• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Toole video "exceptional" $1800 speaker ID

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
942
Location
USA
So I don't know what you are after. Sounds like you want to argue about my subjective experience.

Twenty years back I decided to have better speakers for my TV viewing. I started trying different speakers, amps, and cd players to try them out. At the time most of the more inexpensive options either did not have bass, or were boomy, or the fidelity did not seem right. Sure they were set up that way in the showrooms but even after adjusting the tone controls or whatever could be adjusted none of this seemed to help. This was not a scientific experiment. I also went to a bunch of higher end shops and some audiophile shops at the time to listen to what was available. In the end with limited experimentation I heard an amazing setup where it felt like the piano was in the room and I heard the pieces I used to play there in front of me. Was this speaker placement, proper setup, or I could have gotten this using cheaper components no matter. I bought a system that satisfied me and changed my listening from just getting a better system for the TV to listening to music again. It is subjective but that is what happened. You seem to doubt my experience. I am making no excuses. I subjectively had a good experience listening to music.

Do you doubt soundstage or imaging in a stereo setup? Please show me the psycho acoustic studies to dispute that. I am open to read and discuss if you can point me to this. I am interested in the science and would like a better understanding of the effects that I hear. If they are psychological so be it. Show me the studies etc... If soundstage and imaging are things that can be measured then I would also like to read about that.

The only things I have experimented and seen some change is moving the speakers wider or further from the walls. I did not do a scientific study of the impact on my room but from my perception I heard differences. I think this is corroborated in different studies of room acoustics although I did not do a study obviously. Is that what you really expect when people set up an audio system in their home?

Sheesh - all I asked for was some articles, data, or measures. I think there are studies that can better elaborate on speaker placement than I can answer from my "experience." I think you know that and all you are after is an argument or to denigrate my experience. If you want to add something useful it would be appreciated. Please point me to articles, studies, measures, etc....

Sorry. I did not mean to show you my uncivilized side. When certain kinds of questions are asked in a certain sort of way, there are philosophical questions that are not willing to be ignored. And as with philosophical questions generally, they insist on being asked in a direct, matter-of-fact way that pays no heed to anyone's feelings.

What you had written (originally) suggested to me that you had a sense of the sort of speaker arrangement that leads to a better soundstage. I was curious to hear more about this, because I thought it might help me to understand a little bit about your individual interpretation of "soundstage". Whenever two or more people talk about soundstage, I'm never entirely convinced that they are talking about exactly the same thing. I sometimes ask the philosophical question of whether the people taking part in the discussion have any way of knowing with certainty that they are talking about the exact same thing. Whenever I ask this, people get mad at me. To my way of thinking, if people really are talking about the exact same thing, they should be able to define it in a way by which it is apparent how to go about measuring it (and they wouldn't resent my asking the question).

There is also this: very often people come here and say something that alludes to properties and qualities that are vague and intangible, and therefore incapable of being measured, and then they argue that since the objective measurements do not reveal these critical properties and qualities, that the objective measurements are worthless. I'm not saying that this is what you were doing, only that it is something often done by people who dislike objectivity in audio, and that your original post was close enough to this sort of thing that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for someone to have interpreted it that way. On numerous occasions I have observed someone come along and do this kind of thing in a way that isn't subtle, and for them to then be treated in a perfectly kind, respectful manner by the people who regularly participate in this forum, some of whom are too gullible to realize that they are being taken for a ride.

I dunno. Perhaps it is reasonable for someone to come along and ask other people to explain to them how the customary measurements reveal soundstage, notwithstanding that soundstage is not defined in a way as meaningful as people like me would prefer. Perhaps this is reasonable. I'm just not sure.
 

ashegedyn

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
2
Sorry. I did not mean to show you my uncivilized side. When certain kinds of questions are asked in a certain sort of way, there are philosophical questions that are not willing to be ignored. And as with philosophical questions generally, they insist on being asked in a direct, matter-of-fact way that pays no heed to anyone's feelings.

What you had written (originally) suggested to me that you had a sense of the sort of speaker arrangement that leads to a better soundstage. I was curious to hear more about this, because I thought it might help me to understand a little bit about your individual interpretation of "soundstage". Whenever two or more people talk about soundstage, I'm never entirely convinced that they are talking about exactly the same thing. I sometimes ask the philosophical question of whether the people taking part in the discussion have any way of knowing with certainty that they are talking about the exact same thing. Whenever I ask this, people get mad at me. To my way of thinking, if people really are talking about the exact same thing, they should be able to define it in a way by which it is apparent how to go about measuring it (and they wouldn't resent my asking the question).

There is also this: very often people come here and say something that alludes to properties and qualities that are vague and intangible, and therefore incapable of being measured, and then they argue that since the objective measurements do not reveal these critical properties and qualities, that the objective measurements are worthless. I'm not saying that this is what you were doing, only that it is something often done by people who dislike objectivity in audio, and that your original post was close enough to this sort of thing that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for someone to have interpreted it that way. On numerous occasions I have observed someone come along and do this kind of thing in a way that isn't subtle, and for them to then be treated in a perfectly kind, respectful manner by the people who regularly participate in this forum, some of whom are too gullible to realize that they are being taken for a ride.

I dunno. Perhaps it is reasonable for someone to come along and ask other people to explain to them how the customary measurements reveal soundstage, notwithstanding that soundstage is not defined in a way as meaningful as people like me would prefer. Perhaps this is reasonable. I'm just not sure.

Fair enough. I agree that soundstage and imaging are imprecise terms. I don't know what would be more precise. I am willing to give my view of them with the caveat that it is subjective - yet trying to be as objective as I can. I have been reading this site for some time so I am familiar with the views towards trying to be objective. However, certain things I hear I do not believe to be subjective and something that should be objective to most people. I am open to being shown that they are an illusion. I have been guilty of critical listening to changes in components before and I understand that this is a problem.

Soundstage to me defines the space in front of me from which I hear music. It is identified by the different instruments I hear from different positions in front of me. So if I am listening to Sonny Rollins I hear the bass, the drums, the sax, etc.. in front of me from left to right and from front to back. I infer that it depends on the recording of the music as well as the equipment I am listening to. I have seen it change if I move the speakers front to back or wider. I also see it change if I change the gain on the powered speakers left and right. Imaging to me is related in the sense that the sax comes from the same spot let's say middle right. The drums I hear originating from further back and let's say more on the right. You can go through the rest of the instruments in similar fashion. I think this illusion is because of the stereo imaging or rather the way the stereo recording was put together and played back through the equipment. Do I have a precise understanding of how it work - no. That is why I ask the question. Do I think it is bounded by the speaker placement? Probably but I have not done any listening or testing to see,

In terms of the specific example I gave of the piano being in front of me. I think it is because of several factors. First the speakers are accurate enough to give a good frequency response of a piano and the decay of the strings as they are hit by the hammer. I used to play the piano and I am quite familiar with the sound of it as well as the nuances I hear. After that I think the speaker placement in a specific room has quite a bit to do with the image of the piano originating in front of me and in a physical space similar to it's physical dimensions. That is what I experienced when I heard the setup and what enticed me to appreciate the equipment I bought. What the precise reasons are that I hear this is what I want to understand. The same system in my house does not quite sound the same as when demoed. I suspect it has to do with the room acoustics as well as the speaker placement. However, although not the same it is pretty close.

I just want to have a better understanding of the science of accoustics regarding the illusion I hear from stereo speakers and a stereo system. The more expensive setup I bought is pretty similar and perhaps wanting when I compare it to the cheaper system I recently purchased/made. I have a raspberry pi streaming Qobuz to a topping E30 via USB hooked up to the Adam Audio speakers. I find it even better than the existing setup I purchased years ago. Again I just want to understand how this works and that is why I asked for papers/studies, measures, etc... Amir recommended the Toole book which I ordered and I am more than willing to read it. I am comfortable with most mathematics although I think I would need to brush up on the FFT and a bit of other math. My background is in Economics and Econometrics although I work as a developer. I think I should be able to pick up DSP with some effort. Statistical analysis should be no issue for me. I hope to learn more and perhaps contribute to some of the discussion.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
For me, and totally aside from the work of Toole and any specific scientific research (which I absolutely respect and adhere to), imaging comes down to the following...

The Recording - This is a large part of it. Imaging is baked into the recording. Some have more of it than others. My favorite track for "hearing" imaging is Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa. On my loudspeaker set up in the living room, listening to that track with my eyes closed it sounds like there's stuff bouncing all over my apartment in front of me. Way to the left and right. Far away in the distance and right up close in front of me. It's awesome and I actually do that (sit and listen to Bubbles with my eyes closed) just for fun on a regular basis. But, in my bedroom I have a little Soundcore Motion+ bluetooth speaker, and listening to Bubbles on that still provides a surprising amount of spatial imaging. Even on that little 1 foot by 4 inch high block of drivers it still sounds like stuff is happening several feet to the left and right (of the speaker) and at different distances from me. The track just has a ton of baked-in imaging. And it's the same with all recordings to a greater or lesser degree (mostly lesser.)

The System - I don't think there's any magic involved here. Assemble a system that isn't doing anything it shouldn't be doing to the signal you're feeding though it and you'll be there. Speakers are the wildcard element for sure. But even there, look for speakers that "behave" well (you can find them at most any price point based on the excellent reviews found here) and you're set. The fundamental principle is "neutrality/transparency."

The Room/Positioning/EQ - This is where the fine-tuning is done. Again the goal is to try and eliminate effects that aren't supposed to be there. I tend to think of speaker positioning like focusing a camera lens. You can play around with it in the space and try to tighten the image up a bit. With EQ you're (or at least I'm) trying to further remove the system and the room from the equation in so far as I don't want those to interfere with or alter whatever information is contained in the recording.

In the end, the best you can do is reveal whatever imaging is in the source recording. Many don't really have much at all. If you've assembled a system that you feel provides excellent imaging, it's likely a system that is allowing the details contained in the recording to be heard rather than a system that is adding imaging to a recording.
 
Last edited:

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
My Genelecs and JBLs do seem to push the soundstage forward vs. my Harbeths, but there are too many other variables (and no controlled experiments) to draw conclusions.

Are Genelecs actually wider dispersion than Harbeth? I'm not familiar at all with Harbeth radiation patterns, but I love the looks. As a novice, I would actually expect the Harbeth to be wider, since it's a dome on a flat baffle, but I suppose it depends on the tweeter? Genelecs are usually waveguided, which is meant to narrow the dispersion of the tweeter. Most of the flat baffle designs we've seen here tend to have wider dispersion than their waveguided speakers by 20-60°.

I'm actually curious what causes something to sound more forward in space. I know that turning GLM on moves the image a couple feet forward, but it can't possibly change the dispersion width, so it must be something else in my case.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Is that with multi-channel recording? When I heard normal recordings they do not sound like what you describe. Some kind processing is probably being done to make it work as you describe. If so what is the basis of doing those manipulations. Like I mentioned previously there is a different thread that may have more info.

You may be listening to upmixed music, likely Dolby or DTS? IMO, both of those put far too much sound in the rears and sides, and I usually find them less enjoyable than stereo. I too don't like to hear music coming from behind me. Auro-3D is the only one I've found that I definitely prefer to stereo on all music, all the time. It only puts ambiance and reflection noises in the surrounds and heights, and it doesn't screw up the stereo image. I use strength 7 right now, but I'm still experimenting. The overall effect is that it widens the soundstage vertically and horizontally, but that's about it. It's kinda like moving to wider dispersion speakers, without the negatives that come with wider dispersion(clarity and imaging). Oddly, I don't like Auro-2D at all. It's so different, and sounds worse than plain stereo to my ears.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
If you are looking for other examples of good cheap overlooked Harman speakers look for the Revel F12s. Some of the earlier ones designed with the spinorama. I don't have spin results for them (wish I did), but you can see they have the basic flat response and controlled off-axis directivity in these soundstage.net measurements from an anechoic chamber.
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/revel_concerta_f12/

Kal Rubinson also reviewed them for Stereophile.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/revel-concerta-f12-loudspeaker-measurements

I have some as front speakers in my video system.
 

prerich

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2016
Messages
312
Likes
228
I think for those who are unfamiliar with Dr Toole it would be beneficial to know a little bit on where he comes from.

Dr Toole is a big proponent of multi-channel audio, and has mostly abandoned/ignored/discounted 2-channel stereo. The are important differences in picking speakers for 2 channel versus multi-channel.

Below is from part 1 of a three part series lecture by Dr Toole.
https://www.harman.com/documents/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt1_0.pdf
https://www.harman.com/documents/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt2_0.pdf
https://www.harman.com/documents/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt3_0.pdf

Because he is only interested in multi-channel, he basically only values conventional forward firing speakers, and not dipoles or other speakers with non-conventional directivity. Stereo imaging qualities are off his radar. So, if you are looking for speakers for stereo, please keep this in mind.

View attachment 119185
However he has designed some of the best two channel speakers (according to measurements) like the IL-60, Infinity Intermezzo 4.1t, Intermezzo 2.6, and the Infinity Prelude MTS.
 

ctakim

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
148
Likes
195
Location
Menlo Park, CA
For me, and totally aside from the work of Toole and any specific scientific research (which I absolutely respect and adhere to), imaging comes down to the following...

The Recording - This is a large part of it. Imaging is baked into the recording. Some have more of it than others. My favorite track for "hearing" imaging is Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa. On my loudspeaker set up in the living room, listening to that track with my eyes closed it sounds like there's stuff bouncing all over my apartment in front of me. Way to the left and right. Far away in the distance and right up close in front of me. It's awesome and I actually do that (sit and listen to Bubbles with my eyes closed) just for fun on a regular basis. But, in my bedroom I have a little Soundcore Motion+ bluetooth speaker, and listening to Bubbles on that still provides a surprising amount of spatial imaging. Even on that little 1 foot by 4 inch high block of drivers it still sounds like stuff is happening several feet to the left and right (of the speaker) and at different distances from me. The track just has a ton of baked-in imaging. And it's the same with all recordings to a greater or lesser degree (mostly lesser.)

The System - I don't think there's any magic involved here. Assemble a system that isn't doing anything it shouldn't be doing to the signal you're feeding though it and you'll be there. Speakers are the wildcard element for sure. But even there, look for speakers that "behave" well (you can find them at most any price point based on the excellent reviews found here) and you're set. The fundamental principle is "neutrality/transparency."

The Room/Positioning/EQ - This is where the fine-tuning is done. Again the goal is to try and eliminate effects that aren't supposed to be there. I tend to think of speaker positioning like focusing a camera lens. You can play around with it in the space and try to tighten the image up a bit. With EQ you're (or at least I'm) trying to further remove the system and the room from the equation in so far as I don't want those to interfere with or alter whatever information is contained in the recording.

In the end, the best you can do is reveal whatever imaging is in the source recording. Many don't really have much at all. If you've assembled a system that you feel provides excellent imaging, it's likely a system that is allowing the details contained in the recording to be heard rather than a system that is adding imaging to a recording.
Just listened to Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa! Outstanding track for imaging! I've added it to my growing playlist of great mixes for speaker/soundstage testing. Thank you so much for the recommendation!
 
Top Bottom