained reverberation other than the frontal stage which is also at a low level as close miking would have avoided most of them. Even if you use the critical radius for the mic placement that will be about 1/3 or 1/2 of the 1.1 ratio distance so still not even half of what a listener hears at his LP.

[STC]

47 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

Delays which are crucial to localisation are not the same as delays due to early and late reflections.  Delays crucial to localisation  are essentially those caused by the different distance between the sound source and our 2 ears, whereas delays that cause reverberation are caused by sound bouncing off reflective surfaces in the listening venue. They are not handled the same way by human hearing so you can’t discuss them exchangeably.

 

This is actually very relevant. Human localize sound among others by the timing difference between the two ears. That is limited to about 700µs depending on the ears spacing. When the reverberation is recorded it is still localized by the same location as the timing difference between the ears are still the same. 

 

The reflection from the room comes from other directions around you. This sound when it is within 1ms to 30ms is not perceived to come from a distinct location but fused together with the initial sound. The timing is only relevant if only a single short pulse is used. In complex sound like music, the difference can extend a couple of hundred ms without being perceived as a separate event. The ideal level is said to be 80ms for the late reflection for orchestra music in concert hall.

 

I agree they are not handled in the same way but when it comes from the speakers they are interpreted as how the original sound is heard. We are actually talking the same thing but the only point that needs some clarification is your statement that is " So again, for reflections with very short delays the amplitude is added to the original, and the delay is ignored." Do you have a specific number as to how short is the delay?

 

Quote

The human ear receives a soundwave at each ear. Due to the distance between our ears there will be a delay to one of the waves, plus a small drop in amplitude and a shift in phase. The brain locks onto that delay, amplitude and phase shift to assign location. Similar waves reaching the ear from nearby reflections are summed with the original wave and the original location is preserved.  So again, for reflections with very short delays the amplitude is added to the original and the delay is ignored. Reflections with longer delays are given their own location and are heard as echoes or reverberation.  

 

This is going OT so it is best we move to a new thread.

[STC]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

SQ is a fairly cheap replacement for accuracy.

 

It depends on which parameter's accuracy you are referring to. 

[STC]

@John Dyson sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to sound quality not stereo quadraphonics. Although, IMO Quad can sound better than stereo when implemented right. 

[STC]

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Maybe a scheme where a head with the same geometry as the listener, microphones in each ear, then headphones on the playback -- that might come close to realism.  However, there are still issues with the frequency response variations of the microphone (pretty well controlled) and the coupling of the headphones to the listener (usually not so accurate, but sounds good.)

Then, then 'head' can be moved around to emulate the location in the studio/hall. :-).  Creating a listening environment where moving around is identical to the recording studio/concert hall isn't likely (but might come close for some people and/or limited movement.)

 

I will confine to what's in quote.

 

About frequency response (FR) - this is only useful if the listener's ears also hear similarly. A flat Frequency response can have peaks and dips as high as 20dB or even more. For many, a speakers that measures somewhat inverse to a listener's FR can sound better than a perfectly measuring speakers, amplifiers or DAC. 

 

[ A recording need not go to the extreme to capture the listening environment. The listening environment is separate from the sound from the instruments. A violin sound is the same but the listening environment reverberation is different. What is the best environment is subjective as you can't agree which is the best seat in a concert hall which depends on individual preference and hearing. It can be difficult for you see from my POV unless we are able to demonstrate to each other. ]

 

 

 

 

[STC]

26 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I do not agree.  How does a listener determine what sounds best, most accurate or like live sound?  (Pick any or all.)  Typically, we do this by comparison, either directiy or from memory, to the live event.  But, wait, one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound.   Thus, only a flat/neutral reproduction system is capable of providing any chance of success. 

 

Taste preference is a confounding variable.

 

 

 

As you said " one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound". Where is the reference? Does it sound perfect when you sit 1 meter away or 4 meters ? Can the FR at 1 meter be the same as at 4 meter? 

 

It helps when the FR of the recording and playback instrument is accurate but the preference or perceived accuracy is dependant on the listener frequency response which is inconsistent and varies according to the loudness level. 

 

About inconsistency, which A4 note is correct? Does it matter if the conductor decides to set the pitch standard to 435Hz vs 440Hz? FR accuracy is overrated virtue for music, IMO. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

This gets us into Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" because there is no reference.  However, if the irregularities you refer to as well as the huge and variable influence of personal preference could be controlled, one's own auditory irregularities are still a constant feature of listening to both live and reproduced sound and, therefore, not a differentiating factor. 

 

I edited my post which you may have missed. 

 

Just to illustrate this point, give a listener or a recording engineer to tweak the recording via eq and you will have infinity number of FR. I used to demo tracks EQ’ed to my preference and have three or four versions of the same including the orginal recordings. Different visitors prefer different tracks. 

 

 

 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Personal taste preference.

"Sounding good" is an expression of preference and I am saying that an individual's hearing variability (as long as it is not pathological or completely disfunctional) has no impact his judgement of accuracy, not on personal taste preference.

 

But we don’t listen for accuracy. We judge SQ based on preference. 

 

Our hearing is hardly consistent nor accurate to be used as a measuring tool. Its Fq response and DR varies through out the day. The only thing that can be consistent is the preference even that IME not consistent as I discovered recently while trying to find the best version of Nutcracker - March rendition.  

[STC]

No one knows what an engineer or composer heard. If that statement is relevant than I can also claim to any unintelligible sound as accurate as what Beethoven heard and composed when he was deaf.