• Welcome to ASR. 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!

A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

Interesting, the multichannel portion is certainly growing, but still too much not available to reach anything like 50% for me. Early music or lesser known stuff rarely is in multichannel. Not to mention chamber music performed not by "big names".
Indeed, we are just starting to see new surround music but for me the Auro or Dolby upmixer from stereo content is quite good; keeps the frontstage and the instrument in their place and add only reverberation and ambiance...for choral music is just WOW comparing with the stereo mode (I can easily switch from remote)

In fact I do prefer the upmixer more compared with some surround recordings where I have the drums in the rear or a trumpet on a side, placing you in the middle of the stage; for classical / jazz I don like it, but for electronic music can be quite nice to have different effects around you
 
Last edited:
As Kal says, LCR should be whatever you can afford. Surrounds are many, and unfortunately don't really call for so much duty, so agree that they could be stepped down somewhat, but not stripped down to irrelevance. But then there are FWL/FLR/BSR/BSL, so in 9 bed channel setup it does add up.
Absolutely correct; the front stage should be as good possible and rest whatever works for you. In my case I wanted to have the same line of speakers just so not to have excuses :D
So I'm stepping down from Monitor Audio Platinum to the new Gold 6G all around (300, 250, on wall, 2x50)
 
Surrounds are many, and unfortunately don't really call for so much duty, so agree that they could be stepped down somewhat, but not stripped down to irrelevance.
This is correct for most MCH recordings that have reverberation in the surround channels. But looking at some Atmos recordings with instruments playing from all directions, I fear that the requirements for the surround speakers equal those for the front speakers.

Nevertheless, I would always compromise the surround channels first if required, too.
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR, e.g. using channel routing, delay, attenuation and maybe high- and low pass filters (something I could replicate with my RME Fireface UFX)?

E.g. L, 20ms delay, -6dB, highpass @ 150Hz, routed to SL, R accordingly
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR, e.g. using channel routing, delay, attenuation and maybe high- and low pass filters (something I could replicate with my RME Fireface UFX)?

E.g. L, 20ms delay, -6dB, highpass @ 150Hz, routed to SL, R accordingly
Schiit Syn is the easiest I'm aware of, although I'm not certain it does everything on your list
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR, e.g. using channel routing, delay, attenuation and maybe high- and low pass filters (something I could replicate with my RME Fireface UFX)?

E.g. L, 20ms delay, -6dB, highpass @ 150Hz, routed to SL, R accordingly
Wikipedia lists a number of methods.

Below are links to the Dolby ProLogic and ProLogic II theory of operation.
https://web.archive.org/web/2014032...onal/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/2012012...ibrary/Dolby Surround Pro Logic Operation.pdf
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR, e.g. using channel routing, delay, attenuation and maybe high- and low pass filters (something I could replicate with my RME Fireface UFX)?

E.g. L, 20ms delay, -6dB, highpass @ 150Hz, routed to SL, R accordingly
I use this.
Despite how sophisticated and expensive it was back in the day, You can get them for cheap, just make sure the remote is included in the sale.
 
Thank you all for your input, will read through it later today.

I guess there are no recent DSP hardware devices using balanced outputs and balanced analog or digital input?

Are there any VST software plugins which can be used with jriver MC?
 
I guess there are no recent DSP hardware devices using balanced outputs and balanced analog or digital input?
Not sure if this fits but a lively discussion in this thread.
 
Are there any VST software plugins which can be used with jriver MC?

There are literally thousands. Almost any 64 bit VST will work. I say "almost any" because I haven't found one that doesn't work yet, but i'm sure there are some that may not work. For 32 bit VST's, you need the 32 bit version of JRMC, or a compatibility layer.
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR, e.g. using channel routing, delay, attenuation and maybe high- and low pass filters (something I could replicate with my RME Fireface UFX)?

E.g. L, 20ms delay, -6dB, highpass @ 150Hz, routed to SL, R accordingly

I like this for such tasks. Let's you design processing however what you want. https://www.qsys.com/products-solutions/q-sys/processing/core-110f/
 
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.
Why so much concern about social aspect of listening to hifi system? IME listening to high quality audio system is mostly lonesome activity. There is so little audiophiles and even less audiophile partners - others just don't care how it sounds. And if anyone is listening to a hifi system with you and is not an audiophile, he/she is listening because of you and not because it sounds great.
Do you perhaps have any statistics about listening habits of hifi enthusiasts?
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR, e.g. using channel routing, delay, attenuation and maybe high- and low pass filters (something I could replicate with my RME Fireface UFX)?

E.g. L, 20ms delay, -6dB, highpass @ 150Hz, routed to SL, R accordingly
Jriver and/or plug-ins within.
 
Just read fast through few last pages...

Stereophonic music media has been defacto standard for almost 60 years now, and it will stay because of the versatility to reproduction (speakers, phones, car etc. even mono) and compatible transmission through eg. FM radio, vinyl, podcast and various encoded music files. And it just works!

Multichannel has almost as long history but it is just a curiosity for music. More and more channels and effects... very difficult to set up right in a room. Even Floyd Toole obviously has to forget Atmos... I have had DD 5.1 in three different rooms and only my small HT room sounds right. But the room is not used much any more because we have a 65" TV and suboptimal DD 5.0 in the living room. And most of the time I listen to music 2.0 stereo...

I have six adult kids, and no one of them is interested in multichannel sound. We go to movie theatre if we want to enjoy movies with great sound.
 
Just read fast through few last pages...

Stereophonic music media has been defacto standard for almost 60 years now, and it will stay because of the versatility to reproduction (speakers, phones, car etc. even mono) and compatible transmission through eg. FM radio, vinyl, podcast and various encoded music files. And it just works!

Multichannel has almost as long history but it is just a curiosity for music. More and more channels and effects... very difficult to set up right in a room. Even Floyd Toole obviously has to forget Atmos... I have had DD 5.1 in three different rooms and only my small HT room sounds right. But the room is not used much any more because we have a 65" TV and suboptimal DD 5.0 in the living room. And most of the time I listen to music 2.0 stereo...

I have six adult kids, and no one of them is interested in multichannel sound. We go to movie theatre if we want to enjoy movies with great sound.
That's exactly why I don't want a MCH system but improve my stereo system with some more artificial "ambiance" from SL and SR speakers at +/- 60° or +/- 90°
 
Can we get a preview of what you will be saying about stereo reproduction and crosstalk cancellation in the 4th edition. You did allude to this in one of your posts here, no?

It would be reassuring to hear from an expert in the field that I can finally dispense with the imagined characteristics of speakers like soundstage, imaging, localization, depth, etc. and be able to listen to any recording and have it be consistently enjoyable.
 
Slightly offtopic: Is there an easy way to generate some ambiance for SL and SR speakers from the stereo signal without using an AVR
Wikipedia lists a number of methods.
For what it's worth, I tried a number of passive matrix schemes and was never satisfied with the result. Even with embellishments like frequency shaping, delay, lateral decorrelation, etc., I found that I often preferred plain 2-channel stereo. Active matrix upmixers along the lines of Logic 7 or ProLogic II can be substantially better than any passive matrix (in my experience). Unfortunately, active matrix upmixers are not so simple and tend to require lots of careful fine-tuning in order to minimize objectionable misbehaviors.
 
This is the closest thread I can find to share this report.

Below is an AI Summary of this report:
Scientists in Canada have developed the AudioDome, a cutting-edge speaker system that can create highly realistic 3D soundscapes. Here are the key points:
  • High-Fidelity Sound: The 11-foot dome uses advanced audio-rendering techniques to replicate soundscapes with such precision that they become indistinguishable from reality to the human ear.
  • Research Applications: The system provides a controlled environment to study human auditory perception, allowing researchers to explore how the brain processes complex soundscapes.
  • Ambisonic Panning Technology: Unlike conventional surround sound techniques, the AudioDome employs ninth-order ambisonic panning, utilizing 100 sound channels to deliver greater spatial resolution than previous systems.
  • Limitations: While the AudioDome effectively reproduces most sounds, speech localization above 4 kHz can become distorted, making speech resemble phone audio rather than natural conversation.
  • Future Implications: The technology could advance hearing research, refine audio simulation techniques, and improve spatial sound reproduction for various applications.

Toole mentioned in his Sound Reproduction book that he once had an experience with a multi-channel system that was "bone chilling real" (or some other phase with the word "chilling" in it); throughout his book and on this thread, he alluded to the fact that multi-channel loudspeaker sound systems provides a level of realism, that stereo systems cannot. There are things that multi-channel music can do that stereo can never do, also many of the inherent flaws of a stereo system is not applicable to multi-channel (i.e. the flaws of a phantom center).

But there just aren't enough multi-channel music, more so, there aren't a steady multi-channel standard that the industry and consumers can latch on, not to mention the ever evolving multi-channel configurations, standards, technologies, etc.
 
Last edited:
But there just aren't enough multi-channel music, more so, there aren't a steady multi-channel standard that the industry and consumers can latch on, not to mention the ever evolving multi-channel configurations, standards, technologies, etc.
Agree and just like mono and stereo the most realistic, in the room uncanny playback starts at the recording session and is where the convincing lifelike sound is captured. Every component and room can only equal but most likely degrades the sensation. Given the quality of audio gear the standard is high and the most gains will come the transducers and setup of the recording. The only thing that trumps the quality of the input is the music and musicianship.
 
I used to have some speakers that had level-adjustable rear firing tweeters. Like many speakers that feature rear firing tweeters, this was meant to enhance the spaciousness and three-dimensionality of the presentation, by spraying more reflections into the room.

This certainly seemed to work - with the tweeters dialled up the sound did take on a more open spacious dimensional quality.

On the other hand, just like many people who have owned such speakers, I found there was a trade-off to the setting of the rear firing tweeter level: at some point as the tweeter level was raised it coloured the sound to a degree I did not care for. It sort of began to bleach out the sound somewhat of the tonal/timbral nuances in the recording. So I ended up dialling it so that there was a detectible effect in spaciousness, without adding too much colouration.

I remember that our local speaker, designer and builder Duke made comments at some point that his own experiments led to similar conclusions.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the additional reflection energy from a rear-firing tweeter affects both the spatial quality and the sound quality. Too much reflection energy can degrade the sound quality, especially if it is negatively impacting the perceived tonal balance. I've had what I believe to be good results taking the rear-firing tweeter's contribution into account from the beginning of the design stage, which in practice means that the front-firing drivers have a higher directivity than normal. This way when the rear-firing tweeter is loud enough to improve the spatial quality, it is not adding so much reflection energy that the sound quality is degraded; instead, it is actually making a beneficial contribution to sound quality too. Of course if the rear-firing tweeter is just plain too loud there will be a degradation of sound quality, so imo the ability to adjust its level relative to the front-firing drivers is desirable.

Also: Would the problem of colouration I’m talking about come from the fact that it was only high frequencies that were being augmented in the rear direction, and not the whole signal has one would have in a full dipole speaker? And so this just creates a tonal imbalance in reflections?

My understanding is that the perceived tonal balance is a "weighted average" of the direct sound and the subsequent reflections. The generally preferred approach with conventional speakers is to design for an approximately "flat" direct sound, followed by a downward-sloping spectral balance for the reflection field, resulting in a downward-sloping net in-room response, but not as steeply downward-sloping as the reflection field alone.

If the rear-firing tweeter is too loud and/or has been added as an afterthought after the speaker is already well-designed, then its contribution could very well result in too much high frequency energy in the reflection field, such that our "weighted average" of direct sound + reflections is too "bright".

Imo how much of the spectrum the rear-firing tweeter should cover depends on what would best complement the off-axis response of the front-firing drivers.
 
Back
Top Bottom