Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Mart68]

I started with Dolby Surround in about '98. Went up to Dolby Digital 5.1 then scrapped it all.

A pal has 7.2 system custom install and I've listened to multi-channel recordings there, doesn't grab me.

But I don't listen to Classical at all and I can see how it is better for that sort of music. Plus I am happy to admit that I'm stuck in my ways.

 

[MattHooper]

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.

I don’t like seeing any cables even in my two channel system.

Fortunately, my Austin Powers approach to decor helps with that. Even the speaker cables to my Joseph speakers are hidden in the high shag rug. (which also means people don’t trip over them.)

Probably pretty triggering for the cable riser crowd…

 

[MattHooper]

As to poor speaker measurements, I can’t remember if this one made an appearance yet.

Vocative speakers Reviewed by Stereophile.Sort of lowther-based design:

Egads, look at the amount of hash in this waterfall plot:

 

[SuicideSquid]

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

I think there are two issues that will keep multichannel music playback to a niche forever. The first is that most people do not want to remain stationary in a "sweet spot" while listening to music. They want to put an album on and go wash the dishes, or listen in place for a bit and then get up and do something. The percentage of listeners who will just sit down and listen closely for a full album like they were watching a movie is very, very small.

The second issue is that even for people who do like to give music a close listen, multichannel can feel like a gimmick. It's not representative of how one would ever listen to music in a live setting, where you're almost always seated or standing in a venue with the artist, band, or orchestra in front of you. It can feel weird and unnatural to hear voices or instruments coming from all around you.

I do think Atmos might make more inroads here than Quadrophonic or 5.1 surround has in the past, though, because on the back end, you just mix for Atmos, you don't have to specifically mix for 4 or 5 or 7 or 9 channels. And Atmos height channels can do a very good job not playing back instruments, but producing reverb and other room cues that can make a recording sound like you're listening in a large concert hall rather than a living room, which is a trick that feels a lot more natural and compelling than putting a guitar over your heard might.

 

[MattHooper]

The first is that most people do not want to remain stationary in a "sweet spot" while listening to music.

Yes, that’s pretty huge in terms of widespread consumer adoption. It seems to be why Atmos is starting to focus on mixes for ear bud/IEMs.

The second issue is that even for people who do like to give music a close listen, multichannel can feel like a gimmick. It's not representative of how one would ever listen to music in a live setting, where you're almost always seated or standing in a venue with the artist, band, or orchestra in front of you. It can feel weird and unnatural to hear voices or instruments coming from all around you.

Yes, and then that way it faces a sort of conundrum that faced 3D in movies.

If you make the 3-D effect obvious, getting it to do with you can’t possibly get with 2-D such as having objects come out of the screen at you, then people start to complain it feels too much like a distracting gimmick.

Make the 3-D effect too subtle, and it fades into the background and people begin to wonder “ what’s the point? I don’t seem particularly aware of the difference between 3-D and 2-D to the point it seems to make it worth a difference.”


The conundrum could be facing surround sound.

Use the surround channels to surround you with instruments in a way that you’d never get in real life or from stereo? That certainly separates the surround experience from stereo. But that’s also we can feel gimmicky about surround to many people.

Use it more subtly - for instance keep the band in front of you like stereo does, and just send some ambiance or reverb to the surrounds? Then the difference from stereo can feel to subtle to bother with. “ oh so there’s a bit more ambience in the surround speakers and that’s it? That’s really what all the fuss is about?”

I sort of run up to this when I play with surround modes, which extract ambiance to the surrounds. Too much and it calls attention to itself in an artificial way. Dial it down until it’s more subtle, and it blends better with the content happening in front of me, but also makes the difference between just plain stereo all the more subtle, and can raise questions “ would going to all the expensive hassle of extra speakers just to get a bit more and be around me be worth it?”

To me it is, because I enjoy surround for home theatre, in which all sorts of effects can happen around me. And as I said, I can also enjoy instruments sent to surrounds with some music, especially electronica.
But I can totally see how this balance of issues can affect somebody else to decide surround-sound isn’t their cup of tea.

 

[Mnyb]

As to poor speaker measurements, I can’t remember if this one made an appearance yet.

Vocative speakers Reviewed by Stereophile.Sort of lowther-based design:

View attachment 426478

View attachment 426473

View attachment 426474

View attachment 426475

View attachment 426476

Egads, look at the amount of hash in this waterfall plot:

View attachment 426477

Wow .
Nice that mfg of single driver speakers showcase why we need multiway speakers they provide this prototype as a stark warning to others .
Is it the wonder of whizzer coned drivers that get you this kind of response

 

[Jack B]

Yes, that’s pretty huge in terms of widespread consumer adoption. It seems to be why Atmos is starting to focus on mixes for ear bud/IEMs.



Yes, and then that way it faces a sort of conundrum that faced 3D in movies.

If you make the 3-D effect obvious, getting it to do with you can’t possibly get with 2-D such as having objects come out of the screen at you, then people start to complain it feels too much like a distracting gimmick.

Make the 3-D effect too subtle, and it fades into the background and people begin to wonder “ what’s the point? I don’t seem particularly aware of the difference between 3-D and 2-D to the point it seems to make it worth a difference.”


The conundrum could be facing surround sound.

Use the surround channels to surround you with instruments in a way that you’d never get in real life or from stereo? That certainly separates the surround experience from stereo. But that’s also we can feel gimmicky about surround to many people.

Use it more subtly - for instance keep the band in front of you like stereo does, and just send some ambiance or reverb to the surrounds? Then the difference from stereo can feel to subtle to bother with. “ oh so there’s a bit more ambience in the surround speakers and that’s it? That’s really what all the fuss is about?”

I sort of run up to this when I play with surround modes, which extract ambiance to the surrounds. Too much and it calls attention to itself in an artificial way. Dial it down until it’s more subtle, and it blends better with the content happening in front of me, but also makes the difference between just plain stereo all the more subtle, and can raise questions “ would going to all the expensive hassle of extra speakers just to get a bit more and be around me be worth it?”

To me it is, because I enjoy surround for home theatre, in which all sorts of effects can happen around me. And as I said, I can also enjoy instruments sent to surrounds with some music, especially electronica.
But I can totally see how this balance of issues can affect somebody else to decide surround-sound isn’t their cup of tea.

I am old enough to remember when stereo was new. Record companies like Command Records put out albums with intentional ping-pong sound, beating us over the head with it, so we'd be sure to take notice of the effect. Realism was not a consideration, at least not for a while.

In my humble opinion (yes, but I have so much to be humble about!), multichannel is still going through the same growing pains, at least in some places. A good orchestral recording, with the players in front of me, and some hall reflections coming from the surrounds, can deliver a good facsimile of being there. Most of us don't want to be in the middle of the orchestra. For pop music, anything goes...and some of it can sound "real" too. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Newman]

I think there are two issues that will keep multichannel music playback to a niche forever. The first is that most people do not want to remain stationary in a "sweet spot" while listening to music.

THAT is the #1 issue that will kill MCH and doesn't apply to stereo??

...The second issue is that even for people who do like to give music a close listen, multichannel can feel like a gimmick. It's not representative of how one would ever listen to music in a live setting, where you're almost always seated or standing in a venue with the artist, band, or orchestra in front of you. It can feel weird and unnatural to hear voices or instruments coming from all around you.

That is absolutely not how it needs to be.

Are you speaking as someone who has only experienced MCH in the form of demonstration tracks, or friends trying to impress you?

cheers

 

[goat76]

For a long time, people didn't even seem to understand what stereo was, they just thought it was very practical to have two speakers they could place a bit randomly to spread out the sound a little better in the room. They know better now, so they just buy a small mono Bluetooth speaker they can easily move around as they like in the room.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The first is that most people do not want to remain stationary in a "sweet spot" while listening to music. They want to put an album on and go wash the dishes, or listen in place for a bit and then get up and do something. The percentage of listeners who will just sit down and listen closely for a full album like they were watching a movie is very, very small.

This is simply not an issue. With a good MCH setup, the "sweet spot" is much larger than with a 2 channel system.

The second issue is that even for people who do like to give music a close listen, multichannel can feel like a gimmick. It's not representative of how one would ever listen to music in a live setting, where you're almost always seated or standing in a venue with the artist, band, or orchestra in front of you. It can feel weird and unnatural to hear voices or instruments coming from all around you.

Well recorded and well reproduced multichannel is superior in recreating the traditional "live setting, where you're almost always seated or standing in a venue with the artist, band, or orchestra in front of you." It can do so because it (to a great degree) replaces the constant imprint of your room's signature on all recordings with that of the space in which each individual performance occurred.

Use the surround channels to surround you with instruments in a way that you’d never get in real life or from stereo? That certainly separates the surround experience from stereo. But that’s also we can feel gimmicky about surround to many people. Use it more subtly - for instance keep the band in front of you like stereo does, and just send some ambiance or reverb to the surrounds? Then the difference from stereo can feel to subtle to bother with. “ oh so there’s a bit more ambience in the surround speakers and that’s it? That’s really what all the fuss is about?”

Yup. It is, ultimately, a personal judgement of what pleases you

But I can totally see how this balance of issues can affect somebody else to decide surround-sound isn’t their cup of tea.

Of course. Or the other way.

 

[SuicideSquid]

THAT is the #1 issue that will kill MCH and doesn't apply to stereo??

That is absolutely not how it needs to be.

Are you speaking as someone who has only experienced MCH in the form of demonstration tracks, or friends trying to impress you?

cheers

I'm speaking as someone who has an excellent surround sound system with Atmos channels and a collection of around 100 studio albums on DVD Audio, SACD, and bluray mixed for surround.

 

[SuicideSquid]

This is simply not an issue. With a good MCH setup, the "sweet spot" is much larger than with a 2 channel system.

I think you missed my point. The issue isn't that you can sit anywhere on your couch and still get a good experience. The issue is that you have to sit on your couch for the duration of the album to get the experience. People 'round these parts may listen that way, but they're a tiny minority among music listeners. Most people put the stereo on and then go sit at the kitchen table to work on a puzzle, or wash the dishes, or clean up, or do some other activity that involves them not sitting in front of their sound system for most of the runtime of an album. For those people, who again, are the vast majority, surround mixes add nothing.

 

[MattHooper]

Are you speaking as someone who has only experienced MCH in the form of demonstration tracks, or friends trying to impress you?

Since you are such a strong advocate, I’m curious about your experience of surround sound.

I presume you listen in surround, so could you tell us about your set up?

(Newman might not answer me, but maybe somebody else could ask this question).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The issue is that you have to sit on your couch for the duration of the album to get the experience

Perhaps to get the optimum experience but I often sit in a chair/couch on a sidewall and that multichannel is still easily distinguishable from stereo anywhere in the room and, to a degree, even out of it. The latter was confirmed recently by a colleague.

 

[Anton S]

I think there are two issues that will keep multichannel music playback to a niche forever. The first is that most people do not want to remain stationary in a "sweet spot" while listening to music. They want to put an album on and go wash the dishes, or listen in place for a bit and then get up and do something. The percentage of listeners who will just sit down and listen closely for a full album like they were watching a movie is very, very small.
...

Toole writes, and I agree, that the listening area with multi-channel is enlarged compared to 2-channel. In my experience, it is greatly enlarged.

If there is an audience of multiple listeners located away from the symmetrical sweet spot, more channels and/or different kinds of loudspeakers will be necessary to generate similarly enveloping effects over the enlarged listening area. This is where the more elaborate immersive systems have advantages. In the demonstrations I have heard, it was impressive how stable the spatial illusions were as I moved around the listening room. More channels clearly are able to deliver a more natural sound field.

Toole, Floyd. Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (ISSN) (p. 419). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

From his post above, I would say that Kal agrees with me.

 

[Newman]

[to Kal] I think you missed my point. The issue isn't that you can sit anywhere on your couch and still get a good experience. The issue is that you have to sit on your couch for the duration of the album to get the experience. People 'round these parts may listen that way, but they're a tiny minority among music listeners.

I still don't think that you have identified a major differentiating issue. The sweet spot with stereo is only smaller. But you brought it up as a limitation on MCH's relative popularity.

Most people put the stereo on and then go sit at the kitchen table to work on a puzzle, or wash the dishes, or clean up, or do some other activity that involves them not sitting in front of their sound system for most of the runtime of an album.

And to be honest, most people don't put on the stereo at all, because these days most people don't have one: they put on the single bluetooth speaker for background. Or just pop in the earbuds: the vast majority don't seem to mind them at all.

For those people, who again, are the vast majority, surround mixes add nothing.

I gather that you brought these matters up because you see them as a limit to the appeal of MCH in a way that stereo isn't limited.

But it could be argued the exact opposite way. Stereo music systems in the home were ubiquitous in the 1960s, but today they are an absolute oddity. That's a big crash and there's no coming back: it's stereo hifi that is the niche format both today and going forward.

Although individual tablet-based video consumption with earbuds is starting to take over, today the ubiquitous in-room-sound device is the TV, not the stereo. And all those Netflix movies and TV shows are in surround sound, and so are a huge amount of the other channels. Furthermore, those TVs today support all the music apps, so when people want to consume music, they are just as likely to play it from the TV (especially if it has had its audio supplemented), or that aforementioned solo bluetooth speaker. If it's the former, the audio supplementation is almost certainly going to be multichannel, even if it's just a soundbar, or less often, MCH speakers. Either way it will support immersive audio, which will offer a much better, more enveloping audio experience, even to the person wandering around the room doing other tasks. Even if they choose the bluetooth speaker, some eg Apple's HomePod have immersive Spatial Audio and support Dolby Atmos. They are definitely going to offer a more immersive impression than stereo, even to your task-oriented listener on the move.

And if TVs give way to individual tablets and earbuds, spatial audio is still offering something perceptually more immersive than stereo over earbuds. Even without earbuds, laptops and some tablets are starting to support spatial audio over their inbuilt speakers.

In practically every typical situation, MCH audio seems to have something to offer, and is starting to become ubiquitous.

cheers

 

[SuicideSquid]

I'm not sure if you're all being wilfully obtuse or continuing to miss the point regarding stereo vs. multichannel. Most people don't care about listening to stereo audio in the "sweet spot" (or they listen on headphones where this is moot). It's not an integral part of the experience for the average listener. The entire point of listening in surround sound is lost if you're not sitting in optimal position. The fact that the optimal position is wider than for stereo is irrelevant.

You guys can scream to high heavens about how listeners are wrong about multi-channel audio. It's not going to change the fact that most people don't care, don't actively listen to music this way, or find it distracting, or some combination of the above.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm not sure if you're all being wilfully obtuse or continuing to miss the point regarding stereo vs. multichannel. Most people don't care about listening to stereo audio in the "sweet spot" (or they listen on headphones where this is moot). It's not an integral part of the experience for the average listener. The entire point of listening in surround sound is lost if you're not sitting in optimal position. The fact that the optimal position is wider than for stereo is irrelevant.

You guys can scream to high heavens about how listeners are wrong about multi-channel audio. It's not going to change the fact that most people don't care, don't actively listen to music this way, or find it distracting, or some combination of the above.

Yeah, most people don't care about sound at all. They are of no concern to us and vice versa.

 

[Jack B]

I'm not sure if you're all being wilfully obtuse or continuing to miss the point regarding stereo vs. multichannel. Most people don't care about listening to stereo audio in the "sweet spot" (or they listen on headphones where this is moot). It's not an integral part of the experience for the average listener. The entire point of listening in surround sound is lost if you're not sitting in optimal position. The fact that the optimal position is wider than for stereo is irrelevant.

You guys can scream to high heavens about how listeners are wrong about multi-channel audio. It's not going to change the fact that most people don't care, don't actively listen to music this way, or find it distracting, or some combination of the above.

I hate to say it, but your last paragraph is probably dead-on accurate. As a percentage of the audiovisual buying public, we'uns who care about, or even are mildly interested in audio quality, are a very tiny proportion...maybe a nit on the nut of a gnat. Humbling and frustrating. Like being a videophile and seeing people watching a movie on their phone. It ain't right!

 

[Fidji]

I'm not sure if you're all being wilfully obtuse or continuing to miss the point regarding stereo vs. multichannel. Most people don't care about listening to stereo audio in the "sweet spot" (or they listen on headphones where this is moot). It's not an integral part of the experience for the average listener. The entire point of listening in surround sound is lost if you're not sitting in optimal position. The fact that the optimal position is wider than for stereo is irrelevant.

You guys can scream to high heavens about how listeners are wrong about multi-channel audio. It's not going to change the fact that most people don't care, don't actively listen to music this way, or find it distracting, or some combination of the above.

Most of the people do not have access to the toilet.

Actually “most of the people” is quite stupid argument in most of the cases. Right question to ask is “are there ENOUGH people that care about stereo, mch, good measurimg speakers and DAC’s etc”. In case of MCH the answer is obviously yes. New music is coming in droves, new gear is still out there to cater for every budget.

I stopped caring about what most of the people think or do long time ago.