Speaker accuracy is overrated

[Theta]

RE small two-way stand-mounts, that's what I figured: just a strawman argument, which you've now added to with concern about capacitors and passive filters, which further highlights the strawman aspect. So we can get that out of the way.

If you're dismissing stereo, and you're dismissing multi-channel, and you're dismissing 500k multi-way towers. I would return to my prior comment and echo the comments of some others in this thread: you're up against two problems, one of which is very difficult to address and the other of which it seems to me is categorically impossible to address:

1. The difficult problem is that you are limited by room size and characteristics. What you are looking for would seem to require a very large listening space that can at least begin to approach the scale of a small or medium-sized orchestral performance venue, and with acoustic properties roughly approximating such a venue. You'd also have to think carefully about the distance and height of the listening position, since where we listen from at home is usually radically different than where we listen from in a venue, relative to the source of the sound.

2. The nearly impossible problem is that you seem to be running up against the fundamental problem that listening to recordings of orchestral performances requires you to listen to an electrically recorded, electrically amplified version of acoustically performed instrumental music, converted to acoustic energy by some number of fixed-position transducers whose positions, number, and dispersion characteristics do not match the number, position, and dispersion characteristics of the original performers and instruments in the venue.

So like I said, good luck chucking out "accuracy," because based on the criteria you've set up here, there isn't any other characteristic you can replace it with that will get you to where you seem to want to go.

The closest I could imagine you getting to your desired result would be if orchestral recordings were made by close-miking every single instrument, along with miking the venue from a certain listening position to capture the ambient information. Then the mix would have to mix that ambient mic information with each instrument's individual recording track, at carefully calculated varying levels to account for the varying distance of the listening position from each instrument. Then the recording would have to be released as an N-track recording, with N=the number of instruments in the performance. And you'd need to listen to it in a space that somehow approximates the venue, maybe smaller but generally proportionally similar, and your own playback system would have to have the same number of channels/speakers, and you'd need to move each speaker to the position where each instrument was, relative to all the others.

If that sounds ridiculous, then I'd recommend you take a step back to consider how dismissive you're being of every practical playback setup (stereo, multichannel, the most expensive and high-quality speakers imaginable, and so on), and rethink your goal here, or at least how you're communicating it to the rest of us.

Oh - and if you believe that stereo is always or inevitably weak-sounding in the center, I'm sorry but you're doing it wrong.

I should explain why I am dishing accuracy.

Most comment and reviews talk about instrument separation and localisation. They call it accuracy, but it is actually pure BS
Stereo imaging requires lots of imagination.

In most non classical recordings the musicians are not even in the same room some times not even in the same country.
Accuracy in tone and timber is important.

I can deal with the room acoustics by measurements and trial and error.

I am dismissive of most highly recommended speakers on this site and others because even if they measure well, they dont stand out they are just spiting hairs and involve too many compromises.

Some one responded to my post, mentioning that Paul Klipsch was always lobbying for a center channel for hi fi. Home theater did not exit in his time, and he would not be referring to that gimmicky technology if he was still alive, so I am glad to hear that I have good company (PM) on my quest.

 

[Theta]

But surely multichannel is ultimately tweakable, such that it could be tailored to taste?
ie Even mono or stereo... if that's your thing.

Maybe mono

 

[Theta]

I don't disagree with you, and I'm sure what you say about your system is true - I just have my doubts that @Theta would agree, since he's totally dismissed stereo as an option (and appears to have dismissed pretty much every other kind of feasible home setup as well).

Just curious - do you have these same speakers in your current home?

Good mono could be a desirable goal, has any one developed that in the modern world, is the actual stereo reproduction engraved forever in the audiophile world?

 

[Chr1]

Whatever. You say :

"I am dismissive of most highly recommended speakers on this site and others because even if they measure well, they dont stand out they are just spiting hairs and involve too many compromises ."

What does this even mean?

 

[MarsianC#]

KH420? IMD should be low enough. Not too big nor very expensive.

Dr. Goertz measured some PA speakers, including IMD and maxSPL.

Aktiver Point-Source-Lautsprecher: dBTechnologies Opera Reevo 210 im Test | Production Partner

Die Opera Reevo 210 ist ein 2½-Wege-Systeme und prinzipiell identisch aufgebaut wie die Reevo 212 – Unterschied: die Bestückung der Tieftöner. Mehr dazu im Test.

www.production-partner.de

A bit hard to navigate... and in german.
Some speakers might be of interest though, like the 2x 10" Reevo.

Avantgarde Acoustic Zero 1 Messungen - FIDELITY online

Messungen Avantgarde Acoustic Zero 1 Mit der Zero 1 betritt man bei Avantgarde Acoustic in vielerlei Hinsicht neue Wege. Es handelt sich um ein vollaktives System mit drei integrierten Endstufen, eine davon sogar als Class-D-Schaltung. Alle Filterfunktionen werden als Digitalfilter mit...

www.fidelity-online.de

Bowers & Wilkins 800 D3 Messungen - FIDELITY online

FIDELITY will es wissen. Wir prüfen den Lautsprecher Bowers & Wilkins 800 D3 im Akustiklabor auf Herz und Nieren. Wird er seinem Ruf gerecht?

www.fidelity-online.de

Reference KH 420, all measured in the same chamber and conditions.

Neumann KH 420 Messungen - FIDELITY online

Neumann KH 420 – Studiomonitor versus High End Einige Lautsprecherhersteller betätigen sich bereits seit geraumer Zeit durchaus erfolgreich parallel in den Marktsegmenten High End und Studiomonitore. Der hier vorgestellte Lautsprecher KH 420 von Neumann Berlin dürfte primär in die zweite...

www.fidelity-online.de

 

[Mr. Widget]

...is the actual stereo reproduction engraved forever in the audiophile world?

Immersive multi-channel sound is the direction music reproduction is headed. Stereo is actually quite last century. Mono, early last century.

Not sure why you are headed down this path though. Just being provocative?

 

[FrantzM]

Whatever. You say :

"I am dismissive of most highly recommended speakers on this site and others because even if they measure well, they dont stand out they are just spiting hairs and involve too many compromises ."

What does this even mean?

THANK YOU...

THANK you.. !!!

Peace.

 

[tmtomh]

I should explain why I am dishing accuracy.

Most comment and reviews talk about instrument separation and localisation. They call it accuracy, but it is actually pure BS
Stereo imaging requires lots of imagination.

In most non classical recordings the musicians are not even in the same room some times not even in the same country.
Accuracy in tone and timber is important.

I can deal with the room acoustics by measurements and trial and error.

I am dismissive of most highly recommended speakers on this site and others because even if they measure well, they dont stand out they are just spiting hairs and involve too many compromises.

Some one responded to my post, mentioning that Paul Klipsch was always lobbying for a center channel for hi fi. Home theater did not exit in his time, and he would not be referring to that gimmicky technology if he was still alive, so I am glad to hear that I have good company (PM) on my quest.

Three-channel audio - left, right and center - was a hi-fi thing in the early days of stereo, late 1950s and early 1960s. It was a niché thing, but widespread enough that (at least according to what my father who was in broadcasting at the time told me) you could find one or more demos at most hi-fi shows for a while. And there are some well-known jazz albums like Miles Davis' Kind of Blue where the original recording is a three-track.

Personally I prefer stereo because I like that the phantom center is phantom - I never feel like I can localize the sound of the center, where most vocals are, to a single speaker driver because of course in a stereo setup there is no center speaker.

But if you want a center speaker, I'm sure you could create a three-channel setup, and I am guessing there is configurable audio-processing software out there that could do a competent job of upmixing stereo to three-channel, albeit probably with varying results.

Alternatively, if you want a giant mono speaker or perhaps three front speakers all playing the same mono content, then I guess you could do that easily enough: set up your system so that any stereo recordings are downmixed to mono, ideally with an intelligent computer algorithm so you don't run into too many phase problems, and then feed that mono signal to three monoblock amps each feeding a giant speaker with, I don't know, horn-loaded tweeters and huge woofers. Have at it if you like. I just don't know that it's going to give you what you say you're looking for unless you put it in a giant room with concert hall-like acoustics.

 

[Petrushka]

That is the essential of my query. Is there a high grade HI Fi PA system that would work in a domestic environment?

Apparently the only company going for this type of reproduction is Zu Audio, I tried one of their base models, very disappointing to say the least, review are also terrible.

Horn speakers are what you want.

 

[Verig]

Some one responded to my post, mentioning that Paul Klipsch was always lobbying for a center channel for hi fi. Home theater did not exit in his time, and he would not be referring to that gimmicky technology if he was still alive, so I am glad to hear that I have good company (PM) on my quest.

I wouldn't be so sure. We had a three channel system in the 60's here. The center was a large full range speaker which summed L+R to mono. L&R were small and gave you the stereo part by signal difference in opposing phases. Of course you needed special recording to have all the benefits but it worked in normal stereo too.

The idea was that center is the king and the stereo part only needs smaller satellites... kind of effect speakers.
Sounds quite a bit like early surround while very much advocating a strong center. I don't see a reason why PK wouldn't have liked more channels.

 

[tmtomh]

I carefully read your entire post and agree with you on all points, but have an issue with speaker size being irrelevant. The OP's goal has been my holy grail for decades and I have chased it with mini monitors, line arrays, ESLs, studio monitors, audiophile approved floor standers from Revel and others, large vintage horn systems, and countless speakers long forgotten.

Perhaps it is sighted bias, but closing my eyes and listening for the magic of a full scale orchestra, from my experience only the larger speakers have come close and the JBLs I posted up above came the closest. The image is far less precise than a speaker with a higher DI, but then so is the image in an actual live musical event. I think the larger baffle and diffraction which "ruins" much of what we have come to seek in the "perfect" loudspeaker and lessens the holographic image tends to convey scale. Or maybe it is something else, but the smaller speakers I have tried have never created the live musical experience in my room as well as the better larger speakers.

The SPL could be higher and deep bass could be more extended and yet the smaller speakers didn't give me the "you are there" experience as well as the better larger speakers.

I agree that there's a sense of scale that is often provided with larger speakers. It could be related to baffle size.

I just go for a different solution because my choice of music and my listening preferences are different: I don't listen to orchestral music, and I don't seek to replicate the experience or magic of a live performance where the sound might be huge and, as you say, a far less precise image. I have found when I achieve something like a very large image at the cost of that precision - and I understand for you it is not even a cost - I initially love the scale, but then I start to feel frustrated and understimulated because of that lack of imaging precision. So I go for precision over scale for day-in, day-out home listening, because it's just what I need and like.

If I had unlimited money and space, I'd build a second listening room, that one cavernous and more reflective than my current one, and I'd put big, large baffle speakers in it. When I was in the mood to listen to Dark Side of the Moon and similar rock music, I'd go in there and crank it. But even in that fantasy scenario, I suspect I'd still mostly end up in my current, smaller and less reflective listening space with my Genelecs, because "a more spacious and relaxed version of studio control-room sound" happens to be what I enjoy most of the time.

And interestingly, I have noticed that when I turn off the lights or close my eyes, my brain tends to modestly but quite noticeably enlarge the perceived soundstage compared to when the lights are on and I'm easily able to look at the speakers.

At any rate, I do think this stuff is highly subjective because it's all about exactly what you say: what kind of experience you want to have.

To each their own, live and let live.

 

[kyuu]

Multi channel, not appealing to me concert hall don't have this type of reflections.

This is nonsense. Having surround channels would be the only possible way to get an accurate reproduction of the reflections that would be coming from the sides and behind you in a concert hall, assuming you were listening to a proper multichannel recording. You can't get the same reflections in your home with any kind of speaker that's just in front of you because your home is not the concert hall.

Largely academic, though, since multichannel recordings of that sort are fairly rare. I'd wager that a good multichannel setup playing back a good multichannel recording would be the only way you could actually approach recreating being in the actual concert hall.

But given that you pooh-pooh every feasible speaker setup, it's plain that the only thing that will satisfy you is being in an actual concert hall listening to a live orchestra. So just do that.

 

[kyuu]

I agree that there's a sense of scale that is often provided with larger speakers. It could be related to baffle size.

If this is the case, then shouldn't in-wall speakers provide the largest sense of scale?

 

[tmtomh]

If this is the case, then shouldn't in-wall speakers provide the largest sense of scale?

That's a good point! Although @Mr. Widget does seem to be speculating that there's something about a large baffle, complete with whatever diffraction errors it might produce, that creates the sense of scale. I have no idea if that's the case or not, but if so, it would seem to me that the essentially infinite baffle of an in-wall speaker would not necessary produce the same sense of scale.

I am soooo not an expert on this, but my first guess about what Mr. Widget is saying would be that it could be the lack of soundstage imaging precision itself that contributes to the perceived scale of the soundstage, since I have heard that imaging precision-vs-perceived scale tradeoff many times, and in my experience it's quite easy to manufacture that trade-off with any decently precise-imaging speaker simply by toeing them out and/or tilting them up.

 

[Timcognito]

If this is the case, then shouldn't in-wall speakers provide the largest sense of scale?

Yes if find ones that the tech is future proof and wall with enough side clearances to devote to them with wires inside. And there is the bass cabinet volume issue, too.

 

[Verig]

If this is the case, then shouldn't in-wall speakers provide the largest sense of scale?

That was my reason to offer them in earlier post. It's a bit different experience than anything Theta has dismissed. It's just physics and some things simply are different with in-room standing speakers. Unless they are like Mr Widget's set that are the room.

Edit: it's not the baffle size but the soundstage. There are plenty of large baffle speakers with pin point precision.
...or perhaps we could call it the baffle size. But for practical reasons it can't be done with room standing speakers so...

 

[EERecordist]

I am only concerned with the reproduction of concerts or concert like recordings without all the gimmicks and all the so called artistic additives of the recording engineers which dictate the accuracy so many audiophile crave and demand from their little 2 way speakers however good or expensive..
I demand from speakers to primarily deliver the lowest IM distortion at an average of 85db in a small room.
Perhaps some one can create a wall of sound like the sound man of the Greatful Dead provided for concerts only for the home.
Does anyone else on this forum aspire to this type of fidelity?
Is this the impossible dream? Can we come close? How?

You are discussing several different ideas.
Acoustic concerts without amplification are one, and amplified shows are another. Amplified shows have all kinds of nonlinear things in the signal chain from the pickups and the microphone to the speakers.
I'm not sure why the focus on IM distortion.
The (brief) success of the wall of sound was that the amplifiers and drivers did not have to be pushed hard outside their linear range and it provided a subjectively novel sound source.

Personally I favor professional studio gear where possible, especially speakers, where affordable. So I prioritize accuracy. ASR has many speaker reviews starting with recommended. EQ your room. Experiment with headphones. For extra credit, acoustic treatment.

Listening to acoustic music live in a good hall sounds different in the control room, then different through the recording chain to your home speakers. Amplified shows have a lot of very good new technology today. The live concert will have additional pleasure of anticipation and being in the audience.

 

[Verig]

Largely academic, though, since multichannel recordings of that sort are fairly rare. I'd wager that a good multichannel setup playing back a good multichannel recording would be the only way you could actually approach recreating being in the actual concert hall.

Multichannel was the real thing going for SACD. I'm not a DSD believer but this stuff was great. You're right, ambience with just two channels is just no go.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

From my personal experience, accuracy is more important with music when you're doing critical listening. For home theater applications where your attention is divided among sound, video, paying attention to dialogue, and following a plot line, I hardly notice if the audio (typically spread out among 5 or more speakers) is inaccurate. For me, almost any speaker with a close-to-reasonable frequency response (and maybe some that aren't) will work well for home theater, provided it gets loud enough and dialogue is intelligible.

That's why I don't sweat the fact that the cheap little DAC I use for movie/TV playback is mediocre.

 

[Verig]

Bit if you want a center speaker, I'm sure you could create a three-channel setup, and I am guessing there is configurable audio-processing software out there that could do a competent job of upmixing stereo to three-channel, albeit probably with varying results.

I tried this some fifteen years ago. Sometimes it worked, often not. Processing software has evolved since then so it'll likely better now. But I guess this would be on the "gimmick" list quite fast.