"Things that cannot be measured"

[pablolie]

I curse production/mixing teams with regularity. But our setups' job is simply to reproduce whatever they do, at their best or even at their most incompetent, with accuracy. If you like the music, you'll get over it.

 

[Duke]

he is talking about just how bad 2-channel playback is at creating a desirable sense of space, that we need to resort to props like upmixing and side wall reflections, if we wish to avoid what 2-channel has done wrong...

In the part I quoted he's talking about his system in his room. He uses upmixing but has no early same-side-wall reflections on either side of his room.

If you're saying that upmixing is a valid way of dealing with the shortcomings of 2-channel sound, then I agree with you. If you're saying something else, then I don't understand you.

I want to emphasise that Toole is being data driven, not desirous of ‘distortion’.

Evidently Toole arrived at the conclusion that upmixing done well is a good idea. And I agree with him. Imo upmixing done well is not "distortion", but I can understand people having a definition of distortion which would include any deviation from exactly what came out of the speakers in the recording studio.

 

[Sal1950]

I think Floyd Toole chose the right word: "Embellish". The word "distortion" implies "degradation", but upmixing done right ("tasteful" was Floyd Toole's descriptor) enhances - or embellishes - the spatial quality without degradation of the sound quality.

We can only take that position out of respect for Floyd's good taste in sound quality.
But by definition, any change in the reproduction of a High Fidelity's original sound stream is a "distortion" of it.

 

[kemmler3D]

We can only take that position out of respect for Floyd's good taste in sound quality.
But by definition, any change in the reproduction of a High Fidelity's original sound stream is a "distortion" of it.

That's my basic feeling about it too. If you go to the effort of having a really nice, accurate system, and then come up with some "enhancements" to put on the sound, to me it's sort of like putting ketchup on the nice steak. It may taste better to you, but I can't help but feel it's wrong on some level.

 

[Sal1950]

It may taste better to you, but I can't help but feel it's wrong on some level.

Ah but that doesn't make it wrong either, simply a persons private listening choice.

The important part is that the "enhancements" can be turned off and a listener can fall back to the unblemished bit-perfect
data stream of the original mix, reproduced as accurately as possible by a highly transparent path of components.
Now that's High Fidelity

 

[richard12511]

That's my basic feeling about it too. If you go to the effort of having a really nice, accurate system, and then come up with some "enhancements" to put on the sound, to me it's sort of like putting ketchup on the nice steak. It may taste better to you, but I can't help but feel it's wrong on some level.

In the case a good upmixer, it's more akin to putting salt on a nice steak . Maybe the analogy is a bit too strong, as I have found recordings I prefer in stereo over Auro3D, but they are definitely the minority.

 

[MarkS]

The problem is that you are not hearing the pure stereo signal, you are hearing it bouncing around your room. I think Toole would claim that an upmixed multiway presentation with narrow-dispersion speakers gets closer to the true source than stereo with wide-dispersion speakers.

 

[richard12511]

The problem is that you are not hearing the pure stereo signal, you are hearing it bouncing around your room. I think Toole would claim that an upmixed multiway presentation with narrow-dispersion speakers gets closer to the true source than stereo with wide-dispersion speakers.

And he uses upmixed multiway presentation with wide-dispersion speakers .

 

[Duke]

I think Toole would claim that an upmixed multiway presentation with narrow-dispersion speakers gets closer to the true source than stereo with wide-dispersion speakers.

And he uses upmixed multiway presentation with wide-dispersion speakers .

Because his listening room has heavy absorptive drapes on the left-side wall and a wide opening into an adjacent room on the right-side wall, arguably Toole's wide-dispersion speaker setup shares this characterisic with narrow-dispersion speakers: Very little early lateral reflection energy.

 

[egellings]

Note that @Floyd Toole uses "tasteful upmixing for many recordings to embellish the sense of space" (Sound Reproduction, 3rd edition, page 193). Is that distortion? Or is it a worthwhile improvement? Or both, depending on one's definition of "distortion"?

I view distortions to be unwanted signals added to the content that were not in it originally. Tone controls alter the frequency contour, which could be considered a distortion, albeit a euphonic one, but they don't add anything into the signal itself. It's sort of like looking at the signal reflected through a 'funny mirror'.

 

[Duke]

I view distortions to be unwanted signals added to the content that were not in it originally.

I agree.

Tone controls alter the frequency contour, which could be considered a distortion, albeit a euphonic one, but they don't add anything into the signal itself. It's sort of like looking at the signal reflected through a 'funny mirror'.

Do you think it's possible that a tone control could make a correction towards greater neutrality, such as in a situation where the speaker/room/listening position combination results in reduced SPL in the bass region? In this case, would it be accurate to describe the tone control's contribution in bringing up the bass region as "distortion"? (I don't think so; I think it would be "corrective equalization".)

What about a situation where the recording itself seems to be lacking in low-end energy; is it possible that a tone control could make a worthwhile beneficial contribution in this case? (Again, imo this would be "corrective equalization", not "distortion".)

 

[Sokel]

Because his listening room has heavy absorptive drapes on the left-side wall and a wide opening into an adjacent room on the right-side wall, arguably Toole's wide-dispersion speaker setup shares this characterisic with narrow-dispersion speakers: Very little early lateral reflection energy.

Ok,I always wanted to ask.
I'm in a similar situation but with a symmetrical room,is just that speakers are 4.5 meters far from the sides.
I understand that these reflections will be minor,my installers told me the same.
In fact they left these sides untreated.

But what happens with the dispersion at the inner side?Isn't that too a distinguishing factor for the image?

 

[Duke]

Ok,I always wanted to ask.
I'm in a similar situation but with a symmetrical room,is just that speakers are 4.5 meters far from the sides.

Very nice, in my opinion (I'm not a fan of strong early sidewall reflections, but I may be in the minority on that topic.)

I understand that these reflections will be minor,my installers told me the same.
In fact they left these sides untreated.

This makes sense to me.

But what happens with the dispersion at the inner side?Isn't that too a distinguishing factor for the image?

Just for clarification before I try to respond, are you talking about the left-hand speaker's across-the-room reflection off the right-hand side wall, and vice versa?

 

[Sokel]

Just for clarification before I try to respond, are you talking about left-hand speaker's across-the-room reflection off the right-hand side wall, and vice versa?

I mean dispersion is the same at both sides of a speaker,correct?At least the ones with centered drivers and no steering methods.
So I'm talking about the pattern crossing between the speakers,forget the one that go to the side walls.
Having a wide dispersion speaker for example,what difference would this create against a narrow dispersion one?

 

[Duke]

I mean dispersion is the same at both sides of a speaker,correct?At least the ones with centered drivers and no steering methods.
So I'm talking about the pattern crossing between the speakers,forget the one that go to the side walls.
Having a wide dispersion speaker for example,what difference would this create against a narrow dispersion one?

Thanks for clarifying. At the risk of over-generalizing:

Imo the narrow-dispersion speaker is probably more sensitive to toe-in angle as far as getting the best frequency response for the first-arrival (direct) sound.

If the radiation pattern of the narrow-dispersion speakers is conducive to time/energy trading, it should be possible to get pretty good imaging across a fairly wide listening area, though the imaging will still be best along the centerline.

Because of your room's width neither will have any early lateral reflections to speak of; the path lengths to the side walls are long enough that I'd call them "late-onset reflections".

The wider-dispersion speaker will have a lower direct-to-reflected sound ratio because a larger proportion of its output starts out as off-axis energy. I'm not sure which would tend to sound the best; I can think of arguments both ways.

What has your experience been?

 

[Sokel]

Thanks for clarifying. At the risk of over-generalizing:

Imo the narrow-dispersion speaker is probably more sensitive to toe-in angle as far as getting the best frequency response for the first-arrival (direct) sound.

If the radiation pattern of the narrow-dispersion speakers is conducive to time/energy trading, it should be possible to get pretty good imaging across a fairly wide listening area, though the imaging will still be best along the centerline.

Because of your room's width neither will have any early lateral reflections to speak of; the path lengths to the side walls are long enough that I'd call them "late-onset reflections".

The wider-dispersion speaker will have a lower direct-to-reflected sound ratio because a larger proportion of its output starts out as off-axis energy. I'm not sure which would tend to sound the best; I can think of arguments both ways.

What has your experience been?

That makes perfect sense,thank you.

 

[Salt]

Ok,I always wanted to ask.
I'm in a similar situation but with a symmetrical room,is just that speakers are 4.5 meters far from the sides.
I understand that these reflections will be minor,my installers told me the same.
In fact they left these sides untreated.

But what happens with the dispersion at the inner side?Isn't that too a distinguishing factor for the image?

4 1/2 meter distance to side walls is more then enough to give the auditional synaptics a chance to distinguish direct and reflected signal.

 

[egellings]

I agree.



Do you think it's possible that a tone control could make a correction towards greater neutrality, such as in a situation where the speaker/room/listening position combination results in reduced SPL in the bass region? In this case, would it be accurate to describe the tone control's contribution in bringing up the bass region as "distortion"? (I don't think so; I think it would be "corrective equalization".)

What about a situation where the recording itself seems to be lacking in low-end energy; is it possible that a tone control could make a worthwhile beneficial contribution in this case? (Again, imo this would be "corrective equalization", not "distortion".)

If you are EQ-ing sound to fit your preferences, that may or may not be a step toward neutrality, i.e. flat frequency response, since you may have to deviate from neutrality to get what sounds neutral to you. If you have rolled off HF response in your hearing, then to others without that aberration, what sounds neutral to you will sound tipped up (exaggerated HF boost) to them. Neutrality means flat frequency response, no matter how thin the bass is or tizzy the highs are. Tone controls can be helpful in fixing up perceived frequency-dependent amplitude errors, and that's a good reason to use the controls, so long as you realize that your preferred setting of the controls may not be for someone else. It's in the ear of the beholder. Best thing is to adjust them to your preferences and enjoy the music. Being too clinical about the sound can get old pretty fast.

 

[Vacceo]

That's pretty much the truth, you'd never walk a blindfolded person into a listening room and fool him that he was sitting at a live musical event, Specially with anything much beyond a single instrument presentation.
In the main it's only for a tiny piece classical music recordings where that's even an issue.

90% of the music sold over the last 5 decades or so are the artistic creations, not only of the musicians but the production team.
High Fidelity music reproduction in the home has become less and less about that "concert hall" thing and much more about
recreating the art & magic that was built/designed in the studio.
YMMV

I have been at around two dozen Slayer concerts to know that Decade of Aggression or War at the Warfield, being great live records, are fairly far to how being in a concert feels.

Thus, the task is not giving me a sense of being there, but humbly reproducing whatever the signal is; without adding or subtracting.

And well, the place where you listen will slaughter the reproduced signal, so...

 

[Duke]

Neutrality means flat frequency response, no matter how thin the bass is or tizzy the highs are.

Thanks for replying.

My understanding is that objectively "flat" in-room response is generally perceived as "bright", rather than "neutral".

Tone controls can be helpful in fixing up perceived frequency-dependent amplitude errors, and that's a good reason to use the controls, so long as you realize that your preferred setting of the controls may not be for someone else. It's in the ear of the beholder. Best thing is to adjust them to your preferences and enjoy the music. Being too clinical about the sound can get old pretty fast.

I agree with this.