A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Floyd Toole]

Even though I know intellectually the challenges of creating the sensation of a large space using stereo speakers in a smaller room (mine is 13’ x 15’ with a large room opening to the hallway), in practice I have found I can get quite a believable-to-me sensation of listening into a very large space if it’s on the recording. This regularly happens with symphonic recordings.
When I close my eyes, if I mentally adjust my “ seating distance” to make the scale of the orchestra make sense, the feeling of listening to an orchestra can be quite realistic. (though, as I say, this is an area where bringing my own imagination, willing to meet the illusion halfway, comes in to play)

This is so absolutely true. It is well established that we humans adapt in many ways to many different environmental circumstances. Adapting to - neutralizing - the acoustical signature of the room that the eyes see is one of them. Something a simple as speech intelligibility measurably improves after even a brief exposure to a new room.

Then there is the "Believing is hearing" effect, which is why blind evaluations are critical to getting unbiased opinions. I have recently read that, in medicine, where the placebo effect is well known, there is evidence that when patients know that they are taking a placebo many of them still exhibit improvement. One can buy identified placebo pills on Amazon - advertised as being better than sugar pills because they contain no sugar!

Does anyone suppose that if we wish to "hear" something, that the probability that it will occur is improved? This entire thread began with a discussion of a loudspeaker designed to satisfy the designer's momentary "taste" and some customers came to agree, even though it is demonstrably and measurably colored.

We humans are complicated creatures . . .

 

[MattHooper]

I like to say to audiophiles reluctant to accept the power of imagination: look outside of audio for the countless examples of things human beings have been able to imagine as real.

There are people who believe that they’ve been abducted and anally probed by aliens from another world; it’s not exactly a stretch for an audiophile to imagine a reduction of “midrange glare” with his new cables.

 

[j_j]

Does anyone suppose that if we wish to "hear" something, that the probability that it will occur is improved? This entire thread began with a discussion of a loudspeaker designed to satisfy the designer's momentary "taste" and some customers came to agree, even though it is demonstrably and measurably colored.

Oh yeah, it's beyond that, even. I've run a quiet test wherein I was watching the subject from outside the quiet room, and ran an extra 10 trials of an ABX, with the A=B.

I had set up a pattern, and pointed my pencil left or right, depending on the pattern.

100% duplication, the subject could see the pencil, but had absolutely no idea. His/Her brain promptly and entirely unconsciously incorporated that clue in a flat-out null test.

 

[audiofooled]

These are all fair points as a part of simply being human. But, wouldn't it be more correct to first have systems that are properly set up and capable and only then use controlled testing to evaluate what's audible and what not?

 

[Floyd Toole]

These are all fair points as a part of simply being human. But, wouldn't it be more correct to first have systems that are properly set up and capable and only then use controlled testing to evaluate what's audible and what not?

This is a reasonable question. The problem is that it takes double-blind controlled tests to determine what is required to "properly set up" a system. People have made assumptions many times over the years, sometimes writing them into standards, only to learn that there is more to the story.

A systematic scientific investigation of loudspeaker-based sound reproduction involves several separable stages, such as:
1. the sound source (loudspeakers and detection thresholds for resonances and non-linear distortions within them),
2. loudspeaker directivity and the interaction with adjacent reflective boundaries - low frequency sound power boundary interactions and higher frequency specular reflections,
3. the wavelength-determined low-frequency resonances in small rooms that modify timbre and that create loudspeaker and listener location dependencies.
4. the number of channels and capture, storage and reproduction algorithms necessary to deliver more than mere sound quality. What elements of direction and space are involved in making such a decision?

These are the large variables, not subtleties, and in the process of examining them, one inevitably learns much about what is audible. It is a process of chasing diminishing returns. When these identified audible problems are minimized, the question then is: what do people consider to be "good"? - there may be an element of personal preference. When nobody complains, can one assume that the system is "properly set up"?. But, then the question is: if they did complain, is it the program (an infinitely variable, non-standardized quantity) or the playback system? Are there compensating errors?

When we have conducted experiments in "personal choice" using highly rated loudspeakers set up reasonably in a room and allowed listeners to freely adjust bass and treble to please themselves there can be huge variations. Program, as it must be, is a variable, and as bass extension and level is a common variation within programs the largest personal variations were in bass level. Inexperienced listeners occasionally tended to prefer a lot of bass boost - were they bass-deprived in their normal listening? Experienced and trained listeners were much more moderate, preferring a more transparent, neutral, balance in playback. But in multiple-loudspeaker double-blind evaluations all listeners prefer loudspeakers without resonances. That appears to be a necessary starting point, but beyond that, preferences in spectral balance might differ, and certainly will differ because of variations in programs. The forum discussions about varied preferences in "room curves" (a result not a target, I will add) is proof of a kind.

So many variables, in addition to susceptible, adaptable and occasionally capricious humans.

A separate, and potentially more rewarding method is binaural (head related) recording and reproduction. However it is antisocial. The present popularity - it is the dominant sound reproduction method at the moment - is interesting because, in effect, all recordings are created for stereo loudspeaker reproduction and through headphones the perceptions are very different, and not at all what was intended. The convenience of portability surpasses any need for reality. So, yes, humans are complicated.

 

[j_j]

This is a reasonable question. The problem is that it takes double-blind controlled tests to determine what is required to "properly set up" a system. People have made assumptions many times over the years, sometimes writing them into standards, only to learn that there is more to the story.

AMEN!

A systematic scientific investigation of loudspeaker-based sound reproduction involves several separable stages, such as:
1. the sound source (loudspeakers and detection thresholds for resonances and non-linear distortions within them),
2. loudspeaker directivity and the interaction with adjacent reflective boundaries - low frequency sound power boundary interactions and higher frequency specular reflections,
3. the wavelength-determined low-frequency resonances in small rooms that modify timbre and that create loudspeaker and listener location dependencies.
4. the number of channels and capture, storage and reproduction algorithms necessary to deliver more than mere sound quality. What elements of direction and space are involved in making such a decision?

0.5 The way the source signals were captured, produced, and delivered.

These are the large variables, not subtleties, and in the process of examining them, one inevitably learns much about what is audible. It is a process of chasing diminishing returns. When these identified audible problems are minimized, the question then is: what do people consider to be "good"? - there may be an element of personal preference. When nobody complains, can one assume that the system is "properly set up"?. But, then the question is: if they did complain, is it the program (an infinitely variable, non-standardized quantity) or the playback system? Are there compensating errors?

Compensating errors like the loudness "enhancement" in LP due to the distortion level vs. output level? L-R modifications? Small amounts of out of phase rumble? The "richness" of small amounts of tape scrape flutter?

I think it's obvious I'm not disagreeing here, but in case it's not, Floyd is understating the problem, probably because he got tired of typing so much.

A separate, and potentially more rewarding method is binaural (head related) recording and reproduction. However it is antisocial. The present popularity - it is the dominant sound reproduction method at the moment - is interesting because, in effect, all recordings are created for stereo loudspeaker reproduction and through headphones the perceptions are very different, and not at all what was intended. The convenience of portability surpasses any need for reality. So, yes, humans are complicated.

Binaural is excellent when head motion is included in the binaural rendering. Somewhat annoyingly, nobody wants to buy what's quite likely the best system to do that on the market. Not a single enterprise. Oh well.

Nobody would ever use MP3 either, right?

 

[audiofooled]

This is a reasonable question. The problem is that it takes double-blind controlled tests to determine what is required to "properly set up" a system. People have made assumptions many times over the years, sometimes writing them into standards, only to learn that there is more to the story.

A systematic scientific investigation of loudspeaker-based sound reproduction involves several separable stages, such as:
1. the sound source (loudspeakers and detection thresholds for resonances and non-linear distortions within them),
2. loudspeaker directivity and the interaction with adjacent reflective boundaries - low frequency sound power boundary interactions and higher frequency specular reflections,
3. the wavelength-determined low-frequency resonances in small rooms that modify timbre and that create loudspeaker and listener location dependencies.
4. the number of channels and capture, storage and reproduction algorithms necessary to deliver more than mere sound quality. What elements of direction and space are involved in making such a decision?

These are the large variables, not subtleties, and in the process of examining them, one inevitably learns much about what is audible. It is a process of chasing diminishing returns. When these identified audible problems are minimized, the question then is: what do people consider to be "good"? - there may be an element of personal preference. When nobody complains, can one assume that the system is "properly set up"?. But, then the question is: if they did complain, is it the program (an infinitely variable, non-standardized quantity) or the playback system? Are there compensating errors?

When we have conducted experiments in "personal choice" using highly rated loudspeakers set up reasonably in a room and allowed listeners to freely adjust bass and treble to please themselves there can be huge variations. Program, as it must be, is a variable, and as bass extension and level is a common variation within programs the largest personal variations were in bass level. Inexperienced listeners occasionally tended to prefer a lot of bass boost - were they bass-deprived in their normal listening? Experienced and trained listeners were much more moderate, preferring a more transparent, neutral, balance in playback. But in multiple-loudspeaker double-blind evaluations all listeners prefer loudspeakers without resonances. That appears to be a necessary starting point, but beyond that, preferences in spectral balance might differ, and certainly will differ because of variations in programs. The forum discussions about varied preferences in "room curves" (a result not a target, I will add) is proof of a kind.

So many variables, in addition to susceptible, adaptable and occasionally capricious humans.

A separate, and potentially more rewarding method is binaural (head related) recording and reproduction. However it is antisocial. The present popularity - it is the dominant sound reproduction method at the moment - is interesting because, in effect, all recordings are created for stereo loudspeaker reproduction and through headphones the perceptions are very different, and not at all what was intended. The convenience of portability surpasses any need for reality. So, yes, humans are complicated.

All well said, Dr. Toole

On the production side of things, there are more concerns than actual standards, especially nowadays with more and more portable devices to worry about translation into. However, there are engineers who are raising awareness about many misconceptions about sub mixes, also that there are many techniques for decorrelation that can sound good without putting in danger correlation for mono subs or small devices. Granted, they can't mix or master what they can't hear, so I think it's safe to assume that their monitoring setups are more elaborate.

I would agree that high quality reproduction of correlated signals is by far most important. It is of course a starting point. Resonances, be it from loudspeakers or rooms are most audible and absolutely least tolerable. People are surely complicated and susceptible to various belief systems. Some of the nonsense out there are almost religions. They also tend to prefer that which arrives in a good packaging and can easily mistake quantity for quality.

Subject being complex as it is, to me at least, is about setting the bars higher. So much accumulated knowledge and research by people like yourself, I hope would continue to drive the industry forward. Not in providing the best "unpacking" experience, but listening experience. AE is a thing of emotional attachment to the art, not just SQ.

 

[olieb]

Binaural is excellent when head motion is included in the binaural rendering. Somewhat annoyingly, nobody wants to buy what's quite likely the best system to do that on the market. Not a single enterprise. Oh well.

In my experience binaural is already very, very good even without head tracking, although it (EDIT: head tracking) IS amazing and takes the illusion (of being there) into the “stunning” realm.
Which system do you have in mind?

Headphones do not strike me as genuine anti-social either, even though my upbringing does give me a bit of a hard time to share an experience with guests wearing gear on the head. But in other generations this seems more common and why not?
Sitting in a seat in a concert hall is not really a particularly social activity in the first place (that happens in the interlude). Not more than playing on a console together with headsets, actually in playing there is much more interaction. Music gets truly "social" for those who play/sing and those who dance.
Wearing open headphones while listening to a symphony is not so different from listening over speakers (aside from the sound in the room). Though one might have to get used to it.

 

[j_j]

In my experience binaural is already very, very good even without head tracking, although it IS amazing and takes the illusion (of being there) into the “stunning” realm.
Which system do you have in mind?

Watch people listening to a symphony sometime when you're at the concert hall. You will notice people moving their head, etc, to get the best location for the actual music at hand.

This is a natural, nearly automatic reaction of people who are used to listening to music in a live setting. Very often you may notice some people who don't do this, as well, in at least one such case, those people were the headphone listeners, for which, without head tracking, this offers no advantage.

 

[Lion♡]

In my experience binaural is already very, very good even without head tracking, although it IS amazing and takes the illusion (of being there) into the “stunning” realm.

Even with personalized binaural(BRIR), head tracking can further enhance externalization. (But this seems to vary from person to person and case to case.)
I, too, love binaural. I’ve gotten rid of all my speaker gear, and even if I could go back, I’d do it again—because it lets me recreate that convincingly persuasive sound (the one I feel I know) much more freely.
However, personally, I think IEM/headphone binaural listening can have weaknesses: the lack of tactile feedback, mismatched visual cues, and the static, recorded impulses when there’s no head tracking.
Personally, I’ve found IEMs to offer a more stable and consistent experience than headphones. With headphones, the frequency response shifts subtly depending on how they’re worn, and you can end up hearing the headphone’s own pinna response right next to your ear—instead of the intended front-distant (speaker) pinna cues—since not all of that gets fully equalized by the HPCF. That little hint can give away that you’re listening on headphones.
By contrast, IEMs bypass the pinna entirely, so their response stays constant. And custom IEMs seal so effectively that the noise floor drops to near-anechoic levels—you can even hear your own heartbeat—which massively boosts immersion.

 

[olieb]

Watch people listening to a symphony sometime when you're at the concert hall. You will notice people moving their head, etc, to get the best location for the actual music at hand.

This is a natural, nearly automatic reaction of people who are used to listening to music in a live setting. Very often you may notice some people who don't do this, as well, in at least one such case, those people were the headphone listeners, for which, without head tracking, this offers no advantage.

My impression is somewhat different. Most of these persons seem to do that mainly because they are watching the performers. Once I close my eyes there is much less head movement, and that is how I listen. But most people want to see too.
However, I agree that to have rendering with head tracking is a step up (a genre like opera comes to mind). It is just that binaural is powerful (in particular in LF which was discussed here) even without. I do not know the research about the role of head movement for AE, but for me the sensation of space from bass (timpani, bassoon, cello) seems to work without.

However, personally, I think IEM/headphone binaural listening can have weaknesses: the lack of tactile feedback, mismatched visual cues, and the static, recorded impulses when there’s no head tracking.

Of course, there is no push to the stomach/chest with binaural reproduction, but this takes quite a high volume, if the vibration sensation is not to come from a resonating room floor. I prefer levels that are mostly below that as I like my hearing to stay intact (and my neighbours to stay friendly).
And mismatched visual cues happen with speakers in front too, but it is easy to get rid of them, just close the eyes.

And custom IEMs seal so effectively that the noise floor drops to near-anechoic levels—you can even hear your own heartbeat—which massively boosts immersion.

For me that is more of a disadvantage of IEM. I do not get an improvement from increased hearing of my heartbeat or every swallow and breath. This and the somewhat annoying feeling that something is stuck in my ears ;-) are the shortcomings of IEM to me.

 

[j_j]

My impression is somewhat different. Most of these persons seem to do that mainly because they are watching the performers. Once I close my eyes there is much less head movement, and that is how I listen. But most people want to see too.

II'm talking about orchestral pieces, where the visual aspect is, well, lacking. With a monophonic-reinforced rock concert, that's a different animal. The change in soundfield as you move your head helps greatly with externalization, among other things, when you learn the local soundfield.

 

[Lion♡]

Of course, there is no push to the stomach/chest with binaural reproduction, but this takes quite a high volume, if the vibration sensation is not to come from a resonating room floor. I prefer levels that are mostly below that as I like my hearing to stay intact (and my neighbours to stay friendly).

Yes. It really depends on each person’s preferences, and I completely empathize with and respect your view.
On a somewhat different note, when I listen at around 90 dB(C) or higher, I sometimes get the illusion that the entire room is vibrating. That sensation disappears when I remove my IEMs. My personal guess is that when sound arrives at such high pressure, my brain matches it to vague memories and past experiences and imagines the vibration.

And mismatched visual cues happen with speakers in front too, but it is easy to get rid of them, just close the eyes.

Of course, that can be one way as well.

However, we still rely heavily on vision. This may vary from person to person, but in my view, to make a binaural experience as immersive and indistinguishable from reality as possible, you need to eliminate or compensate for anything that could confuse the brain. In my experience, the brain is surprisingly good at spotting mismatched cues—although, of course, it can adapt over time.

For me that is more of a disadvantage of IEM. I do not get an improvement from increased hearing of my heartbeat or every swallow and breath. This and the somewhat annoying feeling that something is stuck in my ears ;-) are the shortcomings of IEM to me.

Yes, comfort is the downside of IEMs. Custom IEMs fit the ear so well that you don’t get the usual discomfort, but you still have that sense of something being lodged in your ear. (That’s why I use Apple’s EarPods about 360 days out of the year—they’re so comfortable.)
I believe that wearing comfort contributes to immersion. With headphones, you’re always aware that something is resting on your head, and you have to force yourself to ignore it. (Don’t get me wrong—I’ve loved headphones too. I was especially fond of the Sennheiser 800s.)
When you can reproduce sound with no sensation or pressure on the ears or head, and with the front‑speaker, distant pinna cues intact, there really is no discernible difference from reality. (And as j_j mentioned, adding head‑tracking would make it even more seamless.)
However, because everyone’s goals and preferences differ, I completely understand your position.
The reason I use IEMs instead of headphones is that I want the HPCF to be applied more consistently and accurately—though headphones are perfectly acceptable by most standards as well.

 

[audiofooled]

Of course, there is no push to the stomach/chest with binaural reproduction, but this takes quite a high volume, if the vibration sensation is not to come from a resonating room floor.

Interesting. A while ago I did a small clip of vector summation of waveforms at MLP (it is calculated real time at a rate of 200 times a second, so very moderately accurate):

Bass direction is audible

I would love to hear ASR's opinion about this. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/visualizing-how-different-loudspeaker-lf-directivity-patterns-couple-to-room-modes.45518/ I don't know why NTK didn't provide this link))

audiosciencereview.com

Attached file that is made in .mov format allows for manipulation of playback speed (in Quicktime player it's possible to drag the slider to lower than declared 1/2 speed minimum). Information is a little overwhelming, but in A/V controls tab it is possible to reduce brightness ever so slightly as to obscure what is happening on a per cycle basis, and to highlight the general areas of movement in absolute terms. It is perceived exactly as is - waves moving, expanding and contracting at rates of just a few times a second. Front to back energy (red slider) biased towards either pushing me into the seat or pulling me out of it. This is done at SPL levels that are simply unhealthy.

Granted, this adds to the perception of space. But, what's interesting to me is that the sense does not go away even at really moderate to quiet levels (where hardly anything is felt), so I believe that binaural is no less engaging.

 

[Thomas Lund]

Hi Thomas,
Everything is important, but each in its own time . . . When I began my research 59 years ago (!), sound quality was a huge problem, and stereo was a novelty. I know you appreciate what I and my research teams have contributed to alleviating the sound quality issue...

Hi Floyd, great to hear you are settling in in Ottawa, and how the most important room of the house is under control.

A few years ago, you made the distinction between experiencing discrete sounds from all different directions, like what is typical outdoors, and the wonderful sensation of a fine hall where music is being played. You also suggested using the term “immersive” about the former, simpler, circumstance; and “enveloping” about the latter.

Since those joyous days of 3D listening in your previous living room, experiments (including outdoors) have verified LEV to be a red herring, considering sound reproduction, unlike the elementary percept, Auditory Envelopment (AE), which is universally appreciated, and a more relevant gauge. Furthermore, AE is not a binary quale; but a whole dimension in numerous shades. Much work waiting for academia, beyond Aalto University.

The goal of fine recreational listening is not the same as in monitoring, elation vs source-scrutiny. However, I’m sure better advice than blind mono summation of LF, to serve the holy frequency response, can be given, also to recreationals. For instance, I happily accept a few LF bumps for just a little glimpse into recorded AE, also at home, though my priority was possibly different when I was 30. All the best, and good to have you here.

 

[olieb]

II'm talking about orchestral pieces, where the visual aspect is, well, lacking.

One might think so, but people still watch, the conductor, the soloists, the violins playing in synchronicity and so on. And if you ask them why they do not close their eyes to better listen (they often agree that they too experience this improvement), everybody I know, tells me: I like to watch what is going on. [This gets stronger when someone famous is involved.]
I can understand this urge, I might just happen to be a bit different.

The change in soundfield as you move your head helps greatly with externalization, among other things, when you learn the local soundfield.

I agree. The externalisation becomes better (and much faster so) with head tracking. I have this experience in particular when using a generic (dummy head) HRTF, with my personal HRTF much less learning is needed. But the stability of the auditory scene in the “room” is amazing in any case when head tracking is active.

However, we still rely heavily on vision. This may vary from person to person, but in my view, to make a binaural experience as immersive and indistinguishable from reality as possible, you need to eliminate or compensate for anything that could confuse the brain. In my experience, the brain is surprisingly good at spotting mismatched cues

Absolutely. I you have the eyes open, the brain will be busy to process the (visual) stimuli and there will be mismatches. This even happens in the concert hall (on a lesser seat), when your eyes tell you where the sound supposedly comes from when in fact everything (sound) is swamped in reflections.

 

[Duke]

In the meantime, I have a real-life situation to deal with - I have relocated from a comfortably large listening room in California to a significantly smaller (13' x 16'. 4m x 4.9m) room in Ottawa, Canada... I now seem to have retained the desired resonance control while delivering some of auditory envelopment. It is definitely somewhat "out-there", not mono. Interesting, and I may not be done yet. But, when it is good, mono low bass is highly enjoyable with the majority of program material.

Obviously I'm being presumptuous here to springboard off your phrase "... and I may not be done yet"...

Have you considered trying subs positioned to the left and right of the main listening position, operating in phase quadrature, as a technique for getting improved envelopment from sources with monaural (or nearly so) bass? Quoting from this paper by David Griesinger:

"When playing material where the bass energy is primarily monaural, the drivers on the left side of the room should lead or lag the drivers on the right side by a constant phase angle of 90 degrees. Listening tests confirm the results of the calculations."

If you have tried this, I'd be very interested in hearing what your experience was.

 

[A Surfer]

This is a reasonable question. The problem is that it takes double-blind controlled tests to determine what is required to "properly set up" a system. People have made assumptions many times over the years, sometimes writing them into standards, only to learn that there is more to the story.

A systematic scientific investigation of loudspeaker-based sound reproduction involves several separable stages, such as:
1. the sound source (loudspeakers and detection thresholds for resonances and non-linear distortions within them),
2. loudspeaker directivity and the interaction with adjacent reflective boundaries - low frequency sound power boundary interactions and higher frequency specular reflections,
3. the wavelength-determined low-frequency resonances in small rooms that modify timbre and that create loudspeaker and listener location dependencies.
4. the number of channels and capture, storage and reproduction algorithms necessary to deliver more than mere sound quality. What elements of direction and space are involved in making such a decision?

These are the large variables, not subtleties, and in the process of examining them, one inevitably learns much about what is audible. It is a process of chasing diminishing returns. When these identified audible problems are minimized, the question then is: what do people consider to be "good"? - there may be an element of personal preference. When nobody complains, can one assume that the system is "properly set up"?. But, then the question is: if they did complain, is it the program (an infinitely variable, non-standardized quantity) or the playback system? Are there compensating errors?

When we have conducted experiments in "personal choice" using highly rated loudspeakers set up reasonably in a room and allowed listeners to freely adjust bass and treble to please themselves there can be huge variations. Program, as it must be, is a variable, and as bass extension and level is a common variation within programs the largest personal variations were in bass level. Inexperienced listeners occasionally tended to prefer a lot of bass boost - were they bass-deprived in their normal listening? Experienced and trained listeners were much more moderate, preferring a more transparent, neutral, balance in playback. But in multiple-loudspeaker double-blind evaluations all listeners prefer loudspeakers without resonances. That appears to be a necessary starting point, but beyond that, preferences in spectral balance might differ, and certainly will differ because of variations in programs. The forum discussions about varied preferences in "room curves" (a result not a target, I will add) is proof of a kind.

So many variables, in addition to susceptible, adaptable and occasionally capricious humans.

A separate, and potentially more rewarding method is binaural (head related) recording and reproduction. However it is antisocial. The present popularity - it is the dominant sound reproduction method at the moment - is interesting because, in effect, all recordings are created for stereo loudspeaker reproduction and through headphones the perceptions are very different, and not at all what was intended. The convenience of portability surpasses any need for reality. So, yes, humans are complicated.

I also live in Ottawa. Welcome back!

 

[RickS]

placeholder

 

[beagleman]

This reminds me of a Youtube video of "Supposedly" a Master tape copy on Open reel tape of "Dark side of the moon". On another forum, dozens of members commented on it and how the sound quality was so clear and improved from ANY vinyl or CD version they had ever heard. IT was literally a revelation in sound and 2-3 steps closer to the actual original master tape sound., by their description!!

I watched the video, and it showed an Open reel tape playing at 15 ips/2 Track, the entire side of the album I believe. Yes it did sound great for sure.

Later I thought about it, and did a quick A/B comparo to 2 CD normal versions of said album, and frankly it sounded almost identical, minus the visual cue of SEEING a big open reel tape at high speed spinning.

The forum went into a huge argument when I mentioned this..........ehhhh