I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[dfuller]

Multi-channel records had been around for more than two decades. The Super Audio CD format was introduced in 1999. A year late DVD-A followed. They both offered uncompressed, hi-res, multichannel (7.1) audio. One look at the chart below will tell you the story that market didn't care about either format, i.e. multi-channel audio. Are we going to say that just because we now have speakers in the ceiling, the future of music playback will change? (Reference RIAA)

I was going to make this point, but I seem to have been beaten to it. Yeah, multichannel is superior in almost every respect - but the entry price is absurd.

 

[Purité Audio]

Many particularly partners balk at the thought of two loudspeakers.
Keith

 

[abdo123]

Multi-channel records had been around for more than two decades. The Super Audio CD format was introduced in 1999. A year late DVD-A followed. They both offered uncompressed, hi-res, multichannel (7.1) audio. One look at the chart below will tell you the story that market didn't care about either format, i.e. multi-channel audio. Are we going to say that just because we now have speakers in the ceiling, the future of music playback will change? (Reference RIAA)

View attachment 191830

Every mainstream pop album is being released with Dolby Atmos on the major streaming services. There is definitely a paradigm shift happening because no one listens to stereo anymore. It's either binaural, single speakers or multiple speakers / sound bars .etc Dolby Atmos caters to all these formats with a single master.

 

[Frgirard]

It seems to be a common misunderstanding to think that removing all reflections from the listening room results in 'more fidelity' in reproduction. It is a very understandable and seemingly logical conclusion - of course, but it doesn't seem to hold true with human listeners.

It seems that some reflections from the listening room are in fact required to make the stereo illusion stable - without them in-head localization may occur and sense of envelopment may be lost. May I refer to my previous post from a different thread:

I can also speak from personal experience that spending time in an anechoic chamber is not pleasant - I would not wish to relax and listen to music there.

We should also not forget that stereo is an illusion, and not a reproduction of any original soundfield. In addition, unlike electronics, loudspeakers have the dispersion component, and obviously 3D output cannot anyway be made the same as the 1D electrical input signal, so the argument of 'keeping true to the signal' is somewhat moot - especially considering that some listening room reflections appear to be desirable for soundstage externalization (see above).
IMHO we should instead aim for characteristics that make the stereo illusion stable and pleasing, while not being detrimental to tonality of the recording - which based on research seems to be loudspeakers with flat on-axis, and even off-axis behaviour used in normally furnished living rooms; resulting in early reflections that are similar in spectrum to direct sound.


To my understanding, any resonant peaks that may fill-in on-axis dips (to make the on-axis FR nicer-looking) would still show-up as peaks off-axis - i.e. they would still be visible from the spinorama in the end. So I'm not sure if this hypothetical case equates to a real concern.

Also, can you clarify why you believe these spectral errors would not be audible in mono but would become audible in stereo? Research seems to suggest that such spectral aberrations are much more easily audible in mono vs stereo.
Note that listening in mono does not mean listening anechoically - i.e. the listener still hears the coloured off-axis sound that such a loudspeaker would produce from reflections - even if on-axis is flat - so these kinds of issues should be audible in mono, or not at all.

Otherwise any poorly designed loudspeaker could be EQ-ed to a flat on-axis and sound great - this is IME most definitely not the case. Good directivity behaviour is needed for this to be feasible.

you don't know what is a NE studio well designed.
You express opinions on the reflection.

 

[sarumbear]

There is definitely a paradigm shift happening because no one listens to stereo anymore. It's either binaural, single speakers or multiple speakers / sound bars .etc

Most used devices for listening to music worldwide 2019 | Statista

According to a global study held in 2019, internet users spent 27 percent of their music listening time on their smartphones, but most time listening to music was done via radio.

www.statista.com

 

[Pdxwayne]

Every mainstream pop album is being released with Dolby Atmos on the major streaming services. There is definitely a paradigm shift happening because no one listens to stereo anymore. It's either binaural, single speakers or multiple speakers / sound bars .etc Dolby Atmos caters to all these formats with a single master.

Hmm, just did a quick search in Tidal. I see many old stereo music now released in atmos format. I hope it is not something like the 3D video things that never gain traction.

BTW, I still listen to stereo music via Tidal even if I have access to atmos music. Simple reason: I don't have atmos setup.

: P

 

[fineMen]

Well, for starters, Olive published two AES convention papers about the model back in 2004. $33 each for nonmembers, or your local university library may well let you access them for free. Is that asking too much?

A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part I - Listening Test Results
A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II - Development of the Model

You could also ask Sean to discuss the model here...he is a member of ASR, after all. Maybe if you aren't too obnoxious he'll agree to.

I give You half a 'like' because You looked it up.
The second half is missing, because of the pay-wall, I would expect You to rephrase Olive's concept of a preference, briefly in regards to my queston from above.

My background: math && nat.sc with degrees, chem, AI, law and 2 semesters sociology, now in AI

 

[sarumbear]

Hmm, just did a quick search in Tidal. I see many old stereo music now released in atmos format.

The journey from the original 4-track master to 7.1.2 (or more) involves lots of AI and hence may sound a bit artificial

“Abbey Road Studios has software that allows you to essentially reverse-engineer an old track of audio with multiple instruments on it and separate it into individual tracks.”

The Beatles in Spatial Audio: Producer Giles Martin on How It All Works

The producer in charge of the Beatles' remixes reveals the secrets behind spatial audio

www.rollingstone.com

 

[abdo123]

View attachment 191856

Most used devices for listening to music worldwide 2019 | Statista

According to a global study held in 2019, internet users spent 27 percent of their music listening time on their smartphones, but most time listening to music was done via radio.

www.statista.com

Indeed only 8% of that figure (Hi-Fi or Turntable) can be classified as exclusively stereo. Radio is still a mono speaker.

 

[abdo123]

Hmm, just did a quick search in Tidal. I see many old stereo music now released in atmos format. I hope it is not something like the 3D video things that never gain traction.

BTW, I still listen to stereo music via Tidal even if I have access to atmos music. Simple reason: I don't have atmos setup.

: P

I thought you had a 3.2 setup with Genelecs speakers?

 

[Pdxwayne]

I thought you had a 3.2 setup with Genelecs speakers?

Currently I have 2 stereo setups, one 5.1 and one 5.2 being used. None uses Genelecs.

Can one do atmos without atmos processing and at least 5.1.2?

 

[abdo123]

Currently I have 2 stereo setups, one 5.1 and one 5.2 being used.

Can one do atmos without atmos processing and at least 5.2.1?

If i remember currectly Atmos is perfectly backward compatible with all the previous Dolby codecs. So you can get 5.1 and 7.1 without specifically an Atmos device. you need some sort of thing that at least decodes dolby digital .etc

 

[Pdxwayne]

Indeed only 8% of that figure (Hi-Fi or Turntable) can be classified as exclusively stereo. Radio is still a mono speaker.

Haha, you forgot many people in US listen to radio in vehicles. I would say majority is stereo. I listen to HDradio in both of my vehicles.

 

[sarumbear]

Indeed only 8% of that figure (Hi-Fi or Turntable) can be classified as exclusively stereo. Radio is still a mono speaker.

I think you can add Smartphone as majority listens on headphones, which is stereo (or 2-ch).

 

[sarumbear]

If i remember currectly Atmos is perfectly backward compatible with all the previous Dolby codecs. So you can get 5.1 and 7.1 without specifically an Atmos device. you need some sort of thing that at least decodes dolby digital .etc

Correct. Atmos is surround with the added height information encoded as objects over a 7.1 "bed".

 

[Pdxwayne]

If i remember currectly Atmos is perfectly backward compatible with all the previous Dolby codecs. So you can get 5.1 and 7.1 without specifically an Atmos device. you need some sort of thing that at least decodes dolby digital .etc

Good to know. Will see if I can play Tidal atmos from laptop via HDMI to my receivers. Thanks for the tips!

 

[abdo123]

Good to know. Will see if I can play Tidal atmos from laptop via HDMI to my receivers. Thanks for the tips!

You're more likely to find sucess over Plex media server or the Tidal app directly on your smart TV.

Never tried the windows app over HDMI.

 

[Frgirard]

Floyd Toole and the reflections.

How Much Diffusion For Small Room - Page 3 - Gearspace.com

Quote: Originally Posted by diffusor.com ➡️ I have had enough of your and Northward's absurd and condescending comments about SMT diffusors and its customers. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showp...2&postcount=25 Calling well-known mixers, monitor manufacturers and world-famous musicians...

gearspace.com

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Most sound absorption materials absorb much more highs than bass, so eventually woth too much (but not 2 foot think panels like an anechoic) you end up with a dark sounding room. I guess you could EQ that back to flat, bit why not buy neutral sounding speakers to begin with?

Absorption can be tuned to absorb specific parts of the frequency range, and indeed this is how it is done when treating a room properly.

A properly treated room means that decay is controlled across the frequency range so that the room behaves tonally neutral.

Those Harman-experiments surely has some value, but important aspects of sound reproduction are missed. One of the problems is the acoustic properties of the rooms they used, of which it is likely there is not even sufficient measurement data available to be able to verify the performance of the rooms. Before judging, one needs to realize that what they did back then, was limited by knowledge and tools that were available. A lot has happened since.

I read several posts in this thread that reveals a lack of understanding of room acoustics and what good acoustics is, and how compromised acoustics limits the performance of sound reproduction.

A good room does not sound dead, it does not sound less spaceous, it is tonally neutral and the reflected energy is diffuse sound with no direction. And the rate of decay, especially early decay, is much faster than in any non-treated living room.

In such (good) rooms, a speaker with flat frequency response and reasonably flat and smooth off-axis will sound tonally correct. In non-treated spaces, the room may color tonality, as well as compromise rendering of instruments, because the reflected energy is not necessarily spectrally flat, and the decay times are too slow to provide sufficient attenuation.

A system for sound reproduction consist of 2 parts - the speakers, and the room. If you want to judge the speakers, the room needs to be fixed first. You can not evaluate speakers in bad acoustic surroundings.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I say this in an "enjoying the conversation tone." One thing I think is totally and completely absurd that comes up often is this notion that what is "on the recording" is what one is intended to hear by itself in some sort of vacuum absent all else, especially as it pertains to musical production.

There are numerous reason why I find this absurd and I can't list them all.
One basic aspect is that it sure seems a competent recording engineer is prepared to understand the content will be played back in an environment, thus the content is tailored to mate with said environment and so what is recorded needs said environment in order to be completed and perceived in-toto.

If I am preparing a photograph I always consider the environment. The image is edited differently based on the known variables. What lighting quality in the space, what size/scale. What paper type, will it be displayed on a monitor, which monitor and what size. It goes on. An image edited primarily for viewing on Instagram will be reconsidered fully if I go to print it on matte paper at 2x3 feet. No image in particular is more or less correct yet I would have to edit the image differently for each environment. If I did not know the exact environment, only had a vague sense of the environment or knew the exact same image would be presented in several different environments I would have to make though choices.
As is commonly experienced a great many images that look great on beautiful, tiny iPhone screens look different even horrid when in additional environments with different scale and parameters. (and vice versa)

This is just one slight aspect of why the idea that the recording somehow exists in it's entirety on the album is absurd. The speakers and room are one experience in the same way a person singing in the room is happening in the room or a cat meowing there or a gentle breeze rusting the drapes.

With music being primarily destined for 1 or 2 speaker listening at home, headphones and the automotive environment we are dealing with environments that are quite typical to expect on one hand and quite difficult to reconcile with the notion of pure and accurate sound on the other. Now the sound may not even possibly be accurate but it most certainly can be extremely enjoyable to perceive.

I completely disagree that what the room adds to the recording is distortion, for me that is like saying that when you realize you are siting next to a loved one during a show or a film and feel happy - that is a distortion of the show or film and not a high quality aspect of the event. While I find there are better speaker and room combos than others, what the resulting relationship is is the event itself.
Taking a walk in the park with headphones on is wonderful in large part because of what is added to the musical experience by the total event, eyes closed in an isolation chamber is not what I am after when I do that walk and in no way would such an event provide a more accurate experience of anything - simply different.

I enjoy listening to music in my room, I am not often (if ever) looking for something that removes me entirely from the reality of being in my room or on the plane or in cafe or where ever I am.

Dr. Toole has said this as well both in his book and on this very forum, many times in fact: "What is needed to deliver a more credible sound field to listeners is a multichannel system. All else is compromise, especially two-channel stereo - so we play around attempting to extract from a directionally and spatially deprived system some sense of realism."

This is frequently skipped when discussing his work. I think what it boils down to is convenience. Building a multi-channel setup is *less convenient* than a stereo setup. You have to figure out where to put several more speakers, etc.

The part that bugs me is that the stereo-fixated folks rarely state that what they're looking for is primarily convenience. They still consider a stereo system to be an uncompromised audio system and pretend that you can reach the best experience possible using current technology with stereo speakers. But you can't. That's a fact that is as strongly proven as research can show, a fact that you cannot escape no matter how eloquently you wax about stereophonic soundstages and music and emotions.

The stereo experience is inferior to multi-channel in every way.

I used to be one of the folks who thought that music was just about stereo and home theatre was the only use for multi-channel. Then I experienced well-recorded multi-channel music(2L recordings) on a decent system, and I was blown away. This was like nothing I had ever heard, on any stereo system, no matter how many hundreds of thousands had been spent on it. And all that at a fraction of the price of a pair of Magicos or whatever "truly high-end" speakers. So what's the point of trying to optimize for the last percentage point of the stereo experience? I do think stereo has its place. Not everybody wants to fit a multi-channel system in their living room. And that's totally fine! I rely on stereo for several secondary systems.

I don't doubt for a second that multiple channels can create a fantastic and immersive experience and I used to have them.
I don't find that choosing the number of channels is primarily a convenience issue (although of course it absolutely is for many).
What it is for me is that I realized I gain very little extra enjoyment from having the extra channels. Maybe none, perhaps even a bit of lost interest.
I primarily listen to music.
While mono is not quite enough for me, 2 channels is capable of creating such a high level of musical enjoyment and engagement for me that I am very happy. I also really like the "magical" sense that I get when only 2 speakers infuse the room with such a complex sound field. With multichannel this sound field may be more convincingly "real", but it seems far less mysterious to me and more or less the stability one feels entitled to due to obviously being surrounded by transducers. (Like watching someone move about on a unicycle is usually extra interesting to me while watching someone on a tricycle is usually not as interesting)

Even for films I realized that while cool, I barely got anything extra enjoyment wise, out of having more than stereo speakers+subs. What I did find was important to me personally is having a very large screen. I would much rather have a projector and 2 stereo speakers vs a medium sized screen and full surround. In fact we don't even own a TV.
Essentially surround is a "showroom" sound for me, is seems cool but doesn't really boil down to what I find I need to get basically 100% enjoyment.
(Nor do I need Magico's)

In the end I like some sense of watching a film while I relax at home with the lights dimmed down, listening to a recording on my speakers with my GF sitting next to me, turning up the music on a windy drive in my car. I seem to not be interested in a virtual reality or being somehow fully transported to another place. "The suspension of disbelief", is best for me when it is collaborative to a negotiated degree between myself and the medium. I like being here and there simultaneously.
And actually for myself the medium with the most profound ability to transport me to another place, to have me near the edge of remembering where I really am (& the medium where I am most willing to allow this) is a good book. Go figure. Creativity/Imagination is a very powerful thing and no amount of money spent on gear can compete.

In any case "The stereo experience is inferior to multi-channel in every way", is a very strong statement to make and I do not agree with it in the context of my life. I totally understand the temptation to make it when one looks at sound reproduction from certain vantage points.
If I get to the "fully enjoying the experience level" with 2 speakers, adding more speakers is not a superior option even if the level of the sound quality was indeed higher. I mean how many folks experience this, wanting so badly for the sound to be even better so they could enjoy it more again like last time or the 1st time ($1k cables anyone) - at some point there is just no way to externally increase the enjoyment factor by adding speakers or tweaking this or that. Then it becomes time to pay attention more and be more present to what is happening, so much enjoyment comes when that happens.