Jump to content
IGNORED

Relative importance of differences in stereo systems


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

Given the significant differences in the sound  between even very high end speakers;

which swamp any differences in the intervening electronics, why aren't we more concerned about

getting this right?, rather than trying to decide 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'

wrt different DACs, cables, etc?

Even though electronics nowadays is mostly 'perfect' when compared to speakers -- there are two issues (off the top of my head).  One issue is the use of legacy equipment -- for example, I used to have a Nakamichi preamp and Hitachi amplifier (one of the first FET amplifiers.)  Both distorted fairly noticeably -- and I didn't have golden ears -- just good perception.

The other thing is that sometimes people don't want 'perfect', but would prefer a certain 'sound'.  For example, few vacuum tube amplifiers are as perfect as well designed semiconductor amplifiers -- however some people might (rightfully so) prefer the even order distortion, lower damping or other artifacts of the 'tube/valve sound.'

Summing up:  electronics differences include using older -- less well designed equipment can make a difference, and also boutique equipment with a certain coloring.  There are probably other aspects that might make the HW different -- using 30 gauge wire might make a difference on the speakers themselves, or maybe using high capacitance boutique wires of any kind anywhere can make a rather 'interesting' difference from perfection.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Summing up:  electronics differences include using older -- less well designed equipment can make a difference, and also boutique equipment with a certain coloring.  There are probably other aspects that might make the HW different -- using 30 gauge wire might make a difference on the speakers themselves, or maybe using high capacitance boutique wires of any kind anywhere can make a rather 'interesting' difference from perfection.

Yes, the element of play is important. 😊

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment

My ‘imperfect’, as being electromechanical and distorting way more than any electronics, loudspeakers have been perfectly able to convey any changes I’ve made upstream even more subtle changes (compared to swapping speakers or optimizing their room placement) in. The only thing we can’t change are the recordings we listen too (not counting upsampling) but otherwise everything else matters. One could only discuss the relative importance of tweaks and types of system changes but otherwise it’s still garbage in -> garbage out.

Link to comment

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. 

 

 

 

Link to comment

I think 4est makes a very good point. For many of us in this hobby our speakers often represent the single most expensive to replace component in the system. Unless you have one or more good audio stores close by I think for many folks the cost of shipping alone is going to limit the number of different speakers one can afford to try out. So once you find a speaker you really like you're probably not going to consider changing them too often. To a lesser extent I suspect the same is true for amplification, once you find the amp that gives what you consider the best sound with your speakers you're not likely to change it. 

 

Regards,

Mario

 

 

 

Link to comment
Just now, marioed said:

I think 4est makes a very good point. For many of us in this hobby our speakers often represent the single most expensive to replace component in the system. Unless you have one or more good audio stores close by I think for many folks the cost of shipping alone is going to limit the number of different speakers one can afford to try out. So once you find a speaker you really like you're probably not going to consider changing them too often. To a lesser extent I suspect the same is true for amplification, once you find the amp that gives what you consider the best sound with your speakers you're not likely to change it. 

 

Regards,

Mario

 

Bingo!

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, STC said:

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. 

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.

13 minutes ago, marioed said:

For many of us in this hobby our speakers often represent the single most expensive to replace component in the system. Unless you have one or more good audio stores close by I think for many folks the cost of shipping alone is going to limit the number of different speakers one can afford to try out. So once you find a speaker you really like you're probably not going to consider changing them too often.

Yes, the focus is determined by cost, bulk and convenience and not by a performance-related analysis.  Our acquisitions range from important determinants of the sound to gadgets of, at best, trivial value.  I like toys, too.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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. 

Where are you going with this then. First you say that stereo is limited, and then you suggest that multi channel has limited material. Is this then some study or simply you pontificating? I just don't get where you are coming from.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

 

I promise you that a major historical problem with listening  pre-recorded material has been leaked DolbyA.  Amazingly, all of the 'golden ears' didn't even realize that they were often (not always) listening to 10dB of compression at 3-9k and 15dB at 9k-20k, thinking that they were getting 'high quality' audio (that is, DolbyA encoding.)  (BTW, DolbyA compression is not active in the same way as a normal compressor -- so it doesn't sound as bad as the compression figures imply.)   This leakage is ONE REASON why people had earlier on noticed the 'harsh digital sound'  Even the HDtracks Carpenter's album is (or was when I purchased it about 1-2yrs ago) DolbyA encoded.

There ARE always complications in getting good material and lots of things like speaker positioning/etc.  I quit the audiophile hobby back in the very early 1990s, because the CDs never sounded good, and the vinyl was... well, vinyl.  It is only recently with computers being very fast, and the ability to emulate DolbyA decoding (not so easily) on computers that I found out that not only a few titles were DolbyA encoded, but MANY titles were.  I'd consider any material created between late 1960's though early 1990's to be vulnerable, and I have even heard more recent material than early 1990's as DolbyA encoded.

So -- quality source material is probably the biggest bugaboo, and it has been so since listening to prerecorded music in the home has been possible.  Digital has not solved the problem, but it could -- someday.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Because, generally speaking, what goes into my speakers is what comes out.  The better the quality of the signal going in, the better the quality of the music coming out. If you’re listening to the sound of speakers, you’re probably also listening to the wrong speakers. But if any speaker is set up incorrectly relative to the room, that better get looked at before bothering with anything else. That’s true. 

It seems like you might have good speakers -- not criticising that, however speakers are NEVER accurate.  They can create a sense of accuracy, beauty or sound good -- but they aren't accurate.  I see that you wrote 'generally speaking' and that is a good thing to say.

Poor speakers will hide the differnces in your source materials, good speakers will show some difference.

However, even the tightest coupling to your hearing system will not be totally accurate -- and speakers with all of their resonances (yea, you can tune part of that out, but that is ONLY frequency responses), will only give an approximate representation.  (With things like speakers and almost any physical device, there are REAL mathematical limitations as to how well the timing (phase) and frequency responses can BOTH -- BOTH be corrected.)  That, of course, assumes that the speakers are linear -- and low frequencies really cause problems in those areas.  Even coupling between the LF speakers and the MF/HF speakers cause phase distortion -- usually not alot, but just one example.  Any time you have to move a diaphragm a long distance very quickly -- it will cause odd phase shifts.

Speakers can never be accurate, but they  might sound good -- and even might be more accurate than usual...

 

My guess is that a big part of the hobby for some people is trying to chase the ideal...  Have fun at it -- it gets more and more tricky as your stuff gets better and better.

 

John

Link to comment

Interesting discussion. I wonder what I am going to agree with.

But I guess those who claim that you build the system around the speakers are at least realistic. Those who don't have too cheap speakers or too much money.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Thanks for the discussion but you know what? I don’t honestly care if my speakers are accurate or not. Since I don’t know what the original sounded like I don’t care if the facsimile is 100% accurate. I care that it sounds great, natural, musical, rhythmical and dynamic and blows me away with music. As long as they’re 100% involving and 100% convincing, it matters not a jot whether they’re accurate or not. 

Add the fact that I’m playing them in a fairly small,  reflective, lossy but reverberantly well balanced room and the best I can hope for  is a highly musical, natural and transparent rendition of the signal they’re fed, with no identifiable coloration. If every track I listen to has its own acoustic, tonal and dynamic character rather than something the speaker or room imposes on the music, I’m good. 

Its worth bearing in mind that what we’re listening to is a recording of the original event, if there even was an original event

 

 

I don't want to hear the Band in the Cow Palace (the Last Waltz*) unless I am there in person.  I my home, I just want a nice approximation.

 

* I doubt anyone at that performance was sober enough to enjoy the music.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment

After the speakers* (maybe with some DSP) I think the next thing is the mastering/recording - if one can find better ones.  I can't even find Willis Alan Ramsey's sole album on CD so...

 

Most electronics come after the above, and there is nothing wrong with upgrading ...  I have a new amp on order, tho not clear it will be an upgrade.

 

 

 

Sound Lab good; Maggies for cheapskates...

Link to comment

One important test for me regarding speakers is the simple cabinet knock, on the sides and back especially, where some models run cheap.  If my knuckles rap is followed by a slow decaying tubby thunk - pass!

 

And that's not being an AP, that's just a common sense test for build quality.  You want to hear as little of the speaker cabinet as possible for the dollars you're spending. This is far a more significant and audible assessment than wasting time experimenting with $1per, $100per, or $1,000per foot speaker wire.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

After the speakers* (maybe with some DSP) I think the next thing is the mastering/recording - if one can find better ones.  I can't even find Willis Alan Ramsey's sole album on CD so...

 

Most electronics come after the above, and there is nothing wrong with upgrading ...  I have a new amp on order, tho not clear it will be an upgrade.

 

 

 

Sound Lab good; Maggies for cheapskates...

 

Actually, album mastering is more important than DSP, unless that DSP is concerning time alignment issues among speakers in larger setups.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Thanks for the discussion but you know what? I don’t honestly care if my speakers are accurate or not. Since I don’t know what the original sounded like I don’t care if the facsimile is 100% accurate. I care that it sounds great, natural, musical, rhythmical and dynamic and blows me away with music. As long as they’re 100% involving and 100% convincing, it matters not a jot whether they’re accurate or not. 

Add the fact that I’m playing them in a fairly small,  reflective, lossy but reverberantly well balanced room and the best I can hope for  is a highly musical, natural and transparent rendition of the signal they’re fed, with no identifiable coloration. If every track I listen to has its own acoustic, tonal and dynamic character rather than something the speaker or room imposes on the music, I’m good. 

Its worth bearing in mind that what we’re listening to is a recording of the original event, if there even was an original event

I agree that accuracy isn't important, but it is also impossible (when compared with the rest of the system).  The best thing is to try to enjoy and play.  "Sounds good' or "Sounds better" is all that is important.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I am working a big part of the mastering problem (I mean, for older material) just this second.  My project is being developed with a recording engineer (and help from several others -- including grammy winner involved also.)  A lot of old material is poorly mastered, or even just played out from a tape -- they call that 'mastering'. ('They' isn't the recording engineers, the 'They' are the bean-counters.)

Previously, dealing with the old DolbyA recordings (long since on digital) has been expensive (having to run the material real time through ancient hardware.)  Even if it IS on analog and quickly available (no trips to Iron Mountain are necessary), then dealing with the HW is a pain.   My project is to eliminate that step, and do it better -- less IMD and other kinds of distortion.  (NR systems usually splat IMD all over the place -- only the slow attack systems avoid that, and then they have other troubles.)  My DolbyA decoder does all kinds of tricks with distortion cancellation and moving distortion sidebands into hiding places (kind of.)  Also, it shapes the attack/decay curves ever so slightly to minimize the amplitude of distortion sidebands (IMD.)

MASTERING IS/HAS BEEN A REAL PROBLEM.  The sad thing is that it isn't the frustrated engineers fault -- it is all that 'bean counting' going on.

John

 

 

Just be sure to notice my profile avatar, and remember that just cranking it up and heavily limiting it is not mastering, or remastering for that matter.  Preserve those peaks! Use peak limiting only for the few outlier peaks.

 

Resist demands by the client(the artist, the producer, or label) for LOUDNESSABOVEALL.  If you lose those customers because they went somewhere else to have their mixes intentionally distorted or otherwise over-processed for final release, they weren't worth your time and talent as a post-engineer in the first place.  If you value great sound, you will attract like-minded clientele. ;)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...