Speakers Are The Enemy

[Cote Dazur]

I completely agree.
However, I wouldn't refer to the whole thing as an enemy, but rather as a task.

Absolutely, I also see it as a task, that is part of the hobby and should be embraced.
My analogy to the "enemy" was in relation to this thread title.
As many, I spent an early part of my audiophile hobby chasing aspect that I now realize have very little bearing on what can make listening to music at home such an absorbing and totally entertaining experience. This discorvery journey is also part of the hobby.
After many years, one, hopefully gets a better grasp of what really makes a difference as opposed to the irrelevant details.
Eventually realizing and understanding what the effects of the room, the positioning of the speakers and where to seat within that room, brings to the equation and the scale of what could be seen by the uneducated has very little movement, is in my opinion a key element that often cost close to nothing and brings game changer dividend.
Most have and have had perfectly adequate hardware at their disposal, all they need is to do is go from this

to that.

 

[Waxx]

On average i'm very happy how 90% of everything i play through my current set-up sounds, whether that's the "thruth" or as "intended" , who knows

At the end that is the most important, and all the rest becomes irrellevant if that goal is not reached. Which doesn't mean we should not measure, test and so...

 

[rdenney]

...
We rarely know what microphones were used, what preamps, what EQ decisions were made, how the monitors were calibrated, or even what the mixing engineer actually intended the final tonal balance to be. Every recording is the product of thousands of technical and artistic decisions we cannot reconstruct.

And yet we chase “perfect accuracy?.."

...

There is a line between creation and playback. Microphones, mixing decisions, monitor calibrations, and the thousands of technical and artistic decisions are on the art-making side of that line, and installing the result of that art-making onto the media that carries it to the playback system brings it up to that line. Is what they put on that medium true to what happened in the studio or on stage? That's hard to know and evaluate as consumers, but we have to assume that those decisions and steps were taken with intention, even if the result doesn't suit us. As consumers, we can decide if we think the result sounds real, but so much music is created without ever being heard these days that the definition of real doesn't mean much.

Playback is on the other side of that line, however. Carrying that intended recording to our ears is a matter of engineering, and its accuracy isn't difficult to measure or evaluate. Speakers and their interactions with the room are about as far on the playback side of that line as one can get, and while it's not heard to evaluate accuracy there, it is hard to ensure it with so many different listening environments. But I'm pretty sure I don't want the speaker doing things that will take what enters my ears further from the recording that is presented to the playback domain.

There is another distinction to be made, and that's about audio enthusiasts. I heard a commentator describe a hobby as doing something for the sake of doing it, and not to attain any particular outcome beyond doing it. Music listeners may be content with enough clues to reality to trigger their aural memory sufficiently to fill in the blanks. But audio enthusiasts may chase playback perfection--even beyond what we can actually hear--just for its own sake. I think that's fine, as long as we don't confuse the two.

Rick "can avoid bad recordings but can't avoid faulty playback" Denney

 

[Oddball]

There is a line between creation and playback. Microphones, mixing decisions, monitor calibrations, and the thousands of technical and artistic decisions are on the art-making side of that line, and installing the result of that art-making onto the media that carries it to the playback system brings it up to that line. Is what they put on that medium true to what happened in the studio or on stage? That's hard to know and evaluate as consumers, but we have to assume that those decisions and steps were taken with intention, even if the result doesn't suit us. As consumers, we can decide if we think the result sounds real, but so much music is created without ever being heard these days that the definition of real doesn't mean much.

Playback is on the other side of that line, however. Carrying that intended recording to our ears is a matter of engineering, and its accuracy isn't difficult to measure or evaluate. Speakers and their interactions with the room are about as far on the playback side of that line as one can get, and while it's not heard to evaluate accuracy there, it is hard to ensure it with so many different listening environments. But I'm pretty sure I don't want the speaker doing things that will take what enters my ears further from the recording that is presented to the playback domain.

There is another distinction to be made, and that's about audio enthusiasts. I heard a commentator describe a hobby as doing something for the sake of doing it, and not to attain any particular outcome beyond doing it. Music listeners may be content with enough clues to reality to trigger their aural memory sufficiently to fill in the blanks. But audio enthusiasts may chase playback perfection--even beyond what we can actually hear--just for its own sake. I think that's fine, as long as we don't confuse the two.

Rick "can avoid bad recordings but can't avoid faulty playback" Denney

And how do you do that? Just curious because my approach is much more pragmatic and does not include any of the "big" words?

 

[pablolie]

There is a line between creation and playback. Microphones, mixing decisions, monitor calibrations, and the thousands of technical and artistic decisions are on the art-making side of that line, and installing the result of that art-making onto the media that carries it to the playback system brings it up to that line. Is what they put on that medium true to what happened in the studio or on stage? That's hard to know and evaluate as consumers, but we have to assume that those decisions and steps were taken with intention, even if the result doesn't suit us. As consumers, we can decide if we think the result sounds real, but so much music is created without ever being heard these days that the definition of real doesn't mean much.

Playback is on the other side of that line, however. Carrying that intended recording to our ears is a matter of engineering, and its accuracy isn't difficult to measure or evaluate. Speakers and their interactions with the room are about as far on the playback side of that line as one can get, and while it's not heard to evaluate accuracy there, it is hard to ensure it with so many different listening environments. But I'm pretty sure I don't want the speaker doing things that will take what enters my ears further from the recording that is presented to the playback domain.

There is another distinction to be made, and that's about audio enthusiasts. I heard a commentator describe a hobby as doing something for the sake of doing it, and not to attain any particular outcome beyond doing it. Music listeners may be content with enough clues to reality to trigger their aural memory sufficiently to fill in the blanks. But audio enthusiasts may chase playback perfection--even beyond what we can actually hear--just for its own sake. I think that's fine, as long as we don't confuse the two.

Rick "can avoid bad recordings but can't avoid faulty playback" Denney

Completely agree, we'd like our systems to be accurate etc - but note my message was about the platitudes that we often see voiced... "experience the truth of the recording"... "recreate the live performance"... which are nice inspirational things to say, but scientific it isn't... since we do not have the "true" reference. But as long as it sounds pretty darn good and I can immerse myself in music, call me happy.

 

[Wolf11Man]

The next step in audio reproduction will not be a speaker, all basic developments have been done there. What ever "new" you will see in that area will only be a new combination of known, old principles.

The next, really new development, will be a whole wall producing sound. Sounds are reproduced 2-D spatially in the same location where they were originally created. Timing does the 3rd dimension.
Think of a stereo system with an infinite number of speakers and channels. Just like any pixel on your flat screen has a position defined by a software, the same will happen with sound instead of light.
Of course this "wall speaker" will reproduce video at the same time and can be extended to all planes of a room.
It is simply a question of computing power to realize this technique, from the source to the ear. The software will also take the position of the listener into account.
This is just the logical evolution of what we know about the physic of audio.

Next is an interface directly coupled to the brain. Anyone who has ever experienced an audio hallucination, may it be from a fever or drugs, knows how realistic this sound is. Significantly more realistic, in fact, than hearing it live with one's own aging ears.
My fellow time travelers will know.

 

[bagwell359]

Speakers are not the enemy. They are the means by which we hear recorded music in private space. There are many types - none perfect, some hierarchy exists. Rooms can and do get in the way - but I had 3 rooms across about 30 years that allowed for great hall like sound (34' x 23' x 8->14' was the best) chock full of ASC full/half/quarter traps, sound flags concrete floor with tile over it (with 3 depths of checkerboard carpeting, 4 if we count the 1/4 that was tile, turntable in an adjacent space. Total retail of system including treatments - $60k in '05 dollars featuring Verity Parsifals and two Pass X-150's, Souther straight track/VPI TNT Jr/Koetsu Rosewood Sig

These days the room is meh, and not dedicated, and 18 x 14 x 8 - but the speakers are very low in issues (BMR Philharmonic and Schiit Yggy SIngular featured), and with the gear running $9k in '25 $ total with no treatments - the bass is as good except from 25-35 Hz, and the treble over 4k better, and the mids very close.

Getting into good stuff with non retail pricing is a big help too. Very happy with the state of my audio and my 'flawed' speakers.

BTW the shibboleth that DACs sound the same put to bed with the Singular vs R2R or DS DACs in double blind quick switch or long term listening. And yes for me vinyl is dead.

 

[Oddball]

The next step in audio reproduction will not be a speaker, all basic developments have been done there. What ever "new" you will see in that area will only be a new combination of known, old principles.

The next, really new development, will be a whole wall producing sound. Sounds are reproduced 2-D spatially in the same location where they were originally created. Timing does the 3rd dimension.
Think of a stereo system with an infinite number of speakers and channels. Just like any pixel on your flat screen has a position defined by a software, the same will happen with sound instead of light.
Of course this "wall speaker" will reproduce video at the same time and can be extended to all planes of a room.
It is simply a question of computing power to realize this technique, from the source to the ear. The software will also take the position of the listener into account.
This is just the logical evolution of what we know about the physic of audio.

Next is an interface directly coupled to the brain. Anyone who has ever experienced an audio hallucination, may it be from a fever or drugs, knows how realistic this sound is. Significantly more realistic, in fact, than hearing it live with one's own aging ears.
My fellow time travelers will know.

PM me for a recipe. I am all for it. Not that I only want my room to disappear, but the entire world and worries with it.

 

[rdenney]

And how do you do that? Just curious because my approach is much more pragmatic and does not include any of the "big" words?

How? Buy and set up playback systems that reproduce the provided recording as accurately as possible first, and then adjust to taste only if a particular recording sounds better because of it. That’s what tone controls are for.

REW will help evaluate accuracy.

With all due respect, if an accurate playback system always sounds bad to you with all recordings, then maybe have your ears checked or go to live concerts to recalibrate your perceptions, especially if your music is intended to be performed and heard without amplification. If your preferred music is excessively amplified in live performance, maybe the recording presents the opportunity to hear a cleaner and more articulate rendering of the music. I for one enjoy that. But you can always crank up your subs if you want the live effect.

Rick “that seems pretty pragmatic to me” Denney

 

[Oddball]

How? Buy and set up playback systems that reproduce the provided recording as accurately as possible first, and then adjust to taste only if a particular recording sounds better because of it. That’s what tone controls are for.

REW will help evaluate accuracy.

With all due respect, if an accurate playback system always sounds bad to you with all recordings, then maybe have your ears checked or go to live concerts to recalibrate your perceptions, especially if your music is intended to be performed and heard without amplification. If your preferred music is excessively amplified in live performance, maybe the recording presents the opportunity to hear a cleaner and more articulate rendering of the music. I for one enjoy that. But you can always crank up your subs if you want the live effect.

Rick “that seems pretty pragmatic to me” Denney

I had my ears checked recently and they are fine, thanks for your concern. They even did the flush, so as good as they will get. Could recommend that to your and other members as well. You might be surprised what comes out of that exercise.

So called "reference" calibration does sound terrible to me regardless of the calibration tool/system - with most mixes. I don't use tone controls but use presets and different bass shelves. And system is calibrated to reference and then some, within the limitations of the room.

Honestly, could care less what the original mix was. I buy it, I own it, and will play it the way I like .

 

[rdenney]

I had my ears checked recently and they are fine, thanks for your concern. They even did the flush, so as good as they will get. Could recommend that to your and other members as well. You might be surprised what comes out of that exercise.

So called "reference" calibration does sound terrible to me regardless of the calibration tool/system - with most mixes. I don't use tone controls but use presets and different bass shelves. And system is calibrated to reference and then some, within the limitations of the room.

Honestly, could care less what the original mix was. I buy it, I own it, and will play it the way I like .

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Blessings upon your house.

But it’s not a universal position nor does it provide a repeatable basis for advice to others.

Rick “who spends a lot of time making and listening to live music with the same ears used for listening to playback” Denney

 

[Oddball]

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Blessings upon your house.

But it’s not a universal position nor does it provide a repeatable basis for advice to others.

Rick “who spends a lot of time making and listening to live music with the same ears used for listening to playback” Denney

My repeatable advice to users is to spend wisely on their gear and make sure it can accomodate their preferences - whatever they are. Reference is always a good starting point though, but especially for speakers it commands a premium that might or might not be worth it - depending on the budget.

 

[klettermann]

Speakers are not the enemy. They are the means by which we hear recorded music in private space. There are many types - none perfect, some hierarchy exists. Rooms can and do get in the way - but I had 3 rooms across about 30 years that allowed for great hall like sound (34' x 23' x 8->14' was the best) chock full of ASC full/half/quarter traps, sound flags concrete floor with tile over it (with 3 depths of checkerboard carpeting, 4 if we count the 1/4 that was tile, turntable in an adjacent space. Total retail of system including treatments - $60k in '05 dollars featuring Verity Parsifals and two Pass X-150's, Souther straight track/VPI TNT Jr/Koetsu Rosewood Sig

These days the room is meh, and not dedicated, and 18 x 14 x 8 - but the speakers are very low in issues (BMR Philharmonic and Schiit Yggy SIngular featured), and with the gear running $9k in '25 $ total with no treatments - the bass is as good except from 25-35 Hz, and the treble over 4k better, and the mids very close.

Getting into good stuff with non retail pricing is a big help too. Very happy with the state of my audio and my 'flawed' speakers.

BTW the shibboleth that DACs sound the same put to bed with the Singular vs R2R or DS DACs in double blind quick switch or long term listening. And yes for me vinyl is dead.

I want to hear more. Can you point me in the right direction?