Audiophile vs Pro Speakers

[Wombat]

I get em every year. Thanks for your concerns though. very touching

That comment was meant to be general.

As is this one: After some years of participating on audio forums I am surprised at how many 'Golden Eared' contributors can not say that they have hearing test results to give some credibility to their questionable claims.

 

[Sal1950]

What I am mostly suggesting is that I simply don't agree with this idea that we put these references on a pedestal and then bend our preferences to suit the references. Ultimately I believe the technology has to work in service of what I like not that I have to change what I like in service of the technology. If I think something sounds bad and am told I should like it or at least accpet it because it is "accurate" I reject that.

The goal of High Fidelity IS to put "these references on a pedestal" as you say, that's what Gordon was saying. You don't have to like it, only accept it is the reference.
Now if you want to process your system in any way to make things sound better, that's is perfectly fine and up to you.
It is that black and white IMHO.

 

[Analog Scott]

That comment was meant to be general.

As is this one: After some years of participating on audio forums I am surprised at how many 'Golden Eared' contributors can not say that they have hearing test results to give some credibility to their questionable claims.

My response was meant to be funny.

 

[Analog Scott]

The goal of High Fidelity IS to put "these references on a pedestal" as you say, that's what Gordon was saying. You don't have to like it, only accept it is the reference.
Now if you want to process your system in any way to make things sound better, that's is perfectly fine and up to you.
It is that black and white IMHO.

I get the impression that on this forum folks are very concerned about the use of the term high fidelity.


I don't accept the nebulous overly broad sound of live music as a reference. It simply doesn't function as such. It is too broad in it's scope of possible sounds and relies on unreliable long term aural memory. Those two assertions are facts.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I get the impression that on this forum folks are very concerned about the use of the term high fidelity.


I don't accept them (the sound of live music) as references. They simply don't function as such.

I think you are right about high fidelity being important here.

Look other than mics and speakers we can determine if something is accurate in regards to any signals passing thru it. Accurate is better as a base starting point. Even including the transducers as accurate as possible is also a good base starting point.

Sal wasn't asking you to bend your preference to the reference. He clearly said so.

I suppose one conclusion of the Harman research is it appears people as a group prefer the same speakers whether listening to a pop recording or a recording that at least made attempts at fidelity to something real like a jazz trio. I find that rather surprising. Not sure I have wrapped my head around it to my own satisfaction. It has something interesting to say about references and preferences I just don't know what that is yet. Other than the whole circle of confusion is something we can break out of in some sense.

 

[Sal1950]

I suppose one conclusion of the Harman research is it appears people as a group prefer the same speakers whether listening to a pop recording or a recording that at least made attempts at fidelity to something real like a jazz trio. I find that rather surprising. Not sure I have wrapped my head around it to my own satisfaction. It has something interesting to say about references and preferences I just don't know what that is yet.

I think it may have something to do with getting closer to the goal of recreating the real thing. I think we all recognize those moments when we walk out the door and someone is playing a live instrument down the street. It's those flashes of reality in the art of reproduction, no matter the genre, that may be pushing the button of preference.

 

[oivavoi]

I think it may have something to do with getting closer to the goal of recreating the real thing. I think we all recognize those moments when we walk out the door and someone is playing a live instrument down the street. It's those flashes of reality in the art of reproduction, no matter the genre, that may be pushing the button of preference.

I don't think it's too complicated to understand that kind of thing. Whether something sounds natural from outside the room, is largely a result of the power response of the loudspeakers (the total frequency response both on and off axis), and the way the directional pattern of the loudspeakers illuminates the boom as opposed to live instruments. Live ensembles - and some important solo instruments, like pianos - have a directional pattern that is more or less omnidirectional, and the power response is not skewed. Not so with most conventional loudspeaker systems. Plus, there is distortion, power compression, and lack of dynamics. Hence, loudspeakers will often not sound like the real thing when you hear it through a window.

 

[j_j]

Hmm. Most instruments are anything but more or less omnidirectional. That interaction with the stage and performance venue is what makes a concert hall a concert hall. Even in reflections from outside, first arrivals can change a lot with the facing of the instrument. Just try it with a trumpet, or trombone, or any brass instrument, OR even with a good violin (or larger instrument of course).

 

[oivavoi]

Completely agree that many of those instruments you mention are not omnidirectional, JJ. But acoustical ensembles, when played together, will ofte project a sound that is mostly omni, because the different instruments have different directivities. That's my experience at least. If my choir performs with a string orchestra - which happens fairly often - they usually play in front of us. We hear every single detail, every single pitch, even though they play facing the audience. I've read some scholarly things about the directional characteristics of acoustic ensembles before, will see if I can cough up the references.

EDIT: It is probably not objectively true to state that we hear "every single pitch" standing behind the ensemble. Brass instruments do not have a dispersion that is even with frequency, so the positiniong will to a certain extent determine the exact pitch one hears. But in a intuitive, non-tehcnical sense it is true: Standing behind a brass ensemble, I don't have a sense of not hearing them correctly. But standing behind directional loudspeakers, I do have a sense of not hearing them playing correctly.

 

[j_j]

Well, I've measured this kind of thing, and it really is very much not omnidirectional. If you mike in a dead-ish space, you'll have concrete evidence of this pronto. It's only the capture of sound from the whole ensemble bounding off the stage that makes this work well. Seriously. I've done that.

 

[oivavoi]

Well, I've measured this kind of thing, and it really is very much not omnidirectional. If you mike in a dead-ish space, you'll have concrete evidence of this pronto. It's only the capture of sound from the whole ensemble bounding off the stage that makes this work well. Seriously. I've done that.

My turn to say "hm". I've read quite a bit of the research that looks into the directivity of particular instruments (nerd, moi?). I am fully aware that all instruments have particular types of directivities that vary with frequency, and even with volume (in the case of a grand piano). Still, because some instruments radiate backwards (like the french horn), and some instruments radiate omni-like (like a grand piano), and players often position themselves in different directions (like the sides of the orchestra playing towards the other side), the net result is a directional pattern that is at least much more omni than non-omni. If you have measurements of large musical ensembles in an anechoic chamber that say otherwise, I would love to see them.

Nevertheless: I accept that orchestras probably radiate higher frequencies more towards the front than towards the back. But all in all, if one stands behind or to the sides of a musical ensemble, the sound stage will be much more similar to what one hears in the front compared to how it will be when standing behind or to the side of directional loudspeakers. I haven't been able to find directivity measurements of orchestras or large ensembles (difficult to fit them in anechoic chambers I guess), but all my subjective experience says so.

The ideal thing, of course, would be to have a large number of mics which capture the precise directivity of each isntrument (or sections of the orchestra) in a perfect mannner, and have an equal number of loudspeakers to reproduce it. The guys who deal with wave field synthesis aim at this, I believe. I'm not sure who far one can get with "ordinary" multichannel. But for those of us who are still stuck in the quagmire of ordinary two-channel stereo? I maintain that the directivity pattern of conventional speakers is way too different from the directivity pattern of musical ensembles

 

[j_j]

I have to disagree with your last. Rather, capture what the auditory system needs AT YOUR SEAT.

 

[oivavoi]

I have to disagree with your last. Rather, capture what the auditory system needs AT YOUR SEAT.

Well, it depends. Depends on one's preferences, I guess. For me, speaker systems which are calibrated only towards the sweetspot feel increasingly unnatural. It breaks the spell for me when I move out of the precise soundfield by standing up or moving one meter to the left. Again, it's not like that when I listen to real instruments. I can't move "out" of the precise soundfield when I listen acoustic instruments. Moving around only changes the perspective (and the timbre I hear).

But there's always a catch. For the most precise imaging, a defined sweetspot is always necessary, I believe. I just came home from auditioning the Beolab 50s. In narrow mode, they are stunning speakers. Magnificient. Nothing more to say, really. But would I be happy with them at home, in the unlikely case that a) I could afford them, b) I could convince my girlfriend that we should invest more in new speakers than in renovating the house? I'm not sure. Standing up, the spell was broken. And for me, that's kind of a downer. Which means that the speakers that interest me the most are either line sources or CBTs, oversized electrostats, enormous horns, tall dipoles à la Linkwitz 521, or omnis - all speakers that can project a soundstage over a much larger area.

 

[Purité Audio]

You could just turn the Beolabs so they face the wall and then they will sound like electrostatics, of another pair of Beolabs placed on stands so that when you stand the magic is still there.

Keith

 

[Analog Scott]

Well, it depends. Depends on one's preferences, I guess. For me, speaker systems which are calibrated only towards the sweetspot feel increasingly unnatural. It breaks the spell for me when I move out of the precise soundfield by standing up or moving one meter to the left. Again, it's not like that when I listen to real instruments. I can't move "out" of the precise soundfield when I listen acoustic instruments. Moving around only changes the perspective (and the timbre I hear).

But there's always a catch. For the most precise imaging, a defined sweetspot is always necessary, I believe. I just came home from auditioning the Beolab 50s. In narrow mode, they are stunning speakers. Magnificient. Nothing more to say, really. But would I be happy with them at home, in the unlikely case that a) I could afford them, b) I could convince my girlfriend that we should invest more in new speakers than in renovating the house? I'm not sure. Standing up, the spell was broken. And for me, that's kind of a downer. Which means that the speakers that interest me the most are either line sources or CBTs, oversized electrostats, enormous horns, tall dipoles à la Linkwitz 521, or omnis - all speakers that can project a soundstage over a much larger area.

I got the impression JJ meant your seat at the concert hall

 

[RayDunzl]

It breaks the spell for me when I move out of the precise soundfield by standing up or moving one meter to the left.

I don't see how any pair (stereo) of speakers could not have the 'spell' broken when you move out of the sweet spot (central line) since the phase of the two direct signals will be lost.

I suppose the exception is when the central listening position is already blurred by higher level reflections* (my little JBL LSR 308 seems to provide that**).

My electrostats (dipole) seem to have around a 10dB advantage over the JBLs in the ratio of direct sound vs early reflections. The JBL give a widened sounding image, the ML much narrower (when A/B is made), but more focused and natural sounding (to me). I suppose omni speakers would take the JBL type presentation even farther.

For general listening, the JBLs are fine and receive the most airplay now, as are the ML to my rather HF indifferent ears. For critical 'get lost in the sound and nod out' listening the ML get it mo' right (for me).

---

* I don't have specific sidewall /ceiling treatments to reduce their spray. I haven't listened to them nearfield, either.

** Impulse and ETC (two views) with 10ft from ear to drivers on both - red JBL, black ML

 

[RayDunzl]

It breaks the spell for me when I move out of the precise soundfield by standing up or moving one meter to the left.

Experiment:

Using headphones, put a 2.9ms (.998 meter per DSP display) delay on the right side:

Mono sounds panned hard left, right doesn't seem to be there (until muted, then the contribution is noticed to really be missing).

Stereo has less obvious defect, hard right sounds still come through, but the central image is shifted left.

Even the lower bass seems shifted to one side, which surprises me, though I may be locating with the pluck and not the tone.

Oh well.

 

[watchnerd]

Just ordered these, Dynaudio LYD 5, as my new desktop / DAW "pro" nearfield monitors, replacing my JBL LSR305:

Trying to think of some kind of creative project to do with the old LSR305 pair.

 

[oivavoi]

I don't see how any pair (stereo) of speakers could not have the 'spell' broken when you move out of the sweet spot (central line) since the phase of the two direct signals will be lost.

I suppose the exception is when the central listening position is already blurred by higher level reflections* (my little JBL LSR 308 seems to provide that**).

All I can tell is you is you should try to listen to a pair of properly set up Lx521, if you haven't already. Or a pair of properly set up omnis. My experience with both omnis and the 521s has been that the stereo image doesn't collapse when you move around. Probably something to do with reflections, direct and indirect sound etc. When standing to one side of the speakers, I could still "see" the phantom image. An acquaintange who has the CBT36 linesource tells me that they do the same trick.

 

[oivavoi]

I got the impression JJ meant your seat at the concert hall

Ah, yeah. You're probably right.