Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Newman]

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.

I addressed this, don't pretend I didn't. MCH doesn't just offer soundstage differences, that I agree need you to be somewhere in a broad sweet zone. It also offers immersiveness that stereo doesn't, and delivers more envelopment anywhere you go.

You guys can scream to high heavens about how listeners are wrong about multi-channel audio.

I never said that! I don't think listeners are wrong, I think you are wrong.

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.

You opened your argument with, "there are two issues that will keep multichannel music playback to a niche forever." I assume you mean a niche compared to stereo. After all, we all know that 90+% of the vast population who love listening to music have zero interest whatsoever in the actual quality of the sound. They will use the earbuds that came with their phone, happily and forever, and are unconcerned even if the audio in them is mono. Why should MCH have to win them over? Stereo didn't! They couldn't care less about stereo.

So please, let's keep the discussion to people who care a bit about sound quality.

For such people, the first issue you raised only applies more to stereo than to MCH, and for the second issue you over-focused on weird and dizzying placement of instruments in some MCH, and overlooked the superior sonic envelopment aspects that psychoacoustics says are universally appreciated. Even earbuds can deliver that.

MCH doesn't need to sell itself to the 90+% that stereo couldn't capture either. It just needs a big enough market to be viable (it has), and to offer them something real (it does). The fact that it even offers something, to those who care, via earbuds, soundbars and bluetooth speakers almost makes it a slam dunk.

 

[Jack B]

I addressed this, don't pretend I didn't. MCH doesn't just offer soundstage differences, that I agree need you to be somewhere in a broad sweet zone. It also offers immersiveness that stereo doesn't, and delivers more envelopment anywhere you go.


I never said that! I don't think listeners are wrong, I think you are wrong.


You opened your argument with, "there are two issues that will keep multichannel music playback to a niche forever." I assume you mean a niche compared to stereo. After all, we all know that 90+% of the vast population who love listening to music have zero interest whatsoever in the actual quality of the sound. They will use the earbuds that came with their phone, happily and forever, and are unconcerned even if the audio in them is mono. Why should MCH have to win them over? Stereo didn't! They couldn't care less about stereo.

So please, let's keep the discussion to people who care a bit about sound quality.

For such people, the first issue you raised only applies more to stereo than to MCH, and for the second issue you over-focused on weird and dizzying placement of instruments in some MCH, and overlooked the superior sonic envelopment aspects that psychoacoustics says are universally appreciated. Even earbuds can deliver that.

MCH doesn't need to sell itself to the 90+% that stereo couldn't capture either. It just needs a big enough market to be viable (it has), and to offer them something real (it does). The fact that it even offers something, to those who care, via earbuds, soundbars and bluetooth speakers almost makes it a slam dunk.

"Batches? We don't need no stinkin' batches!

 

[MattHooper]

@Newman

Still curious…

Kal and others here, including myself, have described our surround/multi set-ups.

It’s always fun to hear about other enthusiast’s set ups. And you’ve been very enthusiastic about multichannel.

Could you describe your own multichannel set up? Is it in a dedicated room? Did you bother hiding cables yourself or was that not a problem for you? Did you have any issues integrating it into your home?

Thanks.

 

[Jack B]

Beginning a few years ago, first time with a dedicated (but small) room for audio/HT. AVR used as front end, front floor-standing pair & center channel driven by fairly powerful outboard amp; four shelf or stand-mounted surrounds, and four overhead SVS Elevation speakers, all driven by a separate outboard amplifier. A few absorbent panels: Back wall, behind ft. L & R on front wall, & front ceiling. All wiring to subs & surrounds run thru side/ceiling-mounted raceways.

 

[Galliardist]

I addressed this, don't pretend I didn't. MCH doesn't just offer soundstage differences, that I agree need you to be somewhere in a broad sweet zone. It also offers immersiveness that stereo doesn't, and delivers more envelopment anywhere you go.


I never said that! I don't think listeners are wrong, I think you are wrong.


You opened your argument with, "there are two issues that will keep multichannel music playback to a niche forever." I assume you mean a niche compared to stereo. After all, we all know that 90+% of the vast population who love listening to music have zero interest whatsoever in the actual quality of the sound. They will use the earbuds that came with their phone, happily and forever, and are unconcerned even if the audio in them is mono. Why should MCH have to win them over? Stereo didn't! They couldn't care less about stereo.

So please, let's keep the discussion to people who care a bit about sound quality.

For such people, the first issue you raised only applies more to stereo than to MCH, and for the second issue you over-focused on weird and dizzying placement of instruments in some MCH, and overlooked the superior sonic envelopment aspects that psychoacoustics says are universally appreciated. Even earbuds can deliver that.

MCH doesn't need to sell itself to the 90+% that stereo couldn't capture either. It just needs a big enough market to be viable (it has), and to offer them something real (it does). The fact that it even offers something, to those who care, via earbuds, soundbars and bluetooth speakers almost makes it a slam dunk.

Don't forget augmented reality. For apartment dwellers in particular, that will be the way of the future and surround of some sort is going to be driving that. And the research in that area will feed down into headphones and earbuds.

 

[StevenSGT98]

@Newman

Still curious…

Kal and others here, including myself, have described our surround/multi set-ups.

It’s always fun to hear about other enthusiast’s set ups. And you’ve been very enthusiastic about multichannel.

Could you describe your own multichannel set up? Is it in a dedicated room? Did you bother hiding cables yourself or was that not a problem for you? Did you have any issues integrating it into your home?

Thanks.

I’ll bite. Not too deep. There are 3 areas that are multichannel and one that is strictly stereo. Of the 3 multichannel areas, one is a 5.1 soundbar solution pretty much dedicated to video. It’s ok but not what I’d call serious. Good for the effect.

The other 2 areas are a bit more serious. One is in the main living room. It’s is 5.1 on a Yamaha AV. 4 bookshelf and a small center channel and a small sub. Sounds decent. Much better than the sound bar. I run 2 separate Deftech BP-10 on a zone 2 for separate 2 channel stereo in the same room. I stream a Wiim Pro+.

Why the separate speakers? Im able to place them more optimally for the room modes and distance for better sound and listening position. The multichannel setup it cocked to center itself to the tv, which is in a corner. It fits there. Fine for when we are turned toward it, but very uncomfortable for just relaxing and listening to music as a pastime. The way it’s set up is fine for what it is.

The other multichannel is in the basement. It is built around an old large Denon 3803 that weights a ton. It drives 2 Deftech BP-20 a small center channel and 2 small surrounds. There is a Crown driving 2 SVS tubes because room modes are nasty down there. I added an additional sub destructive wave about a third of the way back in the room to smooth out around 50 hz. It is drivin by, among other things a Wiim Pro+. Room curve isn’t perfect but it isn’t too bad. I will occasionally do multichannel on this system as there is a tv there, but it’s mostly for stereo use.

Now, my other system is stereo. I’m driving Von Schweikert VR4jr with a Denon 1907 bi amped to get more headroom into them. Feeding it among other things is a Wiim Ultra. It is nice. It also has a SVS sub to finish out the lower octave conservatively. Its room curve looks nice. It’s actually a pretty sweet sounding setup.

So I have some ability to do multichannel, mainly for video, to do audio justice requires more stuff to do it right. For the intended uses of each system, I’m happy with how they sound.

Steven

 

[StevenSGT98]

I’ll bite. Not too deep. There are 3 areas that are multichannel and one that is strictly stereo. Of the 3 multichannel areas, one is a 5.1 soundbar solution pretty much dedicated to video. It’s ok but not what I’d call serious. Good for the effect.

The other 2 areas are a bit more serious. One is in the main living room. It’s is 5.1 on a Yamaha AV. 4 bookshelf and a small center channel and a small sub. Sounds decent. Much better than the sound bar. I run 2 separate Deftech BP-10 on a zone 2 for separate 2 channel stereo in the same room. I stream a Wiim Pro+.

Why the separate speakers? Im able to place them more optimally for the room modes and distance for better sound and listening position. The multichannel setup it cocked to center itself to the tv, which is in a corner. It fits there. Fine for when we are turned toward it, but very uncomfortable for just relaxing and listening to music as a pastime. The way it’s set up is fine for what it is.

The other multichannel is in the basement. It is built around an old large Denon 3803 that weights a ton. It drives 2 Deftech BP-20 a small center channel and 2 small surrounds. There is a Crown driving 2 SVS tubes because room modes are nasty down there. I added an additional sub destructive wave about a third of the way back in the room to smooth out around 50 hz. It is drivin by, among other things a Wiim Pro+. Room curve isn’t perfect but it isn’t too bad. I will occasionally do multichannel on this system as there is a tv there, but it’s mostly for stereo use.

Now, my other system is stereo. I’m driving Von Schweikert VR4jr with a Denon 1907 bi amped to get more headroom into them. Feeding it among other things is a Wiim Ultra. It is nice. It also has a SVS sub to finish out the lower octave conservatively. Its room curve looks nice. It’s actually a pretty sweet sounding setup.

So I have some ability to do multichannel, mainly for video, to do audio justice requires more stuff to do it right. For the intended uses of each system, I’m happy with how they sound.

Steven

I didn’t mean to silence the room lol.

 

[DSJR]

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

I have to make a quick comment that it appears many so-called 'audiophiles' don't have a clue how to set their expensive gear up for best sound quality. Forget more than a pair of speakers here, as they'd be totally lost as they have no clue on a pair, let alone several plus sub(s). I find it very sad myself and the modern trends for living/listening rooms with little more than a bathroom acoustic, smearing everything up. People away from sites like this and dependant on a typical hungry dealer, just expect to plonk the gear down and expect it to work straight off and then spend thousands on 'upgrades' when the fundamentals are so wrong and the sound is sh*t..

Apologies, I just wanted to get that off my chest

 

[MattHooper]

I didn’t mean to silence the room lol.

Sorry, thanks for the description of your surround system!

And to @Jack B

I was going to respond describing my own multichannel system, but was considering maybe it’s better for a different thread.

I was asking Newman as he has argued so vociferously in this and many other threads that people should be running multi systems, if he would actually volunteer some information about his own choice. Not sure why he is being so reticent.

In any case, it looks like there hasn’t been a
“ tell us about your multichannel system” thread, so perhaps I will start one.

Cheers.

 

[SuicideSquid]

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!

I think that's going a bit far. My point was that people who care about multichannel music are a tiny subset of an already niche group. There are a decent number of people who care about good sound quality and will sit and listen to an album all the way through, but most of those people are content with stereo/headphone listening, for the various other reasons noted above (they find surround gimmicky or distracting, they don't have the space or can't afford a good multichannel setup, etc). You have to check a lot of specific boxes to be into multichannel audio, which is why it is and will always remain a niche of a niche.

 

[StevenSGT98]

Sorry, thanks for the description of your surround system!

And to @Jack B

I was going to respond describing my own multichannel system, but was considering maybe it’s better for a different thread.

I was asking Newman as he has argued so vociferously in this and many other threads that people should be running multi systems, if he would actually volunteer some information about his own choice. Not sure why he is being so reticent.

In any case, it looks like there hasn’t been a
“ tell us about your multichannel system” thread, so perhaps I will start one.

Cheers.

Just thinking about room treatments and how that seems to make more of a difference to spatial imaging than anything. If the room is too live, all the spatial ques get lost in reflection. Too quiet and the same. Either way, room modes need to be addressed. The big ones are never solved, they are more worked around it seems. Two of my spaces were addressed by careful placement of the speakers to fit close to modal peaks. One of the spaces worked great for the majority of the spectrum, meaning from about 200-400 on up. The lower end was a mess. Added a sub. I was prepared to add a second, but one did the trick. The reason was not so much amplitude, but modal placement and careful attenuation and keeping the crossover low enough to support the room. I started bringing in rock wool panels, but the room became too dead and I lost spatial ques. So, literally by moving the speakers a few inches either way and slight cabinet tilting - along with pink noise and a fft meter I was able to smooth out the midrange and develop a nice sweet spot. I did add a nice wool rug to address first reflection, which was essential. But the overall effect was a really nice sweet spot - as well as - very good spatial sound throughout the listening area - not just in the sweet spot.

Are there modes? Sure. What space doesn’t have modes? And that’s exactly it. If you work with them they can be useful. It’s not always brute force, but that is a tool - if needed.

As a contrast the basement needed several rock wool panels and honestly still needs more. It sounds ok for now.

Always projects

 

[MattHooper]

Just thinking about room treatments and how that seems to make more of a difference to spatial imaging than anything. If the room is too live, all the spatial ques get lost in reflection. Too quiet and the same. Either way, room modes need to be addressed. The big ones are never solved, they are more worked around it seems. Two of my spaces were addressed by careful placement of the speakers to fit close to modal peaks. One of the spaces worked great for the majority of the spectrum, meaning from about 200-400 on up. The lower end was a mess. Added a sub. I was prepared to add a second, but one did the trick. The reason was not so much amplitude, but modal placement and careful attenuation and keeping the crossover low enough to support the room. I started bringing in rock wool panels, but the room became too dead and I lost spatial ques. So, literally by moving the speakers a few inches either way and slight cabinet tilting - along with pink noise and a fft meter I was able to smooth out the midrange and develop a nice sweet spot. I did add a nice wool rug to address first reflection, which was essential. But the overall effect was a really nice sweet spot - as well as - very good spatial sound throughout the listening area - not just in the sweet spot.

Are there modes? Sure. What space doesn’t have modes? And that’s exactly it. If you work with them they can be useful. It’s not always brute force, but that is a tool - if needed.

As a contrast the basement needed several rock wool panels and honestly still needs more. It sounds ok for now.

Always projects

Cool.

When I added subwoofers, I evened out the response, but I also heard a tonal/timbral change in my speakers. I’m very sensitive to that and very carefully choose my speakers for their tone, so when I heard that changing and found myself less pleased with the tone, I didn’t find the evening out of the bass made up for that (and it’s not like I was totally bothered by bass nodes to begin with).
I think other people would’ve heard it and would’ve been more focussed on the more linear bass response, they might’ve liked the change more. Didn’t work out for me.

 

[Purité Audio]

Sounds like the sub wasn’t properly integrated, I have never been aware of a subwoofer changing the tone of the loudspeakers.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

Sounds like the sub wasn’t properly integrated, I have never been aware of a subwoofer changing the tone of the loudspeakers.
Keith

Like I said..

 

[Fidji]

.

In any case, it looks like there hasn’t been a
“ tell us about your multichannel system” thread, so perhaps I will start one.

Cheers.

please do so, or ask admin to rename this thread to “worst measuring loudspeakers and non correlated off-topic about multichannel”

 

[Newman]

Yes, let's make this the first thread ever to be retitled just because there was an extended off-topic diversion happening...

 

[MattHooper]

Or maybe the re-labelling comment wasn’t meant to be taken seriously?

 

[NTK]

Sounds like the sub wasn’t properly integrated, I have never been aware of a subwoofer changing the tone of the loudspeakers.
Keith

Do this count?

...
Once resonances have been tamed, the next level of interest is broadband spectral balance. Here it is clear that bass level is very influential (partly because of the closer spacing of the equal loudness contours). Because of upward masking, bass level affects what is heard for octaves above the bass region. Many listeners over the years would complain about too much treble when the real problem was not enough bass (or the reverse) - it is a balancing act. This is why I keep on harping about the need for old fashioned tone controls. "Room EQ" can do it if one restricts it's capabilities, but once set it is permanent, unable to address changes in program, playback level or personal taste. Beyond a certain point one needs to get a speaker into the listening room, and listen to what one has. What the spinorama, double-blind listening and Olive's model have done is make it possible for manufacturers to consistently make fundamentally neutral sounding products, which are then amenable to spectral balance adjustments. That this is now possible at eminently affordable prices is the worthy reward. Most guesswork has been eliminated.
...

 

[MattHooper]

Do this count?

Indeed. I thought that was pretty obvious to most people.

As I said, some people may care less about this or be less sensitive to the change because it’s not something they’re focussed on as much or they’re more focussed on other things they like about the additional bass.

 

[Newman]

Do this count?

It sure does, thanks. I have been observing and sharing my impressions (sighted) how adding a sub, competently, seems to affect (usually improve) how the treble balance of a speaker is perceived. Especially where the speakers have measurements that suggest no problems in the treble.

Toole's similar observation is a nice confirmation, since his is probably based on some controlled listening experiences.

cheers

PS the post below this mischievously twists and misrepresents what I wrote here, in a manner that I can only describe as typical. I have always acknowledged Toole's advocacy of tone controls, for dealing with bass level and for dealing with poor mastering. When he says to use them for personal taste, he primarily means these two areas. In the quote that NTK pasted above, Toole opens his paragraph with the clarification that bass level is the main influence. My acknowledgement (in my original text in this post) is exactly consistent with all my prior opinions.