Can A Stand Mounted Speaker Be Considered "High Fidelity?"

[Robin L]

This makes me think of "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is."

I would think a pair of small but well-designed speakers + sub would be a better arrangement than a floorstanding pair unless things get really big and expensive. The size of the stereo image really depends on factors of dispersion, where speakers are positioned and how loud a little box can play without distortion. But I would imagine that an ideal version of such an arrangement would localize images better and handle the lower octaves better than most floorstanding speakers. I suspect a bigger enclosure would have more, and more audible, resonances than a smaller enclosure.

I happen to be using one of the first speakers specifically designed to be matched to a sub, the a/d/s 400e speakers. I've got a little "Son of Sub" powered sub from Sonance. In my current configuration, it would be difficult to come up with something significantly better without burning off a considerable sum of money.

 

[abdo123]

To reproduce those low frequencies at the appropriate relative level to the rest of the music, it seems that a loudspeaker with a –3dB point of no higher than about 25Hz is what is required to do these pieces justice.

Most of the time a speaker with a -3dB point of 35Hz will measure flat in-room if it's sealed (12db/oct roll-off).

Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/analytical-analysis-room-gain.23211/

 

[MattHooper]

Sorry, but after three thread (at least) talking about small vs big in several iterations, I have to say:
View attachment 185824

I submit this isn't so, in that the question raised is different than the usual "small vs big" (or "small speaker w subwoofer vs full range floor stander) debates. It's a more fundamental question about the nature of High Fidelity, goals, which trade-offs make coherent sense, etc.

 

[killdozzer]

I submit this isn't so, in that the question raised is different than the usual "small vs big" (or "small speaker w subwoofer vs full range floor stander) debates. It's a more fundamental question about the nature of High Fidelity, goals, which trade-offs make coherent sense, etc.

It is so, beacuse all you listed as specific to this debate is in no way specific to this debate and by large applies to small vs big. I don't see you posting a question can big speakers be considered hi-fi. I hope you sensed how impossible that question is while you read it and that should give you all the answer to the question is this beating on a dead horse.

Anyway, since an Octobass can produce 16Hz and you're not using subs, is your system really hi-fi?

 

[MattHooper]

It is so, beacuse all you listed as specific to this debate is in no way specific to this debate and by large applies to small vs big.

Yes, that's the larger point.

I don't see you posting a question can big speakers be considered hi-fi.

Because referencing speakers that can not produce the lowest octave makes the point more specifically.

Clearly nobody thinks Perfect Absolute Accuracy has been achieved in terms of speakers (or at least none that I'm aware of). So simply pointing to "are any speakers perfectly accurate?" wouldn't be much use. The issue then becomes the gray areas of compromise and how one thinks about those compromises and trade-offs in terms of the goal of High Fidelity (to the signal).

Talking about trade-offs like frequency extension vs, say, some frequency deviation is a way of sussing out attitudes towards these trade offs, hence the division between a stand mounted monitor that only goes down to, say, 45Hz vs a floor standing speaker going to 20Hz can bring these questions in to relief. As I said, it wasn't about "stand mounted moniters" per se: I was using those as a convenient stand in for frequency response.

I hope you sensed how impossible that question is while you read it and that should give you all the answer to the question is this beating on a dead horse.

But that's part of the point. "There are some level of trade off" in the pursuit of high fidelity seems a given. But then there is the problem, weighing these trade offs in a coherent fashion. I'm not looking to set up some "war against stand mounted speakers vs full range." I'm simply using it to see how people reason about what they are looking for in regards to "accuracy" or "high fidelity" and how they think about the acceptable trade offs.

Why in the world would this be a verboten "don't mention this again, it's a dead horse" subject in a forum that is devoted to the science of audio reproduction, and where "accuracy" "High Fidelity" is the goal of seemingly most members????

Anyway, since an Octobass can produce 16Hz and you're not using subs, is your system really hi-fi?

Sure, what's wrong with such a question? Do you have an answer to your own question? If so, what is it? That could be illuminating on the question of what "High Fidelity" IS given it's a goal of so many here.

 

[Frgirard]

Your definition of hifi is "Messiaen's turangalila symphony 1 meter from the conductor"? Ok then.

OK what? must think like you?

 

[Frgirard]

That makes sense as an overarching requirement. Then, I suppose, it would depend on what sound level is the real sound level. The at-a-rock-concert sound level might be somewhat higher than the recording-mixdown sound level. Hence, the latter might be easier to achieve on a regular basis.

The drum reachs 120 dB
The clarinette reachs 103 dB
The violin same.
The cachalot reachs 230 dB. A symphonie of cachalot par Poseidon Porfirievich Putin, my dream.

 

[Robin L]

Your definition of hifi is "Messiaen's turangalila symphony 1 meter from the conductor"? Ok then.

I guess my ultimate in surround sound experiences came when I was setting up microphones during a rehearsal of Messiaen's Éclairs sur l’Au-Delà, standing in the midst of the woodwinds with one of Messiaen's musical aviaries, birdsong flying all around me.

 

[Frgirard]

I guess my ultimate in surround sound experiences came when I was setting up microphones during a rehearsal of Messiaen's Éclairs sur l’Au-Delà, standing in the midst of the woodwinds with one of Messiaen's musical aviaries, birdsong flying all around me.

After Messiaen, the evening ends with Ravel's bolero. Ravel who invented rave party music. OK I'm going to bed.

 

[Frgirard]

I remember a Mozart concerto by Christian Zaccharias at low sound level but all détails was audible. It was magic.
OK, I contradict myself, I take a plane for Mars

 

[pablolie]

Because referencing speakers that can not produce the lowest octave makes the point more specifically.

..

I submit that big honking speakers that try to reproduce the entire spectrum are by nature problematic to optimally set up in a room. Hence many very expensive, full-range speakers set up in the real world do not provide high fidelity sound.

It's much easier to achieve high definition sound with bookshelf working together with one or two subs - in the real world. And also immensely cheaper.

I still own "high definition" towers, but they are in storage - they didn't shine when I moved into a smaller place. I tried a lot of things, but in the end it was easier to set up a 2:1 system.

 

[Leporello]

Based off other discussions about the pursuit of High Fidelity - in this case interpreted as reproducing the encoded source signal as accurately as possible - we will come to possibly ambiguous areas.

We might imagine this one very accurate loudspeaker which at the moment - according to some agreed criteria - is "as good as it gets" or "the best we can do". According to your definition anything less than this cannot be high fidelity. Why did you choose the frequency response limitations? There are countless other technical compromises in every loudspeaker design.

 

[Frgirard]

The word fidelity does not suffer from approximation.
Except with the perfect room and the perfect speaker, the fidelity is a fantasme.
A speaker is used in a room and depending on the type of sound reproduction, there will or may not be a more or less good approximation of what is encoded in the file.

 

[Descartes]

$20,000 for the pair
I'm assuming they're "high fidelity"
View attachment 185527

Crazy’s talk about bling bling Focal dealers get 60 point margins! Nice profits

 

[FeddyLost]

from the standpoint of a devotion to "High Fidelity."

It reminds me question from family psychologist "do you want to be right or to be happy?".
Devotion or pursuit for this "high fidelity" can't be some immanent intention, because even in mastering studio "fidelity" is just a prerequisite for "good translation" and can be sacrificed for better translation.
For "sound customer" high fidelity of signal at all cost is a real nonsense, because a lot of "signals" today are extremely uncomfortable if you throw it into decent room by linear system.
I can't follow the path which brings only tinnitus, sorry.

 

[MattHooper]

We might imagine this one very accurate loudspeaker which at the moment - according to some agreed criteria - is "as good as it gets" or "the best we can do". According to your definition anything less than this cannot be high fidelity.

It's not my definition, I'm repeating the one often put forth by members of this forum, so we can examine the implications. And of course it's perfectly fine to try to define a goal. So what you just said should be asked of those who ARE seeking "High Fidelity" or "accuracy" via some technical definition - e.g. "Accurately reproducing the signal from the source" or however someone wants to phrase it.

Why did you choose the frequency response limitations? There are countless other technical compromises in every loudspeaker design.

To use as an example.

I'm under the impression I've explained this several times.

Specific examples help us talk about general principles - by showing how any general principle applies to specific examples.

I could have used some wide open question like "What Criteria Constitutes High Fidelity?" Or "What Makes A Speaker Count As A High Fidelity Device?" But GIVEN real world compromises we will inevitably end up needing to look at how anyone's answer applies to specific examples.
"How do you balance this trade off vs that trade off in the real world" is the inevitable result, so I was cutting to the chase which gets at the deeper issue of what the individual seeking "High Fidelity" or "accuracy" cares about when the rubber hits the road.

It's a way of examining our assumptions underlying the goal of "accuracy" and "high fidelity."

 

[pablolie]

There are as many paths to "high fidelity" as there are audio enthusiasts with their own priorities...

The parting premise in this thread is that full-range speakers are the mandatory and only path to high fidelity, which I personally very much doubt. Why? Because...

(1) I think with electronics we have reached the point of linear perfection all the way to the hand-off to the speakers. After that, two things come into effect, (a) room dynamics and (b) the fact every speaker ever designed deals with the fundamental design issues of dynamic speaker design (or any other speaker design, there are always tradeoffs involved).

With 1.a (room dynamics) now we have the DSP capability to correct. What is fascinating is that actually many people don't like the effect when their stuff is normalized... sounds "lifeless" etc. So clearly many audiophiles have a preference that is contrarian to "perfection". Furthermore, we listen to recorded music, and often the recording itself is compromised in some way. Assuming perfection in the original recording is the greatest audiophile fallacy. So many cliches there.

With 1.b (speakers)... of course there is a huge interaction with 1.a. The perfect speaker does NOT exist. But great speaker designs are nearly there, and have been there for a while. The problem is *how* to make that "perfection" work in the real world outside some perfectly isolated chamber. I contend that full-range speakers can be very problematic to set up for optimal performance in real world environments. I think the "non high fidelity" bookshelf speaker the OP talks about (and declares flawed) makes it -in combination with a separate sub- much easier to deliver on that elusive goal of "high fidelity".

I also think that the game of jumping on new equipment because it measures 0.002% better is a losing game and a self-defeating obsession. There is no perfect, especially because the recordings we listen to aren't either.

Enjoy the music.

 

[Bleib]

There are as many paths to "high fidelity" as there are audio enthusiasts with their own priorities...

The parting premise in this thread is that full-range speakers are the mandatory and only path to high fidelity, which I personally very much doubt. Why? Because...

(1) I think with electronics we have reached the point of linear perfection all the way to the hand-off to the speakers. After that, two things come into effect, (a) room dynamics and (b) the fact every speaker ever designed deals with the fundamental design issues of dynamic speaker design (or any other speaker design, there are always tradeoffs involved).

With 1.a (room dynamics) now we have the DSP capability to correct. What is fascinating is that actually many people don't like the effect when their stuff is normalized... sounds "lifeless" etc. So clearly many audiophiles have a preference that is contrarian to "perfection". Furthermore, we listen to recorded music, and often the recording itself is compromised in some way. Assuming perfection in the original recording is the greatest audiophile fallacy. So many cliches there.

With 1.b (speakers)... of course there is a huge interaction with 1.a. The perfect speaker does NOT exist. But great speaker designs are nearly there, and have been there for a while. The problem is *how* to make that "perfection" work in the real world outside some perfectly isolated chamber. I contend that full-range speakers can be very problematic to set up for optimal performance in real world environments. I think the "non high fidelity" bookshelf speaker the OP talks about is -in combination with a separate sub- easier to deliver that is something ""high fidelity".

I also think that the game of jumping on new equipment because it measures 0.002% better is a losing game and a self-defeating obsession. There is no perfect, especially because the recordings we listen to aren't either.

I'd say the same also goes for headphones. Probably do not worry about the DAC and amp so much get better headphones. That's where almost all the deviation from the original signal is produced.

 

[DanielT]

Why should you have speakers that go down to 20 Hz if you do not listen to music that goes down to 20 Hz?.
Or 25Hz, 30, 35Hz? It costs money to dig deep. Isn't it better to spend the money on better speakers that perform better over 25-35 Hz vs a pair that is only ok as a full register 20-20kHz?

I do not know, just a thought.
(possible that it has already been addressed in the thread, in which case I missed it)

 

[Robin L]

Why should you have speakers that go down to 20 Hz if you do not listen to music that goes down to 20 Hz?.
Or 25Hz, 30, 35Hz? It costs money to dig deep. Isn't it better to spend the money on better speakers that perform better over 25-35 Hz vs a pair that is only ok as a full register 20-20kHz?

I do not know, just a thought.
(possible that it has already been addressed in the thread, in which case I missed it)

It's a good question. There's lots of environmental factors that could prevent one from fully experiencing the bottom octaves, like neighbors sharing walls. Hi-Fi or no, it ain't gonna happen without blowback. There is also a given person's musical taste. Me, I want too much bass. Somebody else? Not so much. I suspect there are many people who would be happy with something that goes down to 70hz because they don't favor music with deep bass.