Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Kal Rubinson]

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.

Now we are way off-topic but, to clarify: I truly wish that the LS60 accepted professional ethernet protocols but it does not. The outputs from the Hapi to amp/speakers/subs is not via Ravenna but, in analog or digital form, over dedicated runs of Cat6 using what is described as AES72 (basically balanced twisted pairs). The LS60 gets S/PDIF at up to 24/192.

 

[Jim Taylor]

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.

Now we are way off-topic but, to clarify: I truly wish that the LS60 accepted professional ethernet protocols but it does not. The outputs from the Hapi to amp/speakers/subs is not via Ravenna but, in analog or digital form, over dedicated runs of Cat6 using what is described as AES72 (basically balanced twisted pairs). The LS60 gets S/PDIF at up to 24/192.

I'm sure both of you realize that details that are off-topic can be discussed by PM. Personal messaging allows free exchange of information without cluttering up the thread.

 

[MattHooper]

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

Mine wasn’t though.

 

[Sal1950]

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 as practical as you desire it to be.
I've never had a home with a dedicated listening room. just the one "living room" and had a multich system in it starting with Quad back in the early 70s.

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.

@Waxx That's the same comments and expressions you'll hear from the non-audio types about a good Stereo system. What happened to the 1970-80s trend of having a nice receiver and 2 good speakers in the living room. Just what you've said above. Who here cares, it's not who we are. We care about the best reproduction of music in OUR homes and many of us find multich to take us far beyond what 2ch offers. I'll make the room, that's what we all do here.

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.

That's where your wrong and show a lack of knowledge on what's happened/ happening in the professional recording world. The market is being flooded with 5.1 and Atmos releases at an overwhelming rate. Todays top engineers love it & wish offer it to all, understanding its advantages over 2ch. It's always been simply the reluctance of the majority to devote the resources needed holding things back, just as you stated earlier. Thankfully the current headphone wave of listeners and the Atmos system has vastly expanded interest .
YMMV

 

[Sal1950]

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.

I understand but your comments, "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." definitely come off as a criticism
If I were to say " find classical music something simply to fall asleep by, and find any expenditure into multich a big waste of money" how would you take that?
You made an unfair criticism of popular multich music simply driven by your personal musical bias, it is awesome.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I understand but your comments, "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." definitely come off as a criticism
If I were to say " find classical music something simply to fall asleep by, and find any expenditure into multich a big waste of money" how would you take that?
You made an unfair criticism of popular multich music simply driven by your personal musical bias, it is awesome.

Taking this private since, as noted, this is off-topic.

 

[Miley_B]

Cerwin Vega 316R

Spoiler: Frequency response

View attachment 426185

Spoiler: Source - YT

Wonderful. You can keep your ski slopes. These are the slopes for me.

 

[richard12511]

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.

I think for a lot of people it's simply the practicality and expense that holds them back. My guess is there are many audiophiles out there who acknowledge the clear superiority of multi channel playback, but can't implement it due to space limitations, budget limitations, significant other approval, etc. Of course there are also those who will try to argue 2 channel is better, mainly just to defend their own personal purchases(there's a psychological component here), but many I know are in the first camp.

It also depends on genre, and how well supported that genre is for multi channel playback. Big orchestra classical is a good example where 2 channel simply can't come close to presenting the sound in a way that sounds truly natural or real. The reverb times in a home environment just aren't there to make that convincing illusion happen with basic stereo. Lots of other classical is this way too; it's simply way more real sounding with a good multi-channel system. Luckily, there is also a ton of multi-channel classical out there, so for someone who's mostly into that genre of music, I think it's likely well worth it to make that investment(if one can, and is not limited by other factors).

Other genre's are more hit and miss, imo. My favorite genre is classic rock, but I'll lump modern pop/rock into the same category of "sometimes the multi-channel format sounds better, but sometimes it sounds worse". I tried apple's multi-channel streaming format for a bit, but ultimately found it not worth the hassle of having to leave Roon. I do think multi-channel, even for pop/rock has higher absolute potential, but stereo is just so much more common and easier to implement that it's rare that that potential is actually realized.

 

[MattHooper]

Of course there are also those who will try to argue 2 channel is better, mainly just to defend their own personal purchases(there's a psychological component here), but many I know are in the first camp.

Most people defend their own personal purchases. It applies to everyone. Websites like this exist pretty much for people to rationalize the choices they’ve made, or the choices there are currently making in their next gear acquisition, whether it’s for two channel systems or multi channel.

The people who own very neutral systems spending many pixels to argue for high Fidelity are justifying their own purchase decisions. Same with somebody who might have a more coloured system. Same for people with surround systems arguing for surround, etc.

It’s what we do

 

[pablolie]

I never did any such thing.

Talking about people concentrating on different things and therefore having different subjective impressions has nothing to do with challenging anybody’s ability to hear.

You’ve had such a strong opinion about what makes for good sound quality or not, I started asking you questions about what exactly you mean when evaluating sound quality… and then instead of answering you lost it. I find this bizarre.



Please do! You seem to have lost the capacity for civil, rational discussion.

So long.

yes you did.

I never attacked you personally if you read my last reply rationally - I just disagreed with your stance and I most decidedly disagreed with the point you were meandering about claiming recreating live SPL levels in live performances were the truth to audio nirvana.

i did counter your arguments, perhaps forcefully where you felt personally attacked, but if you read it back - it was not ever a personal thing it was about your argument. if you play it back my disappointment was easy to discern. And if you are honest your attack on my system's (which you have zero insights into) ability to provide audio truth was pathetic. No one should do that.

That said I have decided to approach ASR in a new way.

 

[MattHooper]

i did counter your arguments, perhaps forcefully where you felt personally attacked, but if you read it back - it was not ever a personal thing it was about your argument. if you play it back my disappointment was easy to discern.

OK, I will accept your characterization that you were not attacking me personally. Cool.

And if you are honest your attack on my system's (which you have zero insights into) ability to provide audio truth was pathetic.

That seems to be what led to the confusion; that you took me as “ attacking” your system, and therefore took it very personally.

That was not the point at all. The only reason I was starting with your system is because obviously a provides an example of what you take to be good sound quality. And I was simply trying to understand exactly what qualities you think are most important to good sound quality. I was using an extreme example to look at the type of Sonic characteristics that your system or mine or probably most peoples system here, would not reproduce. The power and dynamics and punch of something more like live drums. (you seem to have presumed I was bragging about my system, but it couldn’t possibly produce the dynamics of real drums, and I’m perfectly fine with that, I personally don’t want that). (there any number of other instruments that could be substituted) You had answered that you consider your system to have good sound quality, but that doesn’t describe what you mean by good sound quality, nor does it answer the question as to why the other qualities I mentioned do not count as other aspects of sound quality.

Some people try to put together systems, which might be much larger than yours or mine, that come closer to producing the lifelike dynamics they want to reproduced from all sorts of instruments. I get that: when I first heard the huge Genesis 1.2 reference speakers in the 90s I was blown away to hear for the first time something that approached the scale and dynamics of listening to a real symphony. Not all the way, but certainly closer than any other loudspeakers I could ever have fit in my listening room. And I totally got why somebody would appreciate the aspect of scale and dynamics that can get a bit closer to the real thing.

So I was baffled as to why you reacted so strongly to the suggestion someone else might be looking for Sonic characteristics that you aren’t looking for, and why any of the sonic characteristics that you aren’t seeking are somehow unreasonable and not worth seeking for anybody else and have nothing to do with good sound quality.

That said I have decided to approach ASR in a new way.

Nice to see you back! I often very much enjoy your posts!!! I noticed that we’ve agreed on quite a few things before, and I appreciate the views you bring to the forum.

(I’m not being passive aggressive I mean it).

 

[pablolie]

..

Nice to see you back! I often very much enjoy your posts!!! I noticed that we’ve agreed on quite a few things before, and I appreciate the views you bring to the forum.

(I’m not being passive aggressive I mean it).

Same here. I fact our exchange was what me think why I bother to get triggered by any exchange here. We share a desire for good audio collectively that preciously few other people do. Storm in teapot crap at the end of the day.

Except forone person, I have unblocked everybody else (was just 3 anyhow) and shall never get into debates that go "there" ever again. Will just bow down with humor.

 

[Newman]

I think for a lot of people it's simply the practicality and expense that holds them back. My guess is there are many audiophiles out there who acknowledge the clear superiority of multi channel playback, but can't implement it due to space limitations, budget limitations,

I'm on your side with the general gist of your post, but I think you give too much credence to the excuses. You are talking about audiophiles...

Expense. Even low-budget audiophiles don't usually buy the cheapest amps, speakers, and players on the market. I bet you half a brisket that an excellent AVR is available for two thirds of what these hesitaters paid for their stereo amp, and for half to one third of what they are seriously thinking of spending on their next upgrade stereo amp. And speakers: someone has to tell them, if they will listen to anyone who doesn't have Hifi Guru printed on their baseball cap, that they don't have to buy three or five more of the two expensive speakers that they currently own. Good bookshelf speakers, chosen to blend well with their current stereo speakers, are definitely there to be had at every budget level.

So, if these guys, as you say, "acknowledge the clear superiority of MCH", I almost guarantee that they could sell off their stereo gear (which is often on the list of wannabe audiophiles and would sell quite well), then think of the budget they would have put into their next stereo system, and for the same or even less money get a very nice MCH system. The expense is effectively zero as an exchange, and can be quite small as an add-on.

Impracticality aka space. No doubt, there are some audiophiles whose better half won't give them an inch and won't miss an opportunity to complain about even the modest space demands and undecorative effect of the current hifi. Somehow a giant black rectangle on the living room wall is no problem, but a hifi with about a quarter of the TVs visual area is a big drama every day of the week, and upping their visual area to half the TV is the end of the world. These audiophiles have got bigger problems than surround sound and had better forget about it and try to survive. BUT. For the majority of audiophiles complaining that impracticality is the issue, it actually is surmountable, negotiable, and worth doing. Cables can be hidden. Speakers can go in-wall or on-wall and not take up any floor space, and be a blended colour if necessary. If the listening couch is hard against the back wall, then that's not right for stereo either, and since audio compromise is a normal part of this household, then the surround speakers can go on the side walls each side of the couch, or even in or on the ceiling. Yes it's not perfect, but neither is that couch on the wall for 2-channel, and ceiling-mounted surround speakers will still provide some positives after stereo. It doesn't have to be 11+ channels: just the 5 yields a big benefit.

So, in the end, I think it is their anti-MCH bias that is, perhaps even unconsciously in some cases, the spur that leads to their forming a false impression of the impracticality and expense of MCH. And that bias means they are not upset about it: they are relieved about it.

cheers

 

[Chubbs McCallister]

No doubt, there are some audiophiles whose better half won't give them an inch

They better be pretty hot if you're gonna have to live without fulfilling your dream of amazing sound in your home.

 

[MattHooper]

They better be pretty hot if you're gonna have to live without fulfilling your dream of amazing sound in your home.

Screen name checks out ;/)

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Wonderful. You can keep your ski slopes. These are the slopes for me.

Yeah, and that null is seriously impressive!

 

[dfuller]

I'm on your side with the general gist of your post, but I think you give too much credence to the excuses. You are talking about audiophiles...

Expense. Even low-budget audiophiles don't usually buy the cheapest amps, speakers, and players on the market. I bet you half a brisket that an excellent AVR is available for two thirds of what these hesitaters paid for their stereo amp, and for half to one third of what they are seriously thinking of spending on their next upgrade stereo amp. And speakers: someone has to tell them, if they will listen to anyone who doesn't have Hifi Guru printed on their baseball cap, that they don't have to buy three or five more of the two expensive speakers that they currently own. Good bookshelf speakers, chosen to blend well with their current stereo speakers, are definitely there to be had at every budget level.

So, if these guys, as you say, "acknowledge the clear superiority of MCH", I almost guarantee that they could sell off their stereo gear (which is often on the list of wannabe audiophiles and would sell quite well), then think of the budget they would have put into their next stereo system, and for the same or even less money get a very nice MCH system. The expense is effectively zero as an exchange, and can be quite small as an add-on.

Impracticality aka space. No doubt, there are some audiophiles whose better half won't give them an inch and won't miss an opportunity to complain about even the modest space demands and undecorative effect of the current hifi. Somehow a giant black rectangle on the living room wall is no problem, but a hifi with about a quarter of the TVs visual area is a big drama every day of the week, and upping their visual area to half the TV is the end of the world. These audiophiles have got bigger problems than surround sound and had better forget about it and try to survive. BUT. For the majority of audiophiles complaining that impracticality is the issue, it actually is surmountable, negotiable, and worth doing. Cables can be hidden. Speakers can go in-wall or on-wall and not take up any floor space, and be a blended colour if necessary. If the listening couch is hard against the back wall, then that's not right for stereo either, and since audio compromise is a normal part of this household, then the surround speakers can go on the side walls each side of the couch, or even in or on the ceiling. Yes it's not perfect, but neither is that couch on the wall for 2-channel, and ceiling-mounted surround speakers will still provide some positives after stereo. It doesn't have to be 11+ channels: just the 5 yields a big benefit.

So, in the end, I think it is their anti-MCH bias that is, perhaps even unconsciously in some cases, the spur that leads to their forming a false impression of the impracticality and expense of MCH. And that bias means they are not upset about it: they are relieved about it.

cheers

Eh, multichannel definitely does have some practicality issues on top of that. Running cables around a living room is less than ideal, though this is getting easier as wireless lossless streaming becomes more of a thing (though then you still need power cables, but that's less likely to be a problem IME).

 

[MattHooper]

A reminder that, while obviously not a majority, there are still quite a number of audiophiles (depending I guess on how strictly is above the term) who actually have surround systems.

There’s quite a bit of overlap preferences over on the AVSForum (I was an active AVS member for decades since I’ve been a Home Theatre fanatic since as long as I can remember).

Over on the AVSForum you’ll see plenty of audiophiles/Home Theatre fans, who have put quite a bit of thought care and sometimes money into their systems. And they listen to plenty of music. Some of them still prefer stereo stereo tracks, some of them listen more often in surround. And I’m far from the only one who has both a good surround set up and a separate two channel system.

When I hook up my two channel floorstanding speakers to use them for surround music (which I occasionally do) my surround speakers (sides and rear) blend beautifully with those loudspeakers. It’s really a wonderful sound.

Is it “Better” than when I’m running my two channel speakers alone off my tube amplifiers in stereo? Even playing vinyl? Nope. Still ultimately prefer the two channel system.
The surround system is wonderful and glorious, it does some things my two channel system can’t do. But ultimately, I find it more on the scale of “ different and a nice change” rather than “ obviously better and preferable.”

And I would be careful to downplay at all the added hassle for surroundsound. As has been acknowledged, trying to fit in surround speakers on stands can be quite a challenge for various reasons. And if you’re going to place surround speakers on walls or ceilings and hide cables, that usually means running cables through walls, which is a whole different ball game than what you normally do for just two channel. My surround speakers are on the walls. And all my 7.0 speaker cabling is running through walls to the nightmarishly squished inputs on my AV receiver. My blood runs cold at the thought of having to revisit that whole process.

(It’s one reason why I haven’t updated to Dolby Atmos, after all these years).

Get a pair of decent two channels speakers, set them up in your standard listener triangle, and you can usually experience a wonderful coherent soundstage, and precise coherent images, layered and placed precisely in space.

It’s just not so easy to do that once you start introducing more speakers especially a centre channel, in terms of placement and timber matching and getting that centre channel to 100% cohere. It’s not for nothing that centre channels have been one of the bugaboos for surroundsound, and how many of them do not cohere well with the left and right channel. Of course it can be done. But you don’t have to be a Luddite to just make the calculation that you can realize much of what you may want more easily with just two channels.

I don’t have “ anti-surround bias” since I went to great lengths and expense setting up my own surround system, which thrills me. But having had experience setting up both types of systems, and also still operating both types of systems to compare, I feel no need to bemoan those who stick with two channel. I get it.

 

[Newman]

Eh, multichannel definitely does have some practicality issues on top of that. Running cables around a living room is less than ideal, though this is getting easier as wireless lossless streaming becomes more of a thing (though then you still need power cables, but that's less likely to be a problem IME).

I did mention cables: "cables can be hidden". That includes hiding them in the GHz band. But also hollow skirting boards, under wooden floors, hollow wall cavities, roof cavities, ribbon cables under carpets...we are talking about as little as two cables.

 

[StevenSGT98]

Just some thoughts:

Throughout the history of multichannel (greater than stereo) it’s always been a race to the bottom. Quadrophonic with all the glorious receivers and shibata styluses and then chasing after the recordings (which were limited and more expensive). Then all the encoding techniques to get Spatial Audio from 2 channel, most requiring decoders, again a cost, only to fade. Then sacd, dvd-a, etc. all the new multichannel amps and receivers. More decoding schemes - Dolby Surround, DTS, etc. First it 5.1, then that’s not enough, it has to be 7.1. Still not enough - Atmos. And the added expense - again chasing limited recordings at a premium (usually). Often copyright and the difficulty and cost of obtaining the same music you already own = why? When good ole stereo has been good enough for a century almost? Stereo hasn’t stood still either.

Stereo - ubiquitous.
Multichannel - often a money pit.

Maybe wider availability of Atmos will open things up. It the industry trying to make us but the same thing over and over again is getting old, and at a premium always. We just want to enjoy the music, not a fad.

It’s the path of least resistance. It’s established. It’s darn good.

Thoughts?

Steven