Teeny tiny people playing teeny tiny instruments.

[formula 977]

This is a reasonably accurate description of what I hear and have heard over the years no matter the equipment used. A question of scale not accuracy.

Do you get the same impression?

 

[tomtoo]

Yes its very hard to get rock band in a 8inch box.

 

[iMickey503]

This must be a thread for blind people because I can't see where you're going.
Though, I do have a fascination with Dwarfs.

 

[voodooless]

 

[iMickey503]

He sure is good at rolling joints I bet.

 

[Drengur]

Some of the reasons might be found here:

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512255324/isbn9512255324.pdf

 

[Kal Rubinson]

This is a reasonably accurate description of what I hear and have heard over the years no matter the equipment used. A question of scale not accuracy.

Do you get the same impression?

Nope, sometimes even in stereo.

 

[Katji]

This must be a thread for blind people because I can't see where you're going.

 

[formula 977]

This must be a thread for blind people because I can't see where you're going.
Though, I do have a fascination with Dwarfs.

Likewise, I never miss an episode of LPBW


The pursuit of lower levels of noise and distortion and probably frequency response accuracy will have little effect on an increased realism of music reproduction compared to listening at a live level volume and vast amounts of dynamic range. Lowering levels of noise and distortion address only the perception of what sounds pleasing (the hoax) and not what sounds real.

With most of us listening to music at compressed, background level (<80db average) volumes the sounds heard probably benefit somehow from differing types and levels of noise and distortion, being a psychoacoustic event rather than reality it's difficult to say what is going on. At least up to the point where it ceases to become a distraction. Just speculating based on the worst measuring components and many user's still favorable opinions of what they hear that would be -40db for distortion and -75db for noise. Yes, I say measurements better than this offer no audible benefit.

The very essence of live music is the loudness and dynamc range, something seldom achievable in a residential setting with typical loudspeakers if at all. Then again it's quite possible that most audiophiles don't want an everyday +100db emotional experience considering the effort involved.

Phoney, euphonic sound is easy to get along with and, fortunately for everyone involved, ripe for subjective opinion about the merits or failings of it.

This is not a hit piece, this question is addressed at the 1% of audiophiles who are serious about what they do not the deluded hangers-on who just bought a Topping DAC or industry reps on an agenda with flippant remarks aiming to discount what I consider to be one of the simplest questions anyone could ask about the subject.

BTW, I am not part of the 1% and I don't listen at more than 80db.

 

[Prana Ferox]

E: maybe not teeny tiny enough

 

[formula 977]

View attachment 209352

E: maybe not teeny tiny enough

View attachment 209353

Both are dead on
Fraggle Rock=Revel 226
Smurfs=Revel 106

 

[LightninBoy]

This is a reasonably accurate description of what I hear and have heard over the years no matter the equipment used. A question of scale not accuracy.

Do you get the same impression?

This is a great question.

In my main listening room (Revel F208) and with recordings leaning towards natural sounds, my answer is no. In fact, I think of the volume as a scale control; I turn the volume up until I have reasonably sized voices and instruments.

In my office/studio (JBL 306) I do get the tiny instruments syndrome. I'm not sure if it's due to the small monitors or the near field listening, maybe both. But they definitely start compressing before the scale is realistic.

 

[Timcognito]

Just re-listened to the soundtrack - It's on Qobuz. If you like acoustic jazz it's like siting 15 feet in front of a combo with very good players. Not little players.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't get the impression either. I think it helps if you have a larger room.

 

[LesterNZ]

Have you listened on a full (floor to ceiling) line source type transducer set-up? IMHO, they "scale" more realistically.

Although multi-tracked & highly processed recordings on most systems make sonic "reality" into a confusing cluster-f**k.

 

[formula 977]

This is a great question.

In my main listening room (Revel F208) and with recordings leaning towards natural sounds, my answer is no. In fact, I think of the volume as a scale control; I turn the volume up until I have reasonably sized voices and instruments.

In my office/studio (JBL 306) I do get the tiny instruments syndrome. I'm not sure if it's due to the small monitors or the near field listening, maybe both. But they definitely start compressing before the scale is realistic.

The 208s, or similarly configured speakers, are about the minimum I would expect to be able to get near to an acceptable performance level. Still, it's the cmpression at high frequencies with typical box speakers, like the 208s that is hard to take.

 

[formula 977]

Have you listened on a full (floor to ceiling) line source type transducer set-up

Good idea. Unfortunately I am only able to hear conventional speakers in a line-source configuration.

 

[audiofooled]

The phenomenon of missing fundamental?

Small speaker setup with an early low frequency rolloff does mess up the presentation and changes how we perceive the scale of the soundstage. If such loudspeakers are set up far apart enough and/or high enough (ear level), the scale can be greater at a higher SPL, but still, the lack of sufficient SPL in fundamental frequencies is mostly what gives us the sense that everything is tiny. So, down to FR again...

 

[Cbdb2]

Try these.

 

[mansr]