Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Jim Taylor]

I would say generally speaking I’m in the
“ prefer the performers in front of me” category. Like you.

I’m certainly not against neato stuff happening in the surrounds. After all, I work in surround sound and I’m a Home Theatre fanatic as well. And depending on the music, I can quite enjoy when some musical elements are sent to the surrounds, especially if I’m listening to electronic music.

What I look to achieve is a type of immersiveness in the sense of the room in front of me opening up to whatever acoustic space is created on the recording. I have my speakers just close enough so it feels like there is some nice continuity between the space I’m inhabiting and the space that’s opened up around and beyond the loudspeakers. That puts me approximately 7 feet from my speakers. I don’t like listening in near field because to me that nudges things more towards a headphone like effect. Which feels less “ live” to me.

But if I can get the sense that a new acoustic has opened up in front of me, the very particular one on the recording, and also that I have a sensation of “ live instruments playing” within that acoustic, that’s my ultimate goal.

Do you allow your room to play any role in modifying the sense of spaciousness? Or do you leave absolutely everything up to the recording?

I am one of those (in)famous miscreants who listen in the nearfield. If I don't bend my torso, my speakers are about 5" beyond my reach. The recording is, therefore, of greatest importance.

 

[Newman]

...something I've noticed for years. One group of listeners wants to be "in the band". IOW, they want to have a playback system that puts them onstage, in the middle of things.
Another group of listeners (of which I am one) want to replicate the experience of a concert hall. They want the artists in front of them, at some appreciable distance, and the "envelopment" to be similar to the reverberant sound field in a hall.
...

Yes, this is a widespread observation. But I also think it is fluid, even at the individual level. I cite Toole's repeated mention of how strong is the adaptation effect, in support of this. I actually see it as a progression line, more than as two fixed end points, with 'artists in front' being less adapted, and 'among the musicians' as more adapted. The same will happen with height effects in spatial audio. And, like any adoption curve, there will be a bell curve comprising early adopters, middle adopters, late adopters, and never-adopters.

I just encourage everyone to keep exposing themselves to all the flavours out there, and be open-minded to the idea of their preferences, that they feel so settled-on today, being fluid.

cheers

 

[Galliardist]

Yes, this is a widespread observation. But I also think it is fluid, even at the individual level. I cite Toole's repeated mention of how strong is the adaptation effect, in support of this. I actually see it as a progression line, more than as two fixed end points, with 'artists in front' being less adapted, and 'among the musicians' as more adapted. The same will happen with height effects in spatial audio. And, like any adoption curve, there will be a bell curve comprising early adopters, middle adopters, late adopters, and never-adopters.

I just encourage everyone to keep exposing themselves to all the flavours out there, and be open-minded to the idea of their preferences, that they feel so settled-on today, being fluid.

cheers

Yes.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that a surround setup can still improve the "artists in front" approach to listening. I've had a couple of experiences where this has been extremely obvious with singers in opera (audio only) and a Bollywood movie, respectively, moving as "solid bodies" around the soundstage in front of me, in 5.1 and Atmos at different times - where this did not happen wth stereo in a convincing way.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I just encourage everyone to keep exposing themselves

I had a neighbor who did that. He got arrested.

 

[Sal1950]

Thanks. I have been saying much the same thing (perhaps not as pointedly) for years. When I began writing my now discontinued column MITR in 2003, I expected that more than 2 decades hence multichannel would have supplanted stereo as the format for serious listeners. Sigh.

Thanks for the outspoken support Kal.
I continue to hope for the reimergence of MITR in the pages of Stereophile or elsewhere.

I certainly don’t see that it’s the case that most audiophiles have an anti-digital bias.
Most have been comfortable with and using digital sources for a long time.

“Anti-progress?”

Anti-progress, YES, Matt you are more responsible than any here on ASR with your continued support for things like tube based and vinyl based audio.
Both technologies that are as obsolete in audio as a horse & carriage is to transportation.
Well past time to move on.

I listen almost exclusively to classical music recorded in real time (mostly) and in public performance spaces and the closer I get to a recreation or (please fool me) simulation of that event, the happier I am. For that, multichannel makes a significant difference. When I listen to music that I care less deeply about, including almost all non-classical, I find the effect of multichannel no more than "cool and somewhat different."

Kal, I fully support and understand your preferences in music but must say I find that last sentence more than a bit narrow minded.
It's the more modern forms of music and a somewhat different paradigm in the recording of studio music, that can take it's playback in the multich form so far beyond what has ever been possible in 2ch. Listen to some titles from the engineers like Steven Wilson, Alan Parsons, Bob Clearmountain, Andy Jackson, Jame Guthrie, etc, etc; it is this music and it's presentation in the multich forms that really make surround sound worth doing.
"no more than cool and somewhat different" can only be the result of your personal musical bias, very far from the reality of listening to multich from the above mentioned producers and hundreds more.
Sorry

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Both of these excerpts point to something I've noticed for years. One group of listeners wants to be "in the band". IOW, they want to have a playback system that puts them onstage, in the middle of things.
Another group of listeners (of which I am one) want to replicate the experience of a concert hall. They want the artists in front of them, at some appreciable distance, and the "envelopment" to be similar to the reverberant sound field in a hall.

Are you suggesting that different systems are suited for different recordings?

I want to experience music exactly as the mixer, producer, or artist intended. If they want the listener to feel "in the band," then that's where I'll be. If they aim to recreate the reverberation of a concert hall, that effect should be built into the mix.

That's why I prefer my room and speakers to sound very dry, so that any intended effects in the recording translate as transparently as possible, without added coloration.

I believe a dry system allows for the full range of experiences, from near-field and on-stage presence to the vastness of a stadium concert. To me, the purpose of a good system isn't to cater to a specific genre or effect but to faithfully transport the listener to whatever space or atmosphere was embedded in the mix.

I don’t judge people who have a passion for certain genres and prefer to enhance their experience with a bit of extra seasoning though.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Are you suggesting that different systems are suited for different recordings?

I want to experience music exactly as the mixer, producer, or artist intended. If they want the listener to feel "in the band," then that's where I'll be. If they aim to recreate the reverberation of a concert hall, that effect should be built into the mix.

That's why I prefer my room and speakers to sound very dry, so that any intended effects in the recording translate as transparently as possible, without added coloration.

I believe a dry system allows for the full range of experiences, from near-field and on-stage presence to the vastness of a stadium concert. To me, the purpose of a good system isn't to cater to a specific genre or effect but to faithfully transport the listener to whatever space or atmosphere was embedded in the mix.

I don’t judge people who have a passion for certain genres and prefer to enhance their experience with a bit of extra seasoning though.

I have noticed two different groups of people. My comments were limited to that and nothing more.

 

[Fidji]

I have heard this before and I wonder if it has to do with what individuals want from their systems. I listen almost exclusively to classical music recorded in real time (mostly) and in public performance spaces and the closer I get to a recreation or (please fool me) simulation of that event, the happier I am. For that, multichannel makes a significant difference. When I listen to music that I care less deeply about, including almost all non-classical, I find the effect of multichannel no more than "cool and somewhat different."

I have spent last weekend relaxing with DG Carlos Kleiber recordings in Atmos - and in my opinion - once you taste the superiority of MCH, especially for classical music - there is no way back. Real dillemma starts, when top interpretation is not avaialble in MCH.

My 2 cents on MCH - there is lot of confusion between MCH and HT - your HT can be the best, but it will not sound any good on MCH, is just different sport. To get top MCH music experience - each component - from DAC, through L_R to surrounds and height needs to have quality to be used also in 2Ch system. No cheap shortcuts

Kal - re non-classical music - I think Steve Wilson’s work on Atmos remixes is exceptional, and often gives new perspective on the material. E.g Lament from Ultravox, that was in heavy rotation for couple of days - feels very natural and enhances the essence of the record.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I have noticed two different groups of people. My comments were limited to that and nothing more.

My comment was in response to your belief that there are only two groups. I think there’s actually a third, likely larger, group -those who seek a truly transparent system, which, ideally, should satisfy both perspectives.
The spatial experience -whether "in the band" or "in a concert hall" -should come from the mix itself, not from unpredictable room acoustics. A neutral, dry system preserves the producer’s intent, ensuring that the intended reverberation and spatial cues translate accurately. Otherwise, the sound can become "showroom-like" meaning initially impressive with certain content but not truly transparent.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with preferring a system that adds a bit of spice, as long as you recognize it’s doing so.
I had such a system in a lively (and lovely) room, and certain tracks sounded incredible. It gave some studio-mixed recordings a live, acoustic feel.
But the moment I switched genres -to electronica, EDM, hard rock, or live recordings -it became a mess.
Think of a choir singing in a gym -it might sound beautiful. Now imagine Metallica or Skrillex in the same space. I appreciate all three, but while I’d stay for the choir, I’d be running for the exit with the others.

 

[Miley_B]

I mostly visit this thread because of my love of shallow crossover slopes and cabinet resonances but as multi-channel keeps coming up I want some clarification. When y'all are talking about mch are you talking about old systems that I think I remember my Grandfather having (Dolby True HD?)
or the current object based systems that aren't based upon channels?

But the moment I switched genres -to electronica, EDM, hard rock, or live recordings -it became a mess.
Think of a choir singing in a gym -it might sound beautiful. Now imagine Metallica or Skrillex in the same space. I appreciate all three, but while I’d stay for the choir, I’d be running for the exit with the others.

This reminds me of concerts in the fabulous RAH in London.

 

[Waxx]

Of course. I am not casting blame on individuals but expressing my disappointment that something I regard as objectively/technically superior as well as personally rewarding has not achieved greater penetration among serious listeners. Most of the reasons you state are reasonable and well known and, yes, people are right to choose what optimizes the emotional return on their financial and environmental investments.


I have heard this before and I wonder if it has to do with what individuals want from their systems. I listen almost exclusively to classical music recorded in real time (mostly) and in public performance spaces and the closer I get to a recreation or (please fool me) simulation of that event, the happier I am. For that, multichannel makes a significant difference. When I listen to music that I care less deeply about, including almost all non-classical, I find the effect of multichannel no more than "cool and somewhat different."


I don't understand this sentence. Can you correct/restate it for me, please?

Mutlichannel may have some technical advances, but it's not practical in a living room, and very few have a dedicated listning room. It's also expensive (what matters for the big majority) and technical complex, something most fear as they are not technical minded. it just don't fit the lifestyle of the big majority of people. Stereo these days hardly do, so multichannel certainly not.

The music industry does also not really support it for music, very few releases are done, multichannel is seen as something for HT, not a music system by the big majority. Stereo is good enough for most but the freaks, even mono low quality (BT speaker or phone) does it for most. That is the reality that most here in their high tech bubble don't (want to) see...

 

[Mnyb]

I mostly visit this thread because of my love of shallow crossover slopes and cabinet resonances (snip)

+1 lovely back to speaker bashing ! can we also have meandering FR and weird and sharp disconnects in the beam pattern/directivity too please, and "gurus" designing speakers by a 1980 speaker cookbook and free software from 1992

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Cerwin Vega 316R

Spoiler: Frequency response

Spoiler: Source - YT

 

[Sokel]

+1 lovely back to speaker bashing ! can we also have meandering FR and weird and sharp disconnects in the beam pattern/directivity too please, and "gurus" designing speakers by a 1980 speaker cookbook and free software from 1992

Minimal to no excursion drivers too,tight as a string to the basket

 

[Newman]

Mutlichannel may have some technical advances, but it's not practical in a living room, and very few have a dedicated listning room. It's also expensive (what matters for the big majority) and technical complex, something most fear as they are not technical minded. it just don't fit the lifestyle of the big majority of people. Stereo these days hardly do, so multichannel certainly not.

The music industry does also not really support it for music, very few releases are done, multichannel is seen as something for HT, not a music system by the big majority. Stereo is good enough for most but the freaks, even mono low quality (BT speaker or phone) does it for most. That is the reality that most here in their high tech bubble don't (want to) see...

Given that audiophile is an elite pursuit, your populist critique is meaningless...

 

[Mnyb]

Given that audiophile is an elitist pursuit, your populist critique is meaningless...

It's not even practical for an audiophile .

I had a 5.1 meridian HT and still has >100's DVDA (obsolete nothing to play them on anymore ) and well done mch trounces stereo . but i could not fit or find anything similar today from anyone . My current stereo speakers Kef LS60 smokes the DSP5200 in almost every aspect . So my basic system today sounds exceptionally due to simply better speakers , but the promise of what i heard on select DVA's was nothing short of astonishing .

I think they killed it with two things in the past a silly format war SACD vs DVDA and HDMI encryption and weird ever shifting goal post and constantly new versions of HDMI. That made it exceptionally rare with digital outputs from a DVD/SACD that had the full resolution from each ch ?

In the beginning there was no HDMI inputs in most receivers and pre/processors it HDMI was only intended for the display .
So you and to run everything via analog outputs ? What a mess re bass management sub xover and room EQ .

So that's why i bought into the meridian ecosystem in the 2000's a true digital signal path right into the speakers with multichannel 24/96 .

it's still a valid question :

If you have for example 7.2 active digital speakers with digital inputs (spdiff, toslink ,ethernet etc ) how do you use multichannel content without going trough the analog hole ?

vs for stereo you have plenty of options wireless or wired you can send anything.

Today it's better it will work for you with a modern receiver ( that you have to change every 3 year or so ) and passive speaker setup and current TV-boxes etc but it did not even do that in the beginning ?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

"no more than cool and somewhat different" can only be the result of your personal musical bias, very far from the reality of listening to multich from the above mentioned producers and hundreds more.

I am afraid that it is just my narrow interest. It is not meant as denial or criticism but it has been many years since I've gotten hooked, even transiently, on something non-classical.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I mostly visit this thread because of my love of shallow crossover slopes and cabinet resonances but as multi-channel keeps coming up I want some clarification. When y'all are talking about mch are you talking about old systems that I think I remember my Grandfather having (Dolby True HD?)
or the current object based systems that aren't based upon channels?

It includes both of those as well as discrete, lossless formats like DSD and PCM.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

If you have for example 7.2 active digital speakers with digital inputs (spdiff, toslink ,ethernet etc ) how do you use multichannel content without going trough the analog hole ?

It is doable if you really want it. My system is based on JRiver or Roon on a PC. Major source is a NAS with thousands of discrete multichannel files acquired from downloads or ripped discs. There is an equal number of stereo files, too. The system also accepts streaming sources from the internet.

The digital output of the PC (after roomEQ) is fed, via Ravenna (audio over LAN) to a Merging Hapi II for distribution over CAT6 to amps, speakers and subs (including an LS60 pair for LS/RS).

 

[Mnyb]

It is doable if you really want it. My system is based on JRiver or Roon on a PC. Major source is a NAS with thousands of discrete multichannel files acquired from downloads or ripped discs. There is an equal number of stereo files, too. The system also accepts streaming sources from the internet.

The digital output of the PC (after roomEQ) is fed, via Ravenna (audio over LAN) to a Merging Hapi II for distribution over CAT6 to amps, speakers and subs (including an LS60 pair for LS/RS).

Nice never heard of half of the equipment is it studio equipment ? i did not know that the LS60 accepted professional ethernet protocols like Ravenna ?
Quite esoteric knowledge . Not exactly main stream.

Thankyou.