omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[MattHooper]

Thanks Floyd.
QED

I hope you are joking.

(Hard to tell for sure on the interwebs).

 

[goat76]

I wonder if you would agree these might be general features of what people will tend to perceive as Good/impressive Sound:

Clarity. Vividness. Smoothness (not harsh). Wide frequency range. Rich (the sound has body, weight, not thin). Exciting dynamics/sense of impact. Timbral nuance and complexity. And, ideally a sense of spaciousness, and perhaps a sense of dimensionality to the sonic "images."

I don't know what Newman is on about when he says those things you mentioned can only be experienced with a multichannel system.
All those qualities can be heard in a good and properly set up stereo system, why wouldn't they?

 

[mj30250]

I don't know what Newman is on about when he says those things you mentioned can only be experienced with a multichannel system.
All those qualities can be heard in a good and properly set up stereo system, why wouldn't they?

I agree that they absolutely can. A "proper" multichannel system paired with good program material can certainly take the experience to another level, but that doesn't immediately render high-quality stereo listening bland, sterile, cold, etc. Or are we claiming that only the "best" can be "great, really great"?

John Williams Live in Vienna on Blu-Ray is an interesting test. It offers a 2 channel stereo track as well as multichannel and Atmos mixes to choose from. I've listened to the two former versions (I don't currently use Atmos), and obviously the multichannel mix takes you further into believing that you're sitting in the Musikverein. It is without question more immersive, more spacious, more realistic, and more impressive. But, to my hearing, the 2 channel mix remains capable of "transporting" the listener into the concert hall (within reason), complete with most of the impressive qualities and emotional stirrings delivered by the multichannel track, even if it doesn't go the full distance. Of course, other than for testing purposes, I'll choose the multichannel option every time.

And since everyone just loves car analogies, a 700 horsepower sports car at full throttle is going to scare the ever loving crap out of the average person. Just because my 1400 horsepower sports car provides a very different experience doesn't mean that the slower car is some sort of slouch barely worth the time to consider.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Dr. Toole, in case I have your ear for one last question...your mention of blind testing here brought up something I've been batting around with other folks on the forum:



I'd love to hear you chime in on the following issue:

As it relates to the research using Blind Testing for evaluating Loudspeakers:

What is the relevance of the results of Blinded Listening tests to to the sighted listening conditions under which most audiophiles will actually be listening to their system?

Do the results of the blind tests help predict listener satisfaction in the sighted conditions after purchasing a loudspeaker?

There seem to be interesting implications depending on the answers.

To flesh out the issues I'm getting at:

Scientific controls are the best way to get at reliable knowledge. We know from the research you cite (and tons elsewhere) how our perception can be influenced by various biases, so when you really want to understand something like "what type of sound do people prefer in loudspeakers?" using blind testing to control for bias effects makes all the sense in the world. The differences you've shown between results of sighted preference ratings and blinded ratings give reason to hold some caution, or skepticism, regarding sighted listening to speakers.

The problem I see on the horizon, though, is if we let our skepticism of sighted listening conditions (for audibly different devices like speakers) go too far we can verge on a sort of self-defeating hyper-skepticism. So for instance, we can show through all sorts of optical illusions that our sighted perception can be mislead. But it would be folly to infer from those conditions to "therefore our sight is totally unreliable." Such an inference would not explain all the ways it is clearly reliable-enough (e.g. how else do we manage to drive a car anywhere?).

Similarly, we can be put in conditions that show our auditory perception under "sighted/uncontrolled" conditions is fallible. But it would be a similar folly to leap from that to "therefore, unless under blinded conditions, our auditory perception is totally unreliable." That too couldn't make sense, since we successfully use our hearing all day long under "sighted" conditions. And any number of tests could show our hearing can be reliable 'enough' (e.g. if asked to discern between my wife's and Donald Trump's voice, I think we can expect I'd score %100 in both sighted and blinded conditions).

So my position is: while we are justified in being wary about confounding factors in our perception, and when we really want to get to the bottom of a phenomenon we will want scientific controls, we also have to keep in sight where our perception is "good enough/reliable enough" to accept under the more pragmatic, less rigorous conditions of every day use.

And this to me is where the question I asked earlier arises: If we are TOO skeptical about what we can accurately perceive from a speaker under sighted conditions, then usefulness of the blind test research will come in to question, when it comes to choosing speakers.

We won't be listening to our speakers under blinded conditions. If our perception of a speaker's sound characteristics is so distorted and swamped by sighted bias, then how could we "hear" or appreciate the sonic characteristics identified in the blind listening tests?
If there will be no meaningful relationship between sighted and blinded perception of the sound, then one may as well buy whatever sounds good under the sighted conditions in which you'll actually be listening.

As far as I can see it, the only way out of that apparent conundrum is to say that...actually...once we get that speaker home, even under sighted conditions we WILL be able to identify those sonic qualities that were apparent under blinded conditions. That is, at least, with *enough* accuracy and reliability to make the blind listening results relevant to our sighted listening conditions.

But, if we stick with a hyper-skeptical "you can NEVER rely on ascertaining the sonic character of a speaker under sighted conditions" then it seems the conundrum enters the picture, and the blind testing perception would seem irrelevant for regular audiophile consumers.

What do you think?

Thanks!

*(BTW, all the above does not address the issue of accuracy/Circle Of Confusion because that's a different issue than the one I'm getting at. I'm talking about the research regarding sound preferences when choosing speakers).

MattHooper said: “But, if we stick with a hyper-skeptical "you can NEVER rely on ascertaining the sonic character of a speaker under sighted conditions" then it seems the conundrum enters the picture, and the blind testing perception would seem irrelevant for regular audiophile consumers.
What do you think?”



The situation you are focusing on is very much a real world one. As I interpret it, what you are asking is, in terms of the satisfaction of personal ownership, how much weight is placed on non-auditory factors? Obviously, the appearance, size, brand prestige, and price are factors that matter to most people.

I have a peculiar perspective on the topic, because it was blind tests that revealed the audible flaws with sufficient reliability and repeatability that it was possible trace them to measurable characteristics. It is not that sighted tests are useless, it is simply that blind tests yield substantially more repeatable (i.e. statistically useful), judgements from a wide population of listeners (most people with “normal” hearing). Nuisance variables had been attenuated. When I began in 1966, loudspeaker sound quality was all over the map, nothing I encountered was neutral. A popular demonstration of stereo “soundstage” was a train running from left channel to right channel. The “hole-in-the-middle” was a popular discussion topic. Primitive stuff.

My work was focused on sound quality, although in the early stages I included “preference” as a second rating category. It was immediately clear that the two ratings were the same; listeners “preferred” loudspeakers with high “sound quality”. Measurements indicated that highest ratings in both categories were given to loudspeakers with the fewest measurable defects, notably resonances, but occasionally non-linear distortion. It was all logical, and over the years repeatable with hundreds of listeners and loudspeakers, evaluated in different rooms.

BUT, how much does this matter to customer satisfaction and pride of ownership when appearance, size, brand prestige and price are included? Obviously, one would think that selecting a loudspeaker with minimal audible colorations is an essential starting point. These days one can find impressively neutral sounding loudspeakers from many brands, in many different sizes, exhibiting many different industrial design styles. There is a large choice, but how does one identify such loudspeakers? Sadly, customers are rarely if ever given the opportunity to judge sound quality by comparative listening in an unbiased (blind) situation, so non-auditory factors are involved. Even the methodology matters: If one adds in the desirability of having multiple (3 or 4) loudspeakers in the subjective comparison test, the opportunities for truly critical listening vanish. Too many uncontrolled variables are at play.

For this reason, I have devoted a substantial part of my life teaching the value of measurements. Personally, from the perspective of sound quality, I would trust my interpretation of a “spinorama” presentation of anechoic measurements more than my subjective judgment in a typical consumer listening circumstance. But this is sound quality, not “soundstage and imaging” when listening in stereo. I believe that most listeners would not choose to live with a “honky” or “nasal” coloration whatever the imaging characteristics, but each to his own. I have already elaborated on the idiosyncrasies and defects inherent in stereo listening in Post #504, indicating that there are trade-offs that we all have learned to live with – human tolerance and adaptation are wonderful. Once “neutral” timbre is identified the remaining factor affecting soundstage and imaging is loudspeaker directivity. Here there is a strong interaction with the recording itself – there are no standards for microphone technique and mixing for stereo imaging – and the listening room setup – there are no standards here either. This is truly a matter of personal preference, and both the recording personnel and the playback listeners are free to exercise their preferences.

Directivity is displayed in a spinorama, so it is possible to infer something about soundstage and imaging from the measured data. I mention this because omnidirectional, bipole and dipole loudspeakers have significantly distinctive positioning constraints compared to “generic” forward-firing loudspeakers. [An aside: an acoustic “point source” is a descriptor of a totally omnidirectional sound source, it is NOT a way to describe a forward-firing loudspeaker]. So, one’s preferences in imaging and music will influence the physical appearance of the loudspeaker itself and how it looks in a room. Neutral timbre would still be a necessary starting point.

Back to your question. It remains a problem for consumers that reliable unbiased listening tests are generally not available, so opinions about sound quality are to some extent contaminated by non-auditory factors. Some people may be more resistant than others to such influences, but questions remain. Trustworthy measurements are occasionally seen from manufacturers, and now spinoramas are appearing in audio forums and elsewhere. See https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/ for an impressive compilation of spinorama data from many sources. For those who trust measurements and who have taken the time to learn how to interpret them it is possible to gain significant insight into the inherent performance of the products. Learn to “read” the curves; don’t rely on calculated scores. When the product is in the home, though, what is heard is still greatly influenced by differences in recordings, the listening room setup and bass.

I keep coming back to bass, which is ALWAYS a major (approximately 30%) factor in our perception of sound quality and it is ALWAYS dominated by listening room resonances. Unless low-frequency performance is under some degree of control, a shadow is cast over the entire discussion above. This is an area that “regular audiophile consumers” routinely fail to address. Many, in their ignorance, avoid judicious equalization, or subwoofers or, especially, multiple subwoofers. Pity.

 

[Newman]

Thank you Floyd.

 

[Sancus]

I keep coming back to bass, which is ALWAYS a major (approximately 30%) factor in our perception of sound quality and it is ALWAYS dominated by listening room resonances. Unless low-frequency performance is under some degree of control, a shadow is cast over the entire discussion above. This is an area that “regular audiophile consumers” routinely fail to address. Many, in their ignorance, avoid judicious equalization, or subwoofers or, especially, multiple subwoofers. Pity.

Definitely true, although I think acceptance of the value of EQ, multiple subwoofers, and bass management has been increasing substantially. On the other hand, audiophiles still overwhelmingly refuse to accept that multichannel is needed for quality reproduction of spatial qualities.

I agree that they absolutely can. A "proper" multichannel system paired with good program material can certainly take the experience to another level, but that doesn't immediately render high-quality stereo listening bland, sterile, cold, etc. Or are we claiming that only the "best" can be "great, really great"?

It's just a floor/ceiling thing to me. The quality floor for a multichannel recording is towards the top end of the best stereo recordings, and the ceiling is far higher. It's quite rare that I would prefer to listen to the stereo recording of anything properly mixed for multi-channel. And the best experiences I've had listening to multichannel are so absurdly better than stereo I find it impossible to understand how anyone could listen to them on a great system and then say "nah, stereo is good enough". It's just... not.

There are some really poor multichannel albums out there, but it's usually because they're not even a real multichannel recording. They're just a lazy upmix of a stereo recording using Penteo or something instead of a proper remix from the original multitracks.

 

[BenB]

Definitely true, although I think acceptance of the value of EQ, multiple subwoofers, and bass management has been increasing substantially. On the other hand, audiophiles still overwhelmingly refuse to accept that multichannel is needed for quality reproduction of spatial qualities.



It's just a floor/ceiling thing to me. The quality floor for a multichannel recording is towards the top end of the best stereo recordings, and the ceiling is far higher. It's quite rare that I would prefer to listen to the stereo recording of anything properly mixed for multi-channel. And the best experiences I've had listening to multichannel are so absurdly better than stereo I find it impossible to understand how anyone could listen to them on a great system and then say "nah, stereo is good enough". It's just... not.

There are some really poor multichannel albums out there, but it's usually because they're not even a real multichannel recording. They're just a lazy upmix of a stereo recording using Penteo or something instead of a proper remix from the original multitracks.

I have DVD-Audio discs, SACDs, and blu-rays that I can play through a 6.1 multi-channel system properly set up using the provided mic for EQ and time alignment, and also verified with a measurement mic. I have the exact opposite experience that you do. The multi-channel mixes are distracting, and unrealistic. The only reason I would use multi-channel for the vast majority of mixes would be if someone was listening off-center (outside the stereo sweet-spot), where the use of a center channel would anchor the soundstage better. In order to unlock the potential of mult-channel playback, the mixers/producers are going to have to prioritize authenticity (at least as far as I'm concerned). If there's a label that's already doing that, I'd be interested in reading their description / documentation of their process, and then if it's sufficiently convincing I would try out their material.

 

[Newman]

It's just a floor/ceiling thing to me. The quality floor for a multichannel recording is towards the top end of the best stereo recordings, and the ceiling is far higher.

I once made an illustration for another thread (not to scale! )

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks again. It must be gratifying to see the worth of spinorama measurements finally gaining traction and making a difference in the audiophile
world! (Which they clearly are, and I can really see a difference happening in the newer generation of audiphiles, demanding better evidence).

I don't aim to be any more of a drag on your time asking for any more responses, so I'll just reply for clarification.

MattHooper said: “But, if we stick with a hyper-skeptical "you can NEVER rely on ascertaining the sonic character of a speaker under sighted conditions" then it seems the conundrum enters the picture, and the blind testing perception would seem irrelevant for regular audiophile consumers.
What do you think?”



The situation you are focusing on is very much a real world one. As I interpret it, what you are asking is, in terms of the satisfaction of personal ownership, how much weight is placed on non-auditory factors? Obviously, the appearance, size, brand prestige, and price are factors that matter to most people.

Yes that is one half of the equation: "How and to what extent do non-auditory factors influence the perception of the sound?"

As you indicate this is a tricky subject given the variety of non-auditory influences and how individual and subjective those influences can be.
While the research you took part in showed sighted listening tests could be skewed, and you've made some inferences as to what biases may have been involved at times, the research was more concerned about predicting factors in sound quality that influence preferences. As far as I'm aware there isn't much (any?) solid research devoted specifically to what specific, non-auditory factors will reliably predict sighted preference ratings for loudspeakers.

But my main inquiry is concerned with the converse. It has to do with the sound, not the non-auditory factors: To what degree do the sonic qualities we perceive under blinded listening conditions carry over to the sound we'll perceive under sighted listening conditions?

If, in terms of actual sound quality, they don't correlate at all, then the blind tests wouldn't help in recommending one speaker over another. If speaker A sounded better than speaker B under blinded conditions, the only justification for recommending speaker A to a consumer is that sound quality would also be perceived under the sighted conditions in which the owner would listen. So there has to be some carry-over in terms of our perception of the sound from blind tests to sighted listening. Maybe, for instance, over time the owner might grow tired of the colored speaker B that "sounded better" in his first encounter. Maybe given time listening at home the sound from the less colored speaker would have proved more satisfying. But so long as there is some continuity of the percieved sound character under blinded conditions to sighted conditions, that entails some useful degree of reliability of our sighted listening.

As such it seems to me it comes down to this:

It is not that sighted tests are useless, it is simply that blind tests yield substantially more repeatable (i.e. statistically useful), judgements from a wide population of listeners (most people with “normal” hearing). Nuisance variables had been attenuated.

If I infer correctly, that seems to agree with the position I've been staking out: If you want to really gain reliable knowledge, both in terms of identifying cause and effect and making predictions (for almost anything) then scientific controls are required. Very often our normal intuitions and pet beliefs are upended when we control for our human foibles of perception. (I've done blind testing of some audio gear myself and have experienced this). If someone is looking for the most reliable information about sound quality, then look to the science rather than casual sighted listening reports!

However, as you say: sighted listening is not useless. As I've pointed out often here, in my job in post production sound, we communicate informally about sound all day long. Nobody is doing blind tests, or even appealing to measurements, yet exchanging our impressions of sound is good enough to get the job done. So as it regards loudspeakers, it seems reasonable to accept impressions of speakers under sighted listening, so long as we do so with appropriate caveats, and scale down our confidence levels.

If an audiophile pal is complaining, from sighted listening, that music playback on his new speakers seems "bloated" in the bass, certain bass frequencies seem to reliably be over-emphasized vs his previous speakers, then I can accept that account. I don't have to say "Your purported experience is useless unless you listened under blinded conditions to be sure the bass really sounds bloated!" Or, if he'd just come back from auditioning some two speakers and and he reported the one pair seemed "brighter, more forward in the high frequencies" than the other, I can accept that account. Of course bias may be playing a role in his perception in either scenario so caveats will apply. But since it's entirely plausible in both scenarios those sonic characteristics he reported really exist, I can provisionally accept his account of the sound. But of course if I wanted to justify higher confidence levels, I'd want more rigorous evidence. (And none of the above means simply accepting whatever some audio reviewer wants to claim he heard from a product...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...)

Thanks again.

 

[mj30250]

I once made an illustration for another thread (not to scale! )

cheers

I don't believe anyone is arguing that multichannel at its best isn't superior to 2-channel at its best. Rather, the argument is that it's still quite possible to obtain exceptional performance from a quality 2-channel setup.

There's also the reality of content availability. Despite MC music being available for decades, its market penetration remains woefully meager. And while upmixing has worked well for me at times, I often find that it can introduce bizarre anomalies. I've noticed that Auro-2D, for example, tends to pull everything towards the center speaker in a way that can actually collapse the soundstage and reduce spaciousness, rather than expand it. Some of that could be a function of my particular room/speakers/electronics, and sure, with tweaking, improvements can be made, but after a while I tend to throw up my hands and default back to 2-channel. It's much simpler, and then I'm back to being thrilled with the sound. Native multichannel is a different story of course, but again, the catalog is not exactly robust. I'd be thrilled if that changed.

 

[Newman]

I don't believe anyone is arguing that multichannel at its best isn't superior to 2-channel at its best. Rather, the argument is that it's still quite possible to obtain exceptional performance from a quality 2-channel setup.

If I may quote Dr Toole from his essay A Philosophical Perspective in the first edition of his book:-

Note the terminology: we have lowered our expectations to the inadequate formats.

This is at odds with your insistence that 2-channel can be exceptional.

cheers

 

[Newman]

MattHooper said: “But, if we stick with a hyper-skeptical "you can NEVER rely on ascertaining the sonic character of a speaker under sighted conditions" then it seems the conundrum enters the picture, and the blind testing perception would seem irrelevant for regular audiophile consumers. What do you think?”

The situation you are focusing on is very much a real world one. As I interpret it, what you are asking is, in terms of the satisfaction of personal ownership, how much weight is placed on non-auditory factors? Obviously, the appearance, size, brand prestige, and price are factors that matter to most people. I have a peculiar perspective on the topic,...

Hi Floyd,

if you are getting the feeling that someone is trying hard to manoeuvre you into agreeing that sighted listening is a useful way to assess sound quality, you would be right.

Instead, it would be smarter to put the emphasis where you said:-

Obviously, one would think that selecting a loudspeaker with minimal audible colorations is an essential starting point....but how does one identify such loudspeakers? ...I have devoted a substantial part of my life teaching the value of measurements. Personally, from the perspective of sound quality, I would trust my interpretation of a “spinorama” presentation of anechoic measurements more than my subjective judgment in a typical consumer listening circumstance.

Indeed! Start with exemplary measurements, at least the measurements that matter, and only then let one's sighted biases pick a speaker from the remaining subset of speakers. It's a kind of 'win-win' way out of the 'conundrum' that you are being asked to compromise into. That's exactly the solution I have mentioned (see last paragraph in the linked post) in this forum when this topic comes up.

Also, I would like to quote you from your Breaking the Circle essay in the first edition of your book:-
"Evidence exists that audio professionals are as susceptible to a good marketing story as are consumers, and, without double-blind listening tests, their opinions are just as susceptible to bias."

There is evidence in this forum that at least some audio professionals can be resistant to criticisms of sighted listening assessments of sound quality, and I get the impression that their daily practice of such a method at work is behind the resistance. In a sense, their professional integrity is at stake. The fact that they could raise the integrity of their work, by routinely using blind listening panels to adjudicate on how good their product sounds, doesn't help much because nobody has time for that! It is almost too important to these people that they receive validation of their sighted listening assessments as being unbiased by non-sonic factors. Or at least better than "just as susceptible to bias as the average consumer". And that is a deeper conundrum than the one faced by audiophiles choosing gear for a mere hobby.

cheers

 

[goat76]

@Newman

I don't think anyone tries to lure anyone into anything, I think Toole and Matt share an interesting discussion that shows that it’s always a gray zone to everything.

I’m not sure Mr. Toole appreciates that you are taking things he says out of context and then bend it to suit your arguments.

 

[mj30250]

If I may quote Dr Toole from his essay A Philosophical Perspective in the first edition of his book:-

View attachment 254375

Note the terminology: we have lowered our expectations to the inadequate formats.

This is at odds with your insistence that 2-channel can be exceptional.

cheers

For me, it's not.

I believe we may simply need to agree to disagree on our definition of "exceptional". All audio reproduction is compromised in some way. Given that reality, I'm sure there are those who would feel that the best stereo system on Earth is something less than exceptional, or even straight-up inadequate. I would personally disagree, as I do with the claim that 2 channel audio is incapable of delivering an exceptional experience. Does that mean I have shabby standards? Shrug, if you insist.

I would add that since the publication of the first edition of Dr. Toole's book, we've been fortunate to have access to not only a much larger selection of high performing loudspeakers, but also advances in DSP, EQ, room correction, etc, with many of these being much more affordable and user-friendly for the average person than they were even a decade ago. Heck, all of the speakers in my primary multichannel system (and even a secondary one) were designed by a company with a Klippel NFS in-house. One of the advantages of multichannel is that adding speakers tends to mask or eliminate the audibility of certain resonances, directivity errors, distortion, etc. If you start off with flat, smooth directivity, low distortion speakers to begin with, that particular advantage largely vanishes. In addition, if you also make use of modern tools, even simply the higher-quality room correction software available in many AVRs, you can make massive leaps towards properly integrating multiple subwoofers. As Dr. Toole claims that bass accounts for ~30% of our preference, that alone is a huge shot in the arm for any system; 2 channel, multichannel, or otherwise.

Again, all of that being said, I would love to multichannel all the things. Not only do I agree that it can offer a more satisfying and "realistic" experience for the person sitting at the MLP (especially, of course, if you're willing and able to drop truckloads of money into a purpose-built immersive audio room along the lines of, say, Morten Lindberg's studio), it's also dramatically better for anyone outside of the narrow sweet spot of a speaker pair, which is admittedly an unfortunate reality of virtually any 2 channel system. However, until such time that there is a sufficiently large catalog of native multichannel music available (or I get dramatically better at utilizing upmixers, or hit the lottery, or both), I'll have to make do with my "possibly exceptional but probably not exceptional for everyone" 2 channel sources a large proportion of the time.

 

[EJ3]

If an audiophile pal is complaining, from sighted listening, that music playback on his new speakers seems "bloated" in the bass, certain bass frequencies seem to reliably be over-emphasized vs his previous speakers, then I can accept that account. I don't have to say "Your purported experience is useless unless you listened under blinded conditions to be sure the bass really sounds bloated!" Or, if he'd just come back from auditioning some two speakers and and he reported the one pair seemed "brighter, more forward in the high frequencies" than the other, I can accept that account. Of course bias may be playing a role in his perception in either scenario so caveats will apply. But since it's entirely plausible in both scenarios those sonic characteristics he reported really exist, I can provisionally accept his account of the sound. But of course if I wanted to justify higher confidence levels, I'd want more rigorous evidence. (And none of the above means simply accepting whatever some audio reviewer wants to claim he heard from a product...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...)

Thanks again.

Yes, it's different when it is a friend (or at least someone you know) who has heard your system and you have heard theirs and you both have a common concept of what each other means when they describe a certain type of sound. When someone you don't know personally (such as a reviewer) describes something, you absolutely cannot be sure what it is they are going on about.

 

[MattHooper]

@Newman

I don't think anyone tries to lure anyone into anything, I think Toole and Matt share an interesting discussion that shows that it’s always a gray zone to everything.

I’m not sure Mr. Toole appreciates that you are taking things he says out of context and then bend it to suit your arguments.

Indeed. I'm not going to bother addressing the usual phalanx of strawmen from Newman regarding what I wrote. I'm quite confident Dr. Toole is capable of more subtle analysis.

 

[MattHooper]

If I may quote Dr Toole from his essay A Philosophical Perspective in the first edition of his book:-

View attachment 254375

Note the terminology: we have lowered our expectations to the inadequate formats.

This is at odds with your insistence that 2-channel can be exceptional.

cheers

It's hard to believe you are really pursuing this argument with any seriousness...but...

To revisit just what was written:

I wonder if you would agree these might be general features of what people will tend to perceive as Good/impressive Sound:

Clarity. Vividness. Smoothness (not harsh). Wide frequency range. Rich (the sound has body, weight, not thin). Exciting dynamics/sense of impact. Timbral nuance and complexity. And, ideally a sense of spaciousness, and perhaps a sense of dimensionality to the sonic "images."

So, multichannel-only then. Glad that's sorted.

In his reply to me Dr. Toole added that it will take multi-channel sound to "transport the listener to the recording venue." He did NOT say that the other aspects of good sound quality we discussed weren't available in stereo sound. Every characteristic I mentioned can be found in stereo sound (and as I mentioned, you don't need every single one of them for people to rate the sound as Good/Impressive). In his very reply to me Dr. Toole acknowledged such factors as bass extension, impact and realistic sound levels impress people as Good Sound - properties that can be found in stereo sound! Countless people have indeed perceived "Good/Impressive Sound" from stereo playback. I myself have seen plenty of guests utterly in shock from the sound of various systems in my place, blown away by the sound quality. The fact people can find stereo sound satisfying and impressive is why the whole audiophile phenomenon has existed for so many decades in the first place! (And I'm hardly unfamiliar with surround sound myself, as it's part of my job, and I listen to music in surround as well as stereo...and yes stereo can still make my jaw drop).

If you want to say that, ultimately, a great multi-channel set up will best a great stereo set up in terms of believable immersion (and perhaps some other qualities)
that would be no problem.

But instead you made a statement that essentially ignored what I was arguing for, your reply implying that the qualities I mentioned were only possible in multi-channel...which has the further implication that no one has ever really been impressed by stereo sound (which...read again..was what I was addressing: factors that tend to impress people as good sound). And for some reason you are actually sticking with this! You can't repudiate what I wrote by trying to say, for instance, that stereo was always a compromise, multi-channel can be better, so now everyone who was ever impressed with stereo sound was mistaken....or whatever direction you are trying for. It can't get rid of the fact countless people have been impressed by stereo sound.

Your argument strays so far from reality, such a weird attempt to defend the indefensible, I'm already kicking myself from even replying.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, it's different when it is a friend (or at least someone you know) who has heard your system and you have heard theirs and you both have a common concept of what each other means when they describe a certain type of sound. When someone you don't know personally (such as a reviewer) describes something, you absolutely cannot be sure what it is they are going on about.

Unless you have found that reviewer to be "accurate" in describing the sound of speakers you are familiar with.

That is one way I weed out reviewers who get my attention vs others. I have found plenty of subjective reviews that described what I heard quite well, and which
put speakers on my radar that I ended up purchasing and enjoying very much. (The same goes for exchanging notes with other audiophiles on-line. Plenty of others have, for instance, found my descriptions of speakers to accurately describe what they heard as well. And I've found the same with some audiophiles too...again..weeding those out from others the same way).

 

[EJ3]

Unless you have found that reviewer to be "accurate" in describing the sound of speakers you are familiar with.

That is one way I weed out reviewers who get my attention vs others. I have found plenty of subjective reviews that described what I heard quite well, and which
put speakers on my radar that I ended up purchasing and enjoying very much. (The same goes for exchanging notes with other audiophiles on-line. Plenty of others have, for instance, found my descriptions of speakers to accurately describe what they heard as well. And I've found the same with some audiophiles too...again..weeding those out from others the same way).

I guess that I have primarily only hunted for things I heard in the systems of people that I know. Therefor, I haven't listened to or read reviewers 'takes" on the equipment I have.
I tend not to change when I have something I like (which explains my system: Technics SL-M3 TT, DUAL 1229 TT, pair of APT/Holman preamps, 3 NAD 2200's (2 bridged mono, each going to a Dahlquist M-905, the 3rd one is running 4 ohm stereo to a pair of semi-custom subs) and various inputs from Reel to Reels, cassette decks, FM stereo, oPPo 205 UDP, Blutooth apt-X (from my computer, I do no external streaming). Stuff i heard somewhere, liked, bought and did not sell or replace.

 

[jhaider]

However, until such time that there is a sufficiently large catalog of native multichannel music available (or I get dramatically better at utilizing upmixers, or hit the lottery, or both), I'll have to make do with my "possibly exceptional but probably not exceptional for everyone" 2 channel sources a large proportion of the time.

Apple Music

Stream millions of songs in lossless audio at no extra cost. Download your favorites and play them offline. Start listening for free today.

www.apple.com