A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Cote Dazur]

I have 3 systems in different rooms. Two are stereo and one is multichannel. They have gone through decades of upgrades and will likely continue to do so. My stereo has speakers against the wall while the other room has them more away from walls

Are those 3 rooms dedicated to audio? I would guess the room with speakers against the wall is the room you choose for “listening more as background” and is also a multi purpose room where typically how it looks matters as well.

 

[Duke]

I’d love to be switching between different program material and hear a realistic soundstage presentation each time (regardless of where I sit).

It sounds like I was mistaken about how much soundstage matters to you; my apologies!

Call me a dreamer.

I aspire to pretty much the same thing: Realistic, or at least enjoyable, soundstage (including envelopment) over hopefully a fairly wide listening area.

 

[JohnnyNG]

I do have some test tracks for stereo but nothing that tests much more than center image. If you have some other way to test stereo soundstage in more dimensions, please share.

I use the "Precise Location and Depth of Field" tracks from this release (I have FLAC but it looks like this site streams previews as .mp3):

Audiophile Speaker Set-Up - NativeDSD Music

Audiophile Speaker Set-Up was created to help the audiophile – as well as the neophyte – find the best placement for installation of their speakers in order to obtain optimum performance within their personal parameters. With over 115 minutes of music, sonic examples and instructions, this...

www.nativedsd.com

 

[Sokel]

Does it provide a preferred reference for speaker positioning and listening location?

The test defines what you must hear at every different position tone. read the description.
Is very well made in general, some only use it (by trial and error in positioning) to build a good stereo image at all 3 directions.

 

[RickS]

Are those 3 rooms dedicated to audio? I would guess the room with speakers against the wall is the room you choose for “listening more as background” and is also a multi purpose room where typically how it looks matters as well.

For stereo, I actually have more. I have 4. One is mainly dedicated space; one is a bedroom and the other two are in work areas. One is computer driven on my test bench and the other is in my workshop. Do not use the last 2 for critical listening, but all add to my perspective for different types of listening situations. In some cases, what compromises occur for less ideal configurations.

 

[RickS]

I use the "Precise Location and Depth of Field" tracks from this release (I have FLAC but it looks like this site streams previews as .mp3):

Audiophile Speaker Set-Up - NativeDSD Music

Audiophile Speaker Set-Up was created to help the audiophile – as well as the neophyte – find the best placement for installation of their speakers in order to obtain optimum performance within their personal parameters. With over 115 minutes of music, sonic examples and instructions, this...

www.nativedsd.com

Looks comparable to my stereophile ones with some depth tests added. Not sure why any of this test stuff should not be freely available anymore.

As moderator, would be asking for a summary on a post with offsite link , so help tell us a bit more and share your experience with the tests.

 

[JohnnyNG]

Looks comparable to my stereophile ones with some depth tests added. Not sure why any of this test stuff should not be freely available anymore.

As moderator, would be asking for a summary on a post with offsite link , so help tell us a bit more and share your experience with the tests.

I find them interesting in that you're told exactly where you're supposed to be hearing a sound emanate. With almost all records you're guessing.

My system does well on it but not perfect due to unavoidable placement asymmetries.

 

[goat76]

what percentage of music would you say that is mixed in 2ch. vs 4ch. ? If a recording is mixed in 2ch. and we then listen to it on 4ch. then aren't we getting away from capturing the original intent of the recording ??

I'm not talking about upmixing 2-channel stereo tracks to more channels in a multichannel speaker system. What I'm talking about is true multichannel mixes made out of all those recorded multitracks, which the 2-channel stereo mix is also made from.

Lets say I want to get Giles Martin's new releases of Beatles music which is mixed and mastered in 2ch. shouldn't we stick to 2ch. to hear what Martin has produced ?! Where is the soundstage in mulit-ch. setups vs is 2ch. ?

Each song of those 2-channel mixes done by Giles Martin was mixed by using multiple individual tracks that were put together and downmixed to a 2-channel stereo track, as individual recordings of the vocal tracks, multiple individual tracks for the drums, bass guitar, piano, guitars, and so on.

Giles took all those individual tracks and mixed them into a 2-channel stereo track, but he could as well have gotten the job of mixing all those individually recorded tracks into multichannel Atmos mixes, and that would have been equally "true" to the recorded material as long as the number of individual tracks is many enough to make a multichannel Atmos mix. Both these types of mixes (2-channel or multichannel) are equally as much of a unique mix from scratch as each other, as they both are made out of multiple individually recorded tracks, and none of them were just 2-channel to begin with.

Personally, I prefer playing 2-channel mixes using a 2-channel system, and I prefer multichannel mixes using a surround channel speaker system. I'm not a fan of upmixing 2-channel stereo tracks to multichannel. But what I'm trying to say to you is that making the mix a multichannel mix will always have the better potential of reproducing a more convincing-sounding three-dimensional space than only using two loudspeakers for playback of 2-channel mixes.

 

[RickS]

The test defines what you must hear at every different position tone. read the description.
Is very well made in general, some only use it (by trial and error in positioning) to build a good stereo image at all 3 directions.

Gotcha, was expecting more of a test diagram and discussion of test conditions. His emphasis on pinnae shape leaves you wondering about how much your ear shape may affect the results. Realized the lack of a reference baseline configuration is a hindrance as well. So decided to try with IEMs first. At least this took the speakers and room out of the equation initially. With IEMs, I found sensing height to be the least apparent. The sound was located directly but did not hear 2 meters of change.

So, without changing anything, do get decent results. Kept it simple and swapped out my Wiim Pro for my computer and its integrated soundcard. Chain was computer to Buckeye NCx500 to Thiel CS3.6s. Struggling with the scratchy test tone, but could hear each of the 3 dimensions. Of the axes, height dimension was subtle on my system. Rear took on an entirely different aspect and is why I wanted a diagram. For IEMs rear was back of head. Not so with speakers. There was some different depth sensation but certainly not behind me.

Will try with some 2-ways. My Mirage OMD-5s should be interesting!

 

[mpw]

I'm not talking about upmixing 2-channel stereo tracks to more channels in a multichannel speaker system. What I'm talking about is true multichannel mixes made out of all those recorded multitracks, which the 2-channel stereo mix is also made from.



Each song of those 2-channel mixes done by Giles Martin was mixed by using multiple individual tracks that were put together and downmixed to a 2-channel stereo track, as individual recordings of the vocal tracks, multiple individual tracks for the drums, bass guitar, piano, guitars, and so on.

Giles took all those individual tracks and mixed them into a 2-channel stereo track, but he could as well have gotten the job of mixing all those individually recorded tracks into multichannel Atmos mixes, and that would have been equally "true" to the recorded material as long as the number of individual tracks is many enough to make a multichannel Atmos mix. Both these types of mixes (2-channel or multichannel) are equally as much of a unique mix from scratch as each other, as they both are made out of multiple individually recorded tracks, and none of them were just 2-channel to begin with.

Personally, I prefer playing 2-channel mixes using a 2-channel system, and I prefer multichannel mixes using a surround channel speaker system. I'm not a fan of upmixing 2-channel stereo tracks to multichannel. But what I'm trying to say to you is that making the mix a multichannel mix will always have the better potential of reproducing a more convincing-sounding three-dimensional space than only using two loudspeakers for playback of 2-channel mixes.

True, if a master is in multi-channel then multi-channel is a good idea. playing a 2ch. master via multi-channel seems to get away from the intend of the master. I play mostly Lp's so 2ch. is preferred . I like listening to the soundstage in front of me not all around me. Giles could have done a multi-channel mix but most buyers and Giles himself prefers 2ch. mixes. In the old days they made Quad systems but those systems did not really catch on that well.

 

[JohnnyNG]

Here's the fastest way to do it on the fly:

Online LEDR™ Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test

Audio Test Tones : check your stereo system for correct imaging

www.audiocheck.net

A lot more interesting test as well at this site.

Thanks for this. I made a donation so I could download the files, lots of interesting stuff.

 

[Sokel]

Gotcha, was expecting more of a test diagram and discussion of test conditions. His emphasis on pinnae shape leaves you wondering about how much your ear shape may affect the results. Realized the lack of a reference baseline configuration is a hindrance as well. So decided to try with IEMs first. At least this took the speakers and room out of the equation initially. With IEMs, I found sensing height to be the least apparent. The sound was located directly but did not hear 2 meters of change.

So, without changing anything, do get decent results. Kept it simple and swapped out my Wiim Pro for my computer and its integrated soundcard. Chain was computer to Buckeye NCx500 to Thiel CS3.6s. Struggling with the scratchy test tone, but could hear each of the 3 dimensions. Of the axes, height dimension was subtle on my system. Rear took on an entirely different aspect and is why I wanted a diagram. For IEMs rear was back of head. Not so with speakers. There was some different depth sensation but certainly not behind me.

Will try with some 2-ways. My Mirage OMD-5s should be interesting!

If you try headphones and IEM too, here's the most interesting one:

Virtual Acoustic Space | Auditory Neuroscience

auditoryneuroscience.com

It creates a very defined (by specific angles) virtual space at any direction possible, with each angle freely chosen at any time.


It's my favorite one for headphones.

Lots of other at the same site as well.

 

[SigbergAudio]

I listen to music both critically and more as background and would certainly concur in the likely diversity of priorities by those who listen. As have stated, I enjoy stereo but have also have experienced better multichannel recordings. Would be the last one to want to say there is only one good solution. Does not mean I cannot see where improvements might be made in both production and delivery of sound.



My music is representative of wide spectrum of content across many genres. I listen to diverse genres (rock, pop, new age, classical and jazz). I have 3 systems in different rooms. Two are stereo and one is multichannel. They have gone through decades of upgrades and will likely continue to do so. My one stereo has speakers against the wall while the other room has them more away from walls. Along with production variables, reproduction variables are numerous. So, am not sure what you think can be gained from examining one or more of my music preferences.

I do have some test tracks for stereo but nothing that tests much more than center image. If you have some other way to test stereo soundstage in more dimensions, please share. I have one for testing multichannel as well but does not do much more than testing each channel. Would be much better if it demonstrated how a sound might be heard in multiple places where no speaker is located. I can accept sitting in a sweet spot, but would be more impressed if I was not limited to do so.

We may need another thread to take a deeper dive off topic, but know just where I would create one!

There's a pretty long existing thread on soundstage here

Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

There are some similar threads about what imaging and soundstaging even is, and some threads about how to measure it (we're not great at that). In this thread I thought it would be interesting to have a look what properties is likely to enable a speaker to be good at this. My (!) definition of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[RickS]

There's a pretty long existing thread on soundstage here

Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

There are some similar threads about what imaging and soundstaging even is, and some threads about how to measure it (we're not great at that). In this thread I thought it would be interesting to have a look what properties is likely to enable a speaker to be good at this. My (!) definition of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Thanks, but I have enough speakers and speaker knowledge to know that my solution is not likely another (traditional) speaker.

Since the same speakers (and other equipment) yield very different results, the only difference is the source material. This is simple problem solving to me. So, as long as I accept the limitations of that content, I am content.

 

[Timcognito]

^^^^^This is the solution to soundstage the Source and how its mic'd and mixed also how close to the sidewalls speakers are which kills it sometimes.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Using more channels and loudspeakers will always have a higher potential to recreate a realistic-sounding three-dimensional space than just using 2 channels of sound.

Yes, but presumably only if you have a room in which you can locate the speakers relative to a single listener similarly to the speaker layout the mixing engineer used?
I am old, have a lot of stereo recordings, and my room would require modifying a lot to make the huge investment in a multi channel system make any sense (to me).
For me it is the tunes and timbre which I want to hear well.

 

[goat76]

Yes, but presumably only if you have a room in which you can locate the speakers relative to a single listener similarly to the speaker layout the mixing engineer used?
I am old, have a lot of stereo recordings, and my room would require modifying a lot to make the huge investment in a multi channel system make any sense (to me).
For me it is the tunes and timbre which I want to hear well.

Yes, it's similar for me, as none of the smallish alternative rock bands I mostly listen to will most likely never release their music in any multichannel format. The format these bands usually see as the main and only "real" music format is actually still vinyl records.

But the thing I said about multichannel audio having a better potential of recreating a more realistic-sounding three-dimensional space is true, granted that the playback system is of good quality. I use the word "potential", as I actually find many (or maybe even most) of the multichannel mixes to be quite gimmicky, but if it's done right, the larger "palette" of using more channels and sound sources can definitely be used to recreate a more enveloping sound field. That last thing is just stating a simple fact.

 

[Mort]

Or go nearfield and have all the immersion and soundstage you can handle.

 

[MattHooper]

Personally I am immediately bored and disinterested if a system cannot convey a good soundstage and immersive quality. I also find that a large portion of popular music have a relatively large an interesting soundstage on a system that can convey these elements.

Same here.

Although for me the first and most important quality is the timbral quality of sounds through a system. That’s the first hurdle. Any system has to pass for me to be interested.

Put that in itself, probably wouldn’t be enough to get me to sit in front of a system.
I’m still bewitched by the magic act of imaging and sound staging. The Star Trek transporter effect. If I had a system that only did good timber and dynamics, I can enjoy that aspect, but sitting down in front of it in the sweet spot would be less important. I may as well use it for background listening.

(I once audition a pair of speakers in my room that had beautiful timbre and sounded great various ways with most of the music I liked, but the sound stage was distinctly flattened - the sense of depth seem to just stop somewhere around three or 4 feet behind the speakers, whereas I was used to systems that gave me the impression of sometimes endless depth from some of the same recordings. I just couldn’t deal with losing that aspect of the presentation).

 

[RetroStereo]

My front wall is a mess: 1' sheetrock, a floor-to-ceiling window, 4.5' sheetrock, another f2c window, a half-glazed patio door and a final 1' sheetrock. I covered almost the entire wall with a 14.5' heavy, but loose-weave linen curtain. The monoliths are 34" out at quarter points and towed in about 12°. The rear is broken into an 11' wall papered in cork (rear-right) and a 4.5' gap (rear-left) that is access to the dining/kitchen area. Entrance to the apartment is a door on the right side wall against the rear wall. Ideal seating space is amazingly forgiving on a couch that is 4' from the back wall. The room is only 16' deep.
The only really bad space on the "listening" side of the room is the area adjacent to the entrance door and in that corner. No one is going to be standing there listening anyway so I don't care.