A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Mart68]

You are selecting one known fact about how records were mixed and mastered (stereophony) and holding that up as an artistic intention while happily ignoring many other known facts about how records were mixed and mastered (many examples above), picking and choosing to suit your rhetorical aim (to defend stereophony against claims that multichannel is superior).
Why not do the same in threads where people discuss subwoofers? Cardioid speakers? New-fangled driver materials? Digital files? The same reasoning is true, after all: "it's not the way it was intended to be heard so I don't really understand why anyone would consider [subwoofers or any other post-1970s innovation] to be good or better?"

So you don't grasp what I am saying. I'm happy to accept that some or even most people prefer to up mix 2 channel recordings - or would prefer it if they had experienced it.

However the suggestion has been made that playing back 2 channel recordings on just 2 channels is 'wrong' or 'inferior'. That's what I disagree with.

Any other technology you want to bring up is irrelevant to the fact that those recordings were intended to be listened to on just 2 channels. Aside from the quite brief flirtation with quadrophonic, which I'm sure we all agree is not the same thing at all as comtemporary multi-channel, no-one even conceived of having multiple discrete surround channels back then.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

So you don't grasp what I am saying. I'm happy to accept that some or even most people prefer to up mix 2 channel recordings - or would prefer it if they had experienced it.

However the suggestion has been made that playing back 2 channel recordings on just 2 channels is 'wrong' or 'inferior'. That's what I disagree with.

Any other technology you want to bring up is irrelevant to the fact that those recordings were intended to be listened to on just 2 channels. Aside from the quite brief flirtation with quadrophonic, which I'm sure we all agree is not the same thing at all as comtemporary multi-channel, no-one even conceived of having multiple discrete surround channels back then.

I understand you. You are saying that because stereo was how the records were made, stereo listening is as good as any other listening. The same logic would say that because the records were made without subs, listening without subs is as good as any other listening. Or countless other similar formulations that rely on the untenable article of faith that if we listen to it the way the original mix and mastering engineers did, that's a sort of seal of validity upon which modern innovations cannot improve.

 

[Newman]

Mart, it's you who isn't grasping Rex's clearly-stated point.

Also, when you say...

...the suggestion has been made that playing back 2 channel recordings on just 2 channels is 'wrong' or 'inferior'. That's what I disagree with....

...you are straw-manning me.

I actually asserted that "experiments have shown that (for stereo recordings, per your insistence) good upmixing has the potential to improve perceptions of ASW and ENV, which is proven to correspond with perceptual preference, while not simultaneously degrading soundstage imaging, which also corresponds with perceptual preference." I'm discussing potential, not wrongness or invariable inferiority.

And I concluded that "MCH systems can still work in stereo any time the owner wishes to do so. Then they can offer so much more when the owner finally overcomes his or her Late Adopter Syndrome and tries upmixing stereo or obtaining discrete MCH recordings." See how I said it's still fine to use stereo whenever one wishes? See how I said "MCH...can offer so much more" (not must, not invariably)?

Also bear in mind it was Cote, who described stereo as the elegant, mature solution, and by association MCH as inelegant and immature...straight after insinuating that MCH is really for people who like crass "action-packed, American" stuff like "thunderous bass...helicopters coming from behind".

That's what I disagree with.

cheers

 

[Mort]

All the music I listen to with the exception of a couple of old Sinatra albums was made to be listened to as 2 channel stereo. Not that I don't think multi-channel up-mixing is wrong or invalid, but it's not the way it was intended to be heard so I don't really understand why anyone would consider 2 channel to be wrong or worse?

I don't listen to the mono albums in single channel though so maybe I'm breaking my own rules

Do you own a multi channel system?

However the suggestion has been made that playing back 2 channel recordings on just 2 channels is 'wrong' or 'inferior'. That's what I disagree with.

You'll need to find the place someone said that because I don't think it's true.

 

[NTK]

... those recordings were intended to be listened to on just 2 channels. ...

Most recordings are made with many more than 2 channels. They are mixed into 2 channels for distribution, not because it is ideal, but because it is "practical".

When Harvey Fletcher did his Carnegie Hall demonstration in 1940, he used 3 channels. Two-channel stereo was already known to be insufficient (for true high fidelity audio reproduction) from the beginning. It was used because of the technological limitations (to practically distribute the audio to consumers) at the time.

 

[Mart68]

Most recordings are made with many more than 2 channels. They are mixed into 2 channels for distribution

Mixing down multiple tracks to left and right two channel isn't the same thing as mixing the same for multi-channel replay.

That's why you have multi-channel remixes.

When Harvey Fletcher did his Carnegie Hall demonstration in 1940, he used 3 channels. Two-channel stereo was already known to be insufficient (for true high fidelity audio reproduction) f

I'm aware, I've experienced three channel and it wasn't exactly a revelation.

 

[Mart68]

...you are straw-manning me.

I would never do that to you

It was a comment by someone else that triggered my response, something along the lines of 'I don't understand why anyone bothers with two channel any more' but I'm not going to search back to find it now.

 

[Mart68]

Do you own a multi channel system?.

I had a 5.1 system for a few years but only for A/V, however a pal had a much more accomplished 7.2 system which he used for multi-channel audio. Had numerous demos on that when he was trying to convince me it was a good idea but it's not for me. I don't even use a centre speaker on my A/V set up anymore.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I had a 5.1 system for a few years but only for A/V, however a pal had a much more accomplished 7.2 system which he used for multi-channel audio. Had numerous demos on that when he was trying to convince me it was a good idea but it's not for me. I don't even use a centre speaker on my A/V set up anymore.

Same here, I was a believer, at the beginning, 5.1 early adopter, in late 90’s, then updated a few AVR until my last Denon with audessey.
I also have had plenty of opportunity to listen at friends and more so at my children’s, all have nice set up even one with Atmos, ceiling speakers and all.
They like it.
At my place, even on my projector, I ended up preferring my stereo set up, the two speakers are way out in the room, very spacious sound, I listen alone, so the narrow sweet spot is not an issue.
I still have the AVR, it is feeding a stereo pair of speaker in my living room, in pure mode and all is well in my world.

 

[Mart68]

5.1 early adopter, in late 90’s,

Likewise, started with Dolby Surround, then Pro-Logic then Digital/AC3.

One day my AVR went into some weird mode it wouldn't come out of. I swapped in a 2 channel amp intending to fix it another day but never bothered and then I gave the centre and surround speakers to a pal who was just getting into home theatre. Although it did add a little extra involvement to some films, I found I just didn't really miss it enough to be bothered re-creating it again.

the two speakers are way out in the room, very spacious sound, I listen alone, so the narrow sweet spot is not an issue.

Yeah same here.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Although it did add a little extra involvement to some films, I found I just didn't really miss it

Exactly, surround has merits, I understand why many here, like the members of my family, like it. Both for movies and music.
If I was 40 years younger and did not have the HiFi journey that I had, I might be using it.
It is just not what I am into. to me, for me, stereo is a much better match, I just love it.
As I am retired, I spend hours every day listening to it.
Starts the day with coffee, listening to one or 2 album, in the room I can use when my wife is still sleeping, then depending of the weather, a few more albums during the day. Happy time.
I wish we could listen to each other set up on this forum, it would make things easier and clearer to understand on what we use and why we use it.

 

[Mort]

I still don't understand the point either of you are making, especially considering what this thread is about.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I would never do that to you

It was a comment by someone else that triggered my response, something along the lines of 'I don't understand why anyone bothers with two channel any more' but I'm not going to search back to find it now.

i can’t find this comment. i’m left to assume you’ve invented it.

 

[Mart68]

i can’t find this comment. i’m left to assume you’ve invented it.

Okay you made me look and I can't find it either. Either I imagined it or whoever it was who made it has deleted their post.

 

[Neadych]

What are the audibility thresholds for distortion at different frequencies?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

What are the audibility thresholds for distortion at different frequencies?

Distortion is sound. It's just sound you don't want. So if you could subtract the real music and leave only the distortion, your equal-loudness contour (classical known as the Fletcher-Munson curve) would apply just as normally.

So this means that you are most sensitive to distortion at 1 to 5 kHz. 100Hz distortion will probably need to be 20dB louder than 2kHz to be equally audible; 10kHz will probably need to be 10dB louder than 2kHz to be equally loud.

 

[IPunchCholla]

You can test your own sensitivity to distortion Here. I am far less sensitive than the strict limits of audibility.

 

[Floyd Toole]

You can test your own sensitivity to distortion Here. I am far less sensitive than the strict limits of audibility.

But those limits of audibility do not account for simultaneous and forward temporal masking - the sounds that generate the distortion also prevent us from hearing all of it - that is why the simple technical measurements of distortion are misleading. Newer methods take masking into account, but they are not standardized or widely used.

I just did the Klippel distortion test for the first time. Thanks for reminding me it existed. I came out close to average on most metrics, slightly worse on one, and significantly better with one test signal. I'm amazed at 88 - my hearing is definitely degraded and I have tinnitus. I suspect that knowing what to listen for is part of it.

 

[Vuki]

...
I just did the Klippel distortion test for the first time. Thanks for reminding me it existed. I came out close to average on most metrics, slightly worse on one, and significantly better with one test signal. I'm amazed at 88 - my hearing is definitely degraded and I have tinnitus. I suspect that knowing what to listen for is part of it.

I'm happy to hear that Andrew has a bright future ahead of him.

 

[Neadych]

In Klippel-based loudspeaker tests, we see distortion figures expressed as percentages at various volume levels.
I would like to know if there are any average benchmarks regarding audibility thresholds (in percent) for different frequencies. For instance, at 60 Hz—or within the 30–100 Hz range—is 3% considered good, while anything higher is bad? This would apply regardless of the specific speakers I own. The same would apply to higher frequencies.
If I know that I won't exceed these figures at my maximum listening volume, I can rest easy.
I also want to know whether peak levels should be included in this assessment, or if higher distortion levels (and if so, which ones?) are permissible at those peaks.