Can't we all just get along?

[Tangband]

Hi Tangband.

The stereo system is flawed like you say and some reflections from the listening room are probably needed, but no more than just masking the most obvious stereo flaws and enhancing the music experience. Listening to music in an anechoic chamber is not very pleasant according to people with that type of experience.

But the reflections from the listening room can never help us hear a more accurate reproduction of the room in the recording, they can only blur out the recorded reflections that otherwise would appear (tricked by the stereo illusion) to come from any point in the phantom image somewhere between the speakers. The reflections from the listening room have all been generated by the two speakers' positions in the room instead of the points where the different sounds in the recording should have come from otherwise (besides the hard-panned stuff), therefore the reflections can only blur our view into the recorded room.

In short, a higher ratio of direct sound vs reflective sound will give us better insight into the recording.

Totaly agree .
Yes, there is a fine balance between the direct sound from the speaker and the benefit from reflections from the walls in the listening room . But its not impossible to fine tune the loudspeaker position for the clearest bass-pitch and at the same time have the right amount of diffusing material on the walls , masking the stereo flaws.

 

[goat76]

Yet you ask a reviewer to write about such experience. Has anyone, ever made sense of reviewer comments in these regards? They change a power cable and talk about who the soundstage become wider. On what basis do you fine any such commentary reliable? And useful?

Sorry but why do you start talking about power cables, are you trying to put me in "that corner"? Do we really have to go there?

But seriously. If you started to have a more in-depth listening part in your reviews, besides the excellent measurements, where you provided your experience with the speakers and how they do when it comes to imaging compared to other speakers, I would probably just after a few reviews and based my own experience with some of the speakers be able to have a pretty solid idea how they compare in that department. I would find that very useful.

 

[dfuller]

Sorry but why do you start talking about power cables, are you trying to put me in "that corner"? Do we really have to go there?

But seriously. If you started to have a more in-depth listening part in your reviews, besides the excellent measurements, where you provided your experience with the speakers and how they do when it comes to imaging compared to other speakers, I would probably just after a few reviews and based my own experience with some of the speakers be able to have a pretty solid idea how they compare in that department. I would find that very useful.

The problem is that that's very, very room and placement dependent. There isn't much use for it when discerning whether a speaker is good or not as it introduces too many confounding variables.

 

[goat76]

The problem is that that's very, very room and placement dependent. There isn't much use for it when discerning whether a speaker is good or not as it introduces too many confounding variables.

You know what. I take it for granted we are talking about well-treated HiFi listening rooms and properly set up speakers, without that we can forget everything about hearing the finer details of the recordings.

 

[moonlight rainbow dream]

There are no speakers in the world that are designed with the goal to achieve excellent stereo sound.

You’re usually designing speakers in terms of single units.

Any measurements or adjustment you would do are based on mono input.

The only speakers that were designed with the goal to achieve excellent stereo sound from the ground up is the LXmini by Siegfried Linkwitz.

Polk L800!

 

[Tangband]

Here is interesting information about the stereophonic system :

Under the Hood of the Stereophonic System: Phantom Sources - Dirac

Is there any real physical sound experience that can be exactly replicated through a stereo system? Probably not. Why? Because the sound engineer who’s making the recording is limited to coding a complex three-dimensional sound field using only two channels, which are then played back from two...

www.dirac.com

 

[markus]

Sorry but why do you start talking about power cables, are you trying to put me in "that corner"? Do we really have to go there?

But seriously. If you started to have a more in-depth listening part in your reviews, besides the excellent measurements, where you provided your experience with the speakers and how they do when it comes to imaging compared to other speakers, I would probably just after a few reviews and based my own experience with some of the speakers be able to have a pretty solid idea how they compare in that department. I would find that very useful.

Such a listening test has zero value and no one should ever buy a speaker based on sighted listening reviews by a third party. It has been shown that these evaluations are significantly affected by bias. See http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

The whole thing is complicated by the fact that imaging depends as much on the recording and particular room as it depends on speaker dispersion.

So the only valid listening test which could have some meaning is a controlled listening test where a speaker is compared to a known reference.
I had suggested this earlier: build a rotating platform that can hold about 2-3 speakers, program a switcher and motor that can switch speaker feeds and rotate the playing speaker into place. The whole assembly is covered with acoustically transparent fabric so the listener can't see which speaker is playing. This would allow mono and stereo evaluations.
Any other kind of sighted listening test is worthless and I even wish @amirm would stop reporting his subjective listening experience here as it has not much value for the reasons mentioned above. If someone is serious about objective evaluations he does not do uncontrolled sighted listening tests. Period.

 

[markus]

You know what. I take it for granted we are talking about well-treated HiFi listening rooms and properly set up speakers, without that we can forget everything about hearing the finer details of the recordings.

Define "well-treated HiFi listening room". How large is the room? How much absorption? Diffusion? Listener and speaker are how far from the walls? Is EQ allowed? What type of room correction optimization strategy is applied?

 

[Tangband]

Define "well-treated HiFi listening room". How large is the room? How much absorption? Diffusion? Listener and speaker are how far from the walls?

You cant define this - every room is different so you have to use your ears for proper loudspeaker installation . This demands experience in installation and understanding of the tune method .

 

[markus]

Here is interesting information about the stereophonic system :

Under the Hood of the Stereophonic System: Phantom Sources - Dirac

Is there any real physical sound experience that can be exactly replicated through a stereo system? Probably not. Why? Because the sound engineer who’s making the recording is limited to coding a complex three-dimensional sound field using only two channels, which are then played back from two...

www.dirac.com

That's just a very dumbed down text. The Lipshitz paper linked above is a lot better. I'd even go so far to claim that it's the best short summary about the topic ever written.

 

[markus]

You cant define this - every room is different so you have to use your ears for proper loudspeaker installation .

And there you have it. When I see for example Steve Guttenberg's listening room I know that anything he says based on his sighted listening evaluations has zero value to me.

 

[tomtoo]

Define "well-treated HiFi listening room". How large is the room? How much absorption? Diffusion? Listener and speaker are how far from the walls?

The truth is, you have to treat the room to the speakers. A very wide radiating speaker would need different treatment than a narrow radiating. Overal hopeless.

 

[abdo123]

And there you have it. When I see for example Steve Guttenberg's listening room I know that anything he says based on his sighted listening evaluations has zero value to me.

The room amir listens in does not look so different from this.

 

[markus]

The room amir listens in does not look so different from this.

Looks and acoustical properties are not the same thing. In fact similar looking rooms can have dramatically different acoustical properties where it matters most, the low frequencies. The opposite is also true. Radically different looking rooms can sound very much alike.
And, I just said above that Amir should really stop posting subjective listening evaluations as they have zero value if objective product evaluation is the goal.

 

[JSmith]

I just said above that Amir should really stop posting subjective listening evaluations as they have zero value if objective product evaluation is the goal.

FWIR that happened because people kept asking... "but how does it sound". It's difficult to keep everyone happy.


JSmith

 

[TrevC]

Looks and acoustical properties are not the same thing. In fact similar looking rooms can have dramatically different acoustical properties where it matters most, the low frequencies.
And, I just said above that Amir should really stop posting subjective listening evaluations as they have zero value if objective product evaluation is the goal.

I disagree entirely.

 

[markus]

keep everyone happy.


JSmith

I'm not

 

[markus]

I disagree entirely.

Well then you're not a man of science, many aren't so that's not a problem per se. Mankind existed before we could even say "science". But any site with the term "science" in its name should adhere to scientific principles. Uncontrolled sighted listening evaluation is not one of them. It's quite the opposite.

 

[amirm]

The room amir listens in does not look so different from this.

His room has nothing to do with mine. Both acoustically and otherwise.

 

[voodooless]

Well then you're not a man of science, many aren't so that's not a problem per se. Mankind existed before we could even say "science". But any site with the term "science" in its name should adhere to scientific principles. Uncontrolled sighted listening evaluations is not one of them.

While I can generally agree with this, in many cases, it still has helpful information. As an example the review we're talking about. The severity of the midrange modulation could not be deduced from the measurements available. The video showing the issue was a very clear yet subjective indicator here, as was Amirm's description of the phenomenon. This speaker would never have made such a fuss if it were not for the subjective experience, which in itself is an interesting observation.

Now you could argue: well then we don't have enough measurements! And I would agree with that. Multitone measurements of speakers at 86 and 96dB would be very valuable (or possibly in this case 76dB as well) and would probably show the exact issue.