Speakers are least important

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

In fact, now I am wondering if anyone could even hear the difference in my video

 

Ever back, a Dutch computer store (ikbenstil.nl) was interviewed on their choice of XXHighEnd software. The YouTube of that unintended showed a crazy audiible difference between Foobar and XXHighEnd. 

I wish I could find that YouTube. It really was a greatest fag (because unintended). 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

The YouTube of that unintended showed a crazy audiible difference between Foobar and XXHighEnd. 

 

Hope you find the video. 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

As I said, stop bring an arrogant insulting jackass, and go try. You are simply and completely wrong in your assumptions. 

 Paul, to be insulted one should have self respect in the first place. Just like your bs about speech recognition being binaural, you are again bs’ing here. This is an area where you offer no real value except to be seen knowledgable by side tracking the topic . 

 

I have no problem hearing the difference and stated clearly in the post. Check your eyes too .  

[Summit]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Indeed true. I believe in system integrity, and that the weakest links determine the signature of the sound - I have never yet heard the "magic" of special speakers, and room acoustics, overcome deficiencies in these areas ... .

 

No point in listening to those clips on the hauled in Dell laptop I'm currently using - they sound like a blubbering mess, on the kneecapped sound system it has; not unlike some ambitious rigs I've come across over the years, .

 

I’m also a firm believer in system integrity, and that the weakest link is the most significant for the final SQ, no matter which part of the audio chain it is.  

[STC]

Real voice. 128 bitrate Youtube sound. We don’t need extra ordinary ears to hear the difference and judge the SQ. In the treatment, one will be better for recording and another one for hifi setup. 

 

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, STC said:

In fact, now I am wondering if anyone could even hear the difference in my video. 

 

 

In fact, now I am wondering if anyone even bothered to listen for differences in your video.

 

 Of course there are VERY obvious differences between them, but they  still sound like crappy $100 speakers, and 128kbps .aac audio is useless for this kind of testing.. 

 

[STC]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

In fact, now I am wondering if anyone even bothered to listen for differences in your video.

 

That’s an area where most will turn into puppies. So far only 7 viewers today.  

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

So far only 7 viewers today.  

 

 I guess that should send you a message given the number of members in the forum, as well as visitors !

In any event, you have already been there with this kind of thing in your own threads.

[STC]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 I guess that should send you a message given the number of members in the forum, as well as visitors !

In any event, you have already been there with this kind of thing in your own threads.

 

Maybe, only seven with I damaged hearing. Interestingly, two of my friends ( now ex friends) used to preach so many things about hifi sound. This experts couldn’t even tell the diff between MP3 and SACD. One couldn’t hear anything above 10kHz and another at 12.  One suffers tinnitus and the other walked off.  That’s life. This is a crazy hobby where SQ based on not what you actually could hear. 

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

This experts couldn’t even tell the diff between MP3 and SACD. One couldn’t hear anything above 10kHz and another at 12.  One suffers tinnitus and the other walked off.  That’s life. This is a crazy hobby where SQ based on not what you actually could hear.

 

 That's a real problem for many Audiophiles as they are mainly in the over 50 area, as younger people can't afford to be an audiophile or have other priorities.

 Surprisingly, you don't have to have a measurable ear response to >10kHz to hear the differences between many formats.

We still have a lot to learn about human hearing. Theoretically, I shouldn't be able to hear many of the things that I report, yet I have plenty of confirmation by others.

I suspect though that many more can be trained to recognise these differences, just like Paul and Miska can hear things well below the noise  level as needed by Sonar operators. IIRC, Miska trained people in this area.

[STC]

21 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That's a real problem for many Audiophiles as they are mainly in the over 50 area, as younger people can't afford to be an audiophile or have other priorities.

 

Before I respond to this post, Just a correction to my earlier post. Meant to say only seven without hearing damage. I don’t know why my phone is making auto correction despite no auto correction feature turned on. 

 

My site statics says from the 12K visitors, 85% were from 45 to 54 age. What really matters to me is the 17.4 % of the group made of 17 to 24 age . That’s the future and I don’t think they are the ones with high end equipments. 

 

It it is wrong to say high end is needed to be an audiophile. Visit pro sound forum group and you will be amazed to see how well they setup their system even with cheap equipment. Few years ago, when I was trying to understand how to get my system going, only the pro audio guys understood the concept and offered some suggestion. Never look down the pro audio world and the youngsters. I am not saying you are but just trying emphasize some of them are very good at getting the best sound from their system. 

 

I am sure on of the important criteria to become a sonar technician is having good ears. Not sure they can train half deaf and those tinnitus suffer to be an expert in this area. Maybe, Miska could tell us whether it is possible to train half deaf. 

 

 

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I prefer the first one (the second one hurt my ears).  However, I don't think this is a fair comparison, since the sound ends up funneled through an ADC/windows driver/my DAC/my speakers/my room. Further, importance (to me) doesn't necessarily correspond to an absolute dollar value ranking. 

Thanks for feedback, try listening on your phone +dac using mobile data. I find the first video boring in comparison to the second. 

[accwai]

18 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

The engine is least important. Contrary to some people believes the color is what matters and the best cars are red. Have a look at these two cars. Which one do you prefer.?

 

So which of these Prius is better then?

 

Don't know much about cars, but apparently the bottom one is four wheel drive. Aren't those safer in snow? Safer cars are always preferred right?

 

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

[...] Get that car, sell the other, buy the biggest house and hide the car inside.

 

Umm... Can't we just do this?

 

 

For illustration only of course. The one on top obviously needs Toyota reliability too:

 

Reliability Good!

[4est]

7 hours ago, STC said:

 

Rearranged the words:-

 

Rubbish. The quality and positioning of the speakers do play an important part, but the room acoustics is more important.

I almost agree with this. In extreme cases, this is correct. I have had, and have been in, rooms that were positively awful and moving myself or the speakers did little. More times than not, some judicious adjustments helped the sound greatly.

[4est]

4 hours ago, STC said:

Real voice. 128 bitrate Youtube sound. We don’t need extra ordinary ears to hear the difference and judge the SQ. In the treatment, one will be better for recording and another one for hifi setup. 

 

 

Hearing a quality change via youtube is different than making a quality assessment via youtube.

[luisma]

This topic title seemed to be interesting, the YouTube video comparison well I wouldn't say will be an accurate measurement, then all the other comments are wildly running onto other different topics.

 

Aside of the separate comments between petrol and diesel and cars which are amusing and distracting I really think a possibly good post was ruined by the crowd as it wasn't taken seriously. 

 

Moving on 

[sphinxsix]

4 hours ago, accwai said:

 

So which of these Prius is better then?

 

Don't know much about cars, but apparently the bottom one is four wheel drive. Aren't those safer in snow? Safer cars are always preferred right?

 

 

Umm... Can't we just do this?

 

 

For illustration only of course. The one on top obviously needs Toyota reliability too:

 

Reliability Good!

I simply paraphrased the OP with my post, thought it would be obvious for everybody. Claiming that speakers are least important is like claiming that the best cars are red or that cables are the most important component of an audio system. 

 

As for 4WD Prius it can't be bad. It has many red body elements after all 

 

2 hours ago, luisma said:

I really think a possibly good post was ruined by the crowd as it wasn't taken seriously. 

Are you sure it deserved to be taken seriously.? (rhetorical as frankly for me this thread was actually ruined much earlier - by its first post to be exact..)

[Paul R]

8 hours ago, STC said:

 Paul, to be insulted one should have self respect in the first place. Just like your bs about speech recognition being binaural, you are again bs’ing here. This is an area where you offer no real value except to be seen knowledgable by side tracking the topic . 

 

I have no problem hearing the difference and stated clearly in the post. Check your eyes too .  

 

You continually show your ignorance and worse, refusal to learn anything, and continue to flaunt ridiculous insults behind an impenetrable armor of internet born arrogance.  

 

You rather obviously have no real understanding about human hearing, or even how sound propagates. Not even as correct an understanding as one might gain by diligent and careful study from internet available sources available to anyone who really wants to learn. Fortunate for all you do not control the subject. 

 

I do do not have any problem with people who can hear imaginary differences, or claim to have golden ears, or even being wrong that people might be able to distinguish differences off of you tube. I suspect those differences would vanish if the video was played back with volume matched sound and as sound only, with the video monitor turned off.  

 

Unless the differences were so basic and glaring that they were indeed, totally different sounds. That may be the case with the video Peter referenced. It is not going to be the case with two competent amps, and probably not the case with two well matched speaker systems. 

 

 Another internet troll. 

 

On the permanent ignore list with your unjustifiably arrogant insulting self you go. 

[Paul R]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Not true at all. I your theories that would be. But try it (in a no smoking area). 

 

Tried it this morning. Yes, I could tell the difference between two speaker systems when a sound recording was played back from you tube. Because I knew what to listen for, I could even hear specific differences. It was much much harder to do when I could not see the video, and played both of then in a loop. 

 

It was much much much easier when I played the recordings back locally, in high res through the same system. It was amusing to hear that the Maggie’s played back the Harbeths better than the Harbeths, and vice versa! Headphones tended to amplify the differences too. Not suggesting why, just reporting the results. 

 

[esldude]

I find Peter B's video of usually poor quality.  You can listen to videos Chris has done visiting shows and most of the time the recording is better.   Given all the solid reasons why declaring speakers the least important makes little sense it should give one pause if they listen to some videos of systems and come to that conclusion.  

 

If you record a stereo system playing what do you want it to show you?  What it sounded like if you were there to listen to it I would think. Very logical, simple and seemingly reasonable is to put a couple good microphones at the LP and record.  Simple, logical and wrong.  Binaural recordings make a little more sense for this.  

 

When orchestras are recorded they don't put the mikes at the best seat in the house.  Because it doesn't sound like the best seat in the house.  It would sound too distant and too much room sound.  It wouldn't sound that way to a person sitting there, but it will in the recording.  They put the microphones closer to the orchestra and if done well get a sound balance similar to the sound of the best seat in the house.  

 

You'll need to do the same if you record speakers of a stereo playing.  You'll probably get the most similar result putting a mike in front of each speaker at maybe 1.5 or 2 meters.  This balances direct and room sound more like the way you'd hear it in person at the listening position.  Because your hearing masks early reflections.  The microphone won't mask them, and upon playback since they are coming from the speaker itself your hearing can't mask them at that time so you hear them.  Your hearing is masking the early reflections in your room of the recorded early reflections, but can't parse them out of the recording itself.  

 

Critical distance is important.  Nice simple explanation and illustration. 

http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/04_acoustics_2.html

 

Here is a bit about critical distance and microphone placement.  Also a how to on measuring it.  I'd add using white noise filtered below 500 hz and above 2 khz works better.  Even an SPL meter on a smart phone works well with that signal. 

https://www.prosoundweb.com/topics/sound_reinforcement/critical_distance/

 

The suggestion for intelligibility is to place an omni at 30% of the critical distance from the source, and 50% for a cardioid.  Your own hearing can work fine a bit further out than this in person.  For recording you need to be inside of critical distance.   In a small number of systems I've checked it is common the LP is just about at critical distance.  

 

Now for extreme examples.  If I had an 8 ft tall, 12 ft wide, 40 ft long room with speakers 4 feet from the rear wall and the LP 4 ft from the rear wall 32 feet from the speakers, then what could I tell from a recording at the LP?  I'm mostly going to hear the room.  Sure there could be some things heard about the speakers, but it would be tough.  

 

Now suppose the same speakers are in a 15ft tall, 25 ft wide, 40 ft long room with speakers 7 feet from the rear wall, and the LP maybe 10 ft away.  Record that and I could tell more about the speakers and the room would interfere less.  

 

Is the conclusion the speakers matter least and the room is everything?  I hope you don't come to that conclusion.  Like all things you need things put together sensibly.  A pair of K-horns in 10ftx10ftx10ft room is not going to work.  Just like a pair of LS3/5a speakers isn't going to work in the 40ftx25ftx15ft room.  The conclusion only speakers matter and not the room is equally misguided.  

 

STC will disagree with all this.  I've really tried to understand his thinking on it, and I don't get it.  I also won't be discussing much of his disagreement.  It isn't due to pig-headed dismissal of his opinion.  I've this opinion after spending quite some time and effort to understand his position before deciding we'll just have to disagree and let it go at that. 

 

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

That’s an area where most will turn into puppies. So far only 7 viewers today.  

 

the video is click bait to get benefits from glue-tube

 

more views get more benefits; outrageous claims gets views

[STC]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

STC will disagree with all this.  I've really tried to understand his thinking on it, and I don't get it.  I also won't be discussing much of his disagreement.

 

Esldude, review all your posts in this forum and look who brought up critical distance and critical radius to explain how reverbs work in the first place. 

 

There is one big difference between you and I. I have a room where I can change the reverb to any level and demonstrate all the theories. If I am wrong then I am wrong but I can back up what I am saying by demonstrating the points and still willing to engage you to explain. 

 

I have actually took time to review all the papers and text to understand why you are insisting this until I found a reference in a text which is almost exactly what you are repeating which can be also seen repeated invariably in other sites. Just because majority of audiophiles and their prophets insist cables can make a difference, it doesn’t unless the construction of the cable is such to alter the sound. 

 

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

the video is click bait to get benefits from glue-tube

 

I do not monetize my videos nor intend to make money out of my hobby. 

 

 

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

Unless the differences were so basic and glaring that they were indeed, totally different sounds.

Paul

 To me at least, they actually were glaringly obvious , but I don't agree with the premise that you can properly evaluate speaker or room differences using 128kbps .aac audio.

 

Regards

Alex

[Ralf11]

you could probably 'evaluate' SQ of $4k vs a $40 speaker, but agreed in any real evaluation