• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,089
Likes
7,547
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
I wonder though....do we really have a separate part of brain allocated to 'stereo reproduction memory' or do we just reference our knowledge of everyday sounds/instruments when listening to loudspeakers?

Just look at how massively different the experience of "headstage" is to different headphone users.

I think it's safe to assume that some brains are better than others at filling in gaps. It's both a curse and a blessing.
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,813
Likes
2,814
Location
Sydney
I wonder though....do we really have a separate part of brain allocated to 'stereo reproduction memory' or do we just reference our knowledge of everyday sounds/instruments when listening to loudspeakers?

Probably most people listen to amplified (rock/pop/electronic) music, more so than unamplified (folk/classical), so I suppose there is no 'true north' to reference in such cases.

That thought has crossed my mind. Sometimes in discussion here with initiates from the small cohort of 'soundstage-deniers' I wonder whether it's their system/setup or ear/brain that leads them to argue against the mere existence of the basic function of stereo. I've said before that I wouldn't be surprised if we decode and experience the stereo image somewhat differently. Validating that theory is an investigation into psycho-acoustics, of course.

I also experienced what could be put down to some kind of stereo reproduction memory after buying a new amp a few years back. When I listened to new material it sounded just fine, but when I listened to familiar stuff it didn't. No obvious clue in published measurements or my own at LP (comparisons were all class A/B with normal performance, not euphonic/coloured stuff fyi). Toggling EQ in Sonarworks (including their LP level/timing correction) didn't get me there. Ear/brain 'burn-in' didn't do it either. Eyed-off one of those ABX comparators (at AU$1600 it wasn't an impulse buy) but the universe had other plans and took out the new amp with a lightning strike (new-fangled ethernet connections are an attack surface, who knew?) so I never got to the bottom of the mystery. There'll be some technical reason for the sonics I assume, but the interesting part was the different experience with new vs familiar music. Some memory thing going on is still my best guess.

Somewhat tangential to the speaker topic—and veering into heretical territory—but I now think more in terms of amp/speaker/room 'systems' rather than each in isolation when it comes to a 'sound'.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
I wonder though....do we really have a separate part of brain allocated to 'stereo reproduction memory' or do we just reference our knowledge of everyday sounds/instruments when listening to loudspeakers?

Probably most people listen to amplified (rock/pop/electronic) music, more so than unamplified (folk/classical), so I suppose there is no 'true north' to reference in such cases.

I listen to quite a mix of music (which I think is pretty typical, especially among audiophiles).

When it comes to music featuring acoustic instruments and voices, I do want those to sound as much as possible like my experience of those instruments in real life.

As I've said before, I very often carefully listen to acoustic instruments and voices to get a sense of the character of instruments played live - a gestalt if you will.
And also, I only have to please myself. So even if my later memory of how things sound isn't quite accurate, that nevertheless is the impression I carry around with me, and that's the impression I seek to satisfy in my audio system.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
I wonder though....do we really have a separate part of brain allocated to 'stereo reproduction memory' or do we just reference our knowledge of everyday sounds/instruments when listening to loudspeakers?
I think this is a huge, fascinating and potentially crucial point. We don't know nearly as much as we want about how the brain processes audio, but it seems that incoming data are buffered twice, and compared to two separate databases, in order to identify or classify the stimulus, not just as fast as possible, but with the least possible use of processing time and energy. It seems the brain's #1 priority by far is to absolutely minimize internal energy use, so that there's enough to go around.

So does the brain maintain separate models for "real music" and "loudspeaker music", for quick and dirty comparison? I think yes, absolutely. The evidence is all around. There's the common experience of catching a wisp of distant, half-heard music and knowing instantly whether it's live or recorded. There are decades of observation of how and why ordinary people choose equipment. For many years my parents had only an old table radio. Then they wanted a radiogram. The choosing process was instructive. Clearly they wanted the same as before, but more of it. To them, warm and chesty was the sound of loudspeaker music.

Yet they knew the sound of real music too. There was a piano in the house and we all played. They went to recitals. It was clear they were maintaining two separate lanes in their heads. Their radiogram scored high in one lane, and a good recital scored high in the other. But in terms of sound the two were completely unrelated.

This all makes me uneasy about the nature of "preference" in tests. It's a soft question, and I worry it gets too many "the same as before, but more of it" answers - i.e. the question is considered exclusively in the "loudspeaker music" lane. A better question would be, "Which sounds like the real music you've heard?"
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,025
Likes
3,327
Location
bay area, ca
...

So does the brain maintain separate models for "real music" and "loudspeaker music", for quick and dirty comparison? I think yes, absolutely.

I think there's no doubt about that. We can all replay songs in our brain. So why do we need competent audio equipment if the brain is so able to store both the track and the memories of enjoyment listening to them?

Our sensory system is like that: the stored memory of something enjoyable wants us to experience is again... not in our head, but with full, real sensory enjoyment. Which often means: mood, dim the lights, pour yourself a glass of wine, and then you go for it. *Remembering" is great, but it's not the same as *experiencing*, no matter how often we might have done the same thing before. If brain memory was so powerful, I wouldn't care if my Dad had died - I'd just relive the memories of our conversations, hugs and joint experiences in my brain.

So I'd venture to say our audio memory doesn't *fix* imperfect sound, in fact it works against that if we've heard better before.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
I think there's no doubt about that. We can all replay songs in our brain. So why do we need competent audio equipment if the brain is so able to store both the track and the memories of enjoyment listening to them?

Our sensory system is like that: the stored memory of something enjoyable wants us to experience is again... not in our head, but with full, real sensory enjoyment. Which often means: mood, dim the lights, pour yourself a glass of wine, and then you go for it. *Remembering" is great, but it's not the same as *experiencing*, no matter how often we might have done the same thing before. If brain memory was so powerful, I wouldn't care if my Dad had died - I'd just relive the memories of our conversations, hugs and joint experiences in my brain.

So I'd venture to say our audio memory doesn't *fix* imperfect sound, in fact it works against that if we've heard better before.

I generally agree with you, Inner Space and what Digby has suggested. Especially in how it tracks my own experience.

Very often I have listened to an audio system - at an audiophile's house, an audio dealer, at audio shows - and been struck by aspects of the sound that are "gee whiz" and quite impressive by audio system standards. For instance the sheer presence, clarity, detail, imaging, dynamics of the sound. In that sense I'm comparing it to other speakers.

But I also sometimes "switch lanes" and re-calibrate, where I ask myself a different question "how much does this sound like the real thing?"

Typical of this was my recent audition of the Paradigm Founder speakers at an audio store. I played a number of tracks that included small jazz, pop, some well recorded vocals etc. Simply taken in of itself, or compared to other audio systems, it was quite impressive: the bass was deep and controlled, no cabinet resonances I detected sonically, the sound was ultra clear and clean, vivid and detailed. It had a "wow" factor in that regard, compared to some other audio systems in the store.

But then I asked myself "ok, but how does the sound compare to the real thing?" Then I closed my eyes listened to the well recorded vocal playing back on the speaker and compared it to the salesman and customer's voices talking, nearby. That instantly revealed how utterly electronic, non-organic and artificial the vocals through the speaker sounded vs the real thing. Totally different world. One could say of such comparisons "why bother? Stereo playback is always going to sound artificial vs the real thing." Except that I actually find the real thing useful as a "north star," where I find some systems depart further from the qualities of the real thing, but some get significantly closer. A few systems in my experience have held up in these live vs reproduced voices comparisons surprisingly well. (In fact, it was one such impressive comparison I made at an audio show that ultimately led me to purchasing a pair of speakers I own).
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,813
Likes
2,814
Location
Sydney
... But then I asked myself "ok, but how does the sound compare to the real thing?" Then I closed my eyes listened to the well recorded vocal playing back on the speaker and compared it to the salesman and customer's voices talking, nearby. That instantly revealed how utterly electronic, non-organic and artificial the vocals through the speaker sounded vs the real thing. ...

I think it's unsurprising that a stereo (using the term in the technical sense, not necessarily two-channel) sound-field created from loudspeakers presents sound-pressure patterns at the ears that are both similar to (in terms of general tonality, etc) but different from (in terms of some other characteristics) sound from "real" sources as a matter of physics. Add to that the inevitable minor colourations of the reproduction system.

To the extent that this isn't determined by other cues (and it is, in part) the interesting aspect is that our ear/brain remembers this and can differentiate.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,025
Likes
3,327
Location
bay area, ca
...

But I also sometimes "switch lanes" and re-calibrate, where I ask myself a different question "how much does this sound like the real thing?" ...

That's always tricky, isn't it? And that's the great mystery about "high fidelity" - high fidelity to a reference we never heard? We weren't there in the recording studio right? :)

Also - many like to uphold live performances as a reference, but I don't. I think most audio venues are compromised, and often the studio recording sounds waaaaay more refined than the live version of it, but I understand if some opt for live authenticity. Hard as that definition is - like many things in audio, so I focus on enjoying rather than over-thinking.

The "real" thing - is that the most clinical and well-recorded in a studio, or is it the same artist in a decently recorded live environment when they were "on" and drove the audience into raptures? I don't have the answer. I much prefer George Benson's renditions of "Weekend in LA" to the studio versions, with an exception or two. Then again, I was live in Yoshi's when Brian Culbertson recorded an album, and while I had a blast... at home I listen to the studio versions of the song. "It's complicated" :-D

There are things in a sensory world we'll never find universal rules for. I always regard equipment -no matter what the cost- as a bit of a crutch. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to keep learning and reviewing my opinions. Just like great musicians live a successful symbiotic relationship with *their* instruments, us music fans have a similar relationship with our gear.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
And that's the great mystery about "high fidelity" - high fidelity to a reference we never heard? We weren't there in the recording studio right?
That's overcomplicating it a bit. The reference doesn't have to be a completed music recording. It could be as brief and simple as a live -vs- recorded triangle ding, tambourine shake, spoken words, anything. Which speaker sounds like the real thing? Why isn't that a part of testing?
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,025
Likes
3,327
Location
bay area, ca
That's overcomplicating it a bit. The reference doesn't have to be a completed music recording. It could be as brief and simple as a live -vs- recorded triangle ding, tambourine shake, spoken words, anything. Which speaker sounds like the real thing? Why isn't that a part of testing?
I agree but we are saying the exact same thing from 2 perspectives, I think. Also, often I neither have nor want the live experience: there are many artists who are good and enjoyable on studio albums, but their concerts are abominable. I once saw Bobby Brown in concert - enough said. :)
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
That thought has crossed my mind. Sometimes in discussion here with initiates from the small cohort of 'soundstage-deniers' I wonder whether it's their system/setup or ear/brain that leads them to argue against the mere existence of the basic function of stereo. I've said before that I wouldn't be surprised if we decode and experience the stereo image somewhat differently. Validating that theory is an investigation into psycho-acoustics, of course.

I also experienced what could be put down to some kind of stereo reproduction memory after buying a new amp a few years back. When I listened to new material it sounded just fine, but when I listened to familiar stuff it didn't. No obvious clue in published measurements or my own at LP (comparisons were all class A/B with normal performance, not euphonic/coloured stuff fyi). Toggling EQ in Sonarworks (including their LP level/timing correction) didn't get me there. Ear/brain 'burn-in' didn't do it either. Eyed-off one of those ABX comparators (at AU$1600 it wasn't an impulse buy) but the universe had other plans and took out the new amp with a lightning strike (new-fangled ethernet connections are an attack surface, who knew?) so I never got to the bottom of the mystery. There'll be some technical reason for the sonics I assume, but the interesting part was the different experience with new vs familiar music. Some memory thing going on is still my best guess.

Somewhat tangential to the speaker topic—and veering into heretical territory—but I now think more in terms of amp/speaker/room 'systems' rather than each in isolation when it comes to a 'sound'.
For this I think I could chime in a bit.

Personally when I closed my eyes, with those mix with pin point sound staging/poistioning, or even say, like FPS games, the sound staging from my desktop 2.1 feels phenominal, like in shooting games the sound can remind me someone is on the right side 30 degrees or so. But once my eyes are opened for music or the same game sound is playing but the monitor goes off, all those staging disappears. at least to me personally I think my brain is ok in sound staging "detail filling" thing but the top priority is to the eyes, if my eyes seeing something not inline with the sound, visual clue takes dominance. If in my case in a dedicated hifi room, sitting with a glass of wine, since I am seeing the speakers and the room, the sound stage is non-existing.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
For this I think I could chime in a bit.

Personally when I closed my eyes, with those mix with pin point sound staging/poistioning, or even say, like FPS games, the sound staging from my desktop 2.1 feels phenominal, like in shooting games the sound can remind me someone is on the right side 30 degrees or so. But once my eyes are opened for music or the same game sound is playing but the monitor goes off, all those staging disappears. at least to me personally I think my brain is ok in sound staging "detail filling" thing but the top priority is to the eyes, if my eyes seeing something not inline with the sound, visual clue takes dominance. If in my case in a dedicated hifi room, sitting with a glass of wine, since I am seeing the speakers and the room, the sound stage is non-existing.

I've found the influence of vision to be pretty amazing.

I think the most salient for me is watching youtube videos of guitar players - there are so many "youtube guitar (and bass, and drum, and...)" performers these days. If I'm watching someone play an electric guitar (clean without distortion), or an acoustic guitar on youtube the sensation of hearing JUST what that instrument sounds like can be very strong. It can almost feel a bit like "wow, how is it capturing the sound quality so well of that instrument!" But when I close my eyes to examine the sound...well...now it just sounds more like what it is, on ok sounding guitar recording coming through my just-good-enough iMac speakers.
Nothing really impressive at all. I open my eyes again, and the sound seems more real.

I play a bit with this in my own set up. Behind my stereo speakers is my projection screen, and I have a "mood lighting" setting I use for listening to music. It dims most lights, and puts whatever colored light I want on the screen behind the speakers. This can influence my perception of the sound somewhat, actually seem to make it a bit richer. If I close my eyes the sound can change a bit.

(This is another reason why I usually close my eyes at points during speaker auditions, at audio shows etc, to see how the sound holds up without the visual cues).
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
I've found the influence of vision to be pretty amazing.

I think the most salient for me is watching youtube videos of guitar players - there are so many "youtube guitar (and bass, and drum, and...)" performers these days. If I'm watching someone play an electric guitar (clean without distortion), or an acoustic guitar on youtube the sensation of hearing JUST what that instrument sounds like can be very strong. It can almost feel a bit like "wow, how is it capturing the sound quality so well of that instrument!" But when I close my eyes to examine the sound...well...now it just sounds more like what it is, on ok sounding guitar recording coming through my just-good-enough iMac speakers.
Nothing really impressive at all. I open my eyes again, and the sound seems more real.

I play a bit with this in my own set up. Behind my stereo speakers is my projection screen, and I have a "mood lighting" setting I use for listening to music. It dims most lights, and puts whatever colored light I want on the screen behind the speakers. This can influence my perception of the sound somewhat, actually seem to make it a bit richer. If I close my eyes the sound can change a bit.

(This is another reason why I usually close my eyes at points during speaker auditions, at audio shows etc, to see how the sound holds up without the visual cues).
indeed, and that's part of the reason why I am in the neutral speaker with good directivity camp firmly and not persuaded by some of the shows/demos, when visual basically dominant the sound staging effects, I believe (and also sometimes "confirmed" by exp) that there's high chance of the info "this speaker have phenominal sound stage", "the highs are so effortless yet highly detailed, Y speaker cannot match" or even claimin of using unobtainim could make that instance of impression rose coloured.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
What's amazing to me is that speakers that measure badly, even extremely badly, can still "sound good" to lots of people.
It doesn't seem to happen in controlled listening conditions. Ponder on that.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
Some of this clearly gets in to one's personal philosophy or approach to their system.

For convenience I would describe (broadly) to different camps, describing them:

1. I DON'T want my speakers/system to sound like anything.

2. I DO want my speakers/system to sound like something.


So for #1 I'm thinking of those whose ideal is that (like mentioned in the first post) the speakers "sound like nothing" in the sense of being so accurate as to not impose anything on the signal, like an accurate amp would. They don't want to be aware of how the speaker "sounds" but rather just listen to how whatever the musical signal sounds like through a perfectly accurate system (ideally).

I'm in the camp #2. I want my speakers/system to "sound a certain way," I'm pushing it to "sound how I want it to sound."

One reason I take this route is that I have never heard a system, no matter how neutral that didn't "sound like something" anyway. In other words, no speaker utterly disappears in the chain, with the sound utterly shape shifting in some realistic-level chameleon quality that I could never put a finger on. No. Once I hear some music through any system I feel "ah, got it, now I generally know what music will sound like through this system." No more surprises, really.

So for me since every system will "have a sound" I may as well look for the "type of sound I like best." And over the years I've identified sonic attributes that I find most compelling.

That may seem like I'm just after coloration, but that's not quite the case. I do want certain sonic attributes, but one of them is a sense of music being free of a speaker, and the speaker not OBVIOUSLY imposing some consistent character I don't like on the sound. So generally speaking I've gravitated towards speakers that are at least somewhat (or sometimes quite) neutral without obvious gross colorations to my ear.

Also, while yes I seek to nudge my system to mimic some elements of "the real thing" I don't want a coloration that utterly homogenizes the sound. I really, really like not only the music in recordings; I like the different character of recordings themselves, all the wonderful production choices and techniques that make one recording sound unique from another. I want to be as "surprised" as possible from recording to recording, so again some level of neutrality/accuracy has to be met, and a coloration - even one that I find pleasant for various reasons, can not homogenize too much for me. (So for instance yes I think I hear a bit of coloration that adds a bit more "natural" quality to recordings from my tube amp. But I don't find it homogenizes away the differences in recordings).

So for me I'm sort of juggling two goals that are slightly at tension with one another: 1. I want to hear "the recording" as much as possible. But I don't want things to always sound too much "like a recording" but rather a bit more like real life.

To that end I've experimented with tube amps (and playin' with tubes), and yeah I like vinyl too, but I often listen to my digital source, and a lot of how I tweak the sound of my system comes from playing with speaker positioning in my room, and playing with room acoustics. I have a fair amount of flexibility in that I can pull thick curtains to any spot on any wall, and dial in the amount of upper frequency reflectivity in the room to dampen or liven it up.

I've recently enjoyed a bit more dampened sound for the side reflections (floor has thick carpet, ceiling is actually felt covering acoustic treatments behind), which takes a bit more of the "room hash" away and makes the recorded reverbs and acoustics that much more distinct. So, I love the changes I'm hearing between recordings.

But...that loses a bit of the "it's live happening in front of me" sound.

To that end I've found that placing a curved diffusor beyond and between my speakers does just the trick! When I position it right, it just livens up the sound so that, say, a wood block or drum snare is now slightly "popping" from the acoustic of the recording and now sounds more texturally present and "right there."
When I get this right it frankly feels a bit uncanny. On one hand I'm sort of enveloped the acoustic of the recording, but it's like I've "entered" that acoustic because now the sounds have a bit more "it's happening live in front of me" tonality and presence. So it's as bit less like the sensation of the recordings shape shifting behind the speaker but more the part of the room from the plane of the speakers is shape-shifting in to the acoustics of the recording. A sort of Star Trek Holodeck vibe. I've been fairly astounded at the sensation, with my eyes closed, of orchestral recordings where the sense of depth seems to go on "forever" in to the hall, and I can hear the hall acoustics so well that I'm peering in to, but the instruments in that acoustic sound more "live and happening in front of me."

This is the kind of thing that give me my audio/musical thrills. And it's why, per the question of the thread, I'm fine with speakers sounding different.

Yet I can completely understand why people take a different approach.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
And...they're off! I repeat: it doesn't seem to happen in controlled listening conditions. Ponder on that.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
And...they're off! I repeat: it doesn't seem to happen in controlled listening conditions. Ponder on that.

Why are you repeating yourself here? What doesn't happen?
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,813
Likes
2,814
Location
Sydney
Why are you repeating yourself here? What doesn't happen?

The first iteration (let's call it N1) quotes @MarkS and asserts that speaker which don't "measure good" only "sound good" if you can see/identify them. The repetition (N2) is ambiguous, as it follows your descriptive text. It may relate to something you said, or it may not, I'll wait and see.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
The first iteration (let's call it N1) quotes @MarkS and asserts that speaker which don't "measure good" only "sound good" if you can see/identify them. The repetition (N2) is ambiguous, as it follows your descriptive text. It may relate to something you said, or it may not, I'll wait and see.
actually subjectively, when IRL you can always see the speakers, especially the floor standing ones, this is a good effect, at least one after spending a ton of hard/easy earned money ended up enjoying is a good thing. but then it's another thing before purchase to go for that option, and it's actually funny, when say, we know the speaker in question (insert your fav bashing brand) isn't objectively good, in audition it almost surely sound even more crappy.
 
Top Bottom