If you don't have a wide sweet spot, are you really an audiophile?
Hi, it’s me, professional audio troll. I’ve been thinking about something as my new home listening room comes together:
The glory of having a wide sweet spot.
We focus far too much on the dentist chair type of listener experience. A sound which is truly superb only in one location. Then we try to optimize everything exactly in that virtual shoebox we keep our heads in. How many of us look for and optimize our listening experience to have a wide sweet spot instead?
I am reminded of listening to the Magico S1 Mk II speakers. While not flawless one thing they do exceptionally well is, in a good room, provide a very good, stable stereo image across almost any reasonable listening location. Revel’s also do this. There’s no sudden feeling of the image clicking when you are exactly equidistant from the two speakers. The image is good and very stable. Even directly in front of one speaker you can still get a sense of what is in the center and opposite sides. You don’t really notice a loss of focus when off axis like you can in so many setups.
Compare and contrast this with the opposite extreme, Sanders' ESL’s, which are OK off axis but when you are sitting in the right spot you suddenly feel like you are wearing headphones. The situation is very binary. You are either in the sweet spot or you are not.
From now on I’m declaring that I’m going all-in on wide-sweet spot listening. Being able to relax on one side of the couch or another, or meander around the house while enjoying great sounding music is a luxury we should all attempt to recreate.
One thing to mention speakers ,since I have been modding them mainly for myself and a few others for many years, your Xover is the ❤️ or brain 🧠 of any Loudspeaker, the Vast majority of Xover parts are average quality at best. out of a scale 1-15 on average a 7. Also your binding post 90% are cheap gold over brass, not very musical.and poor conductor.high resistance. a decent WBT copper gold with Furutech copper gold crimp on terminals is far better then solder, and upgrading the Xover essential for expended soundstage width,depth and precision imaging ,the quality of stock capacitors,resistors, inductors, even wiring many times is average at Best. If you love your speaker, and the drivers are of good quality well worth the consideration ,if limited on internal space ,then a external Xover with small custom boxes would be the answer ,better quality Xover Bigger parts = a Huge upgrade ,look at Tony Gees capacitor cook book fir starters Humblehomemadehifi capacitor test, and Original pre 2011 Mills resistors excellent ,sonic craft carry, or the Best but $$ Path audio resistors Jantzen awg 14 inductors waxed foil, or open coil for bass,excellent value $$
I am all for good crossover parts, as I think may be evident in past tweets, but the width of the sweet spot is going to be much more affected by the crossover frequencies chosen than the cost of the resistors.
Other things matter, of course, like the width of the baffle, and the dimensions of the individual radiators and their location, but once those are set, it is the Hz at which the crossovers occur which determine whether or not there will be smooth off-axis response.
Hmmm... When I sit in the narrow sweetspot that I have and really listen, I’m thinking that what I’m hearing is what the producer wanted me to hear when they mastered the recording with reference to sound stage. Whether the sonic picture is narrow or wide, the relative placement was chosen at the recording console. However, there are times when I’m not all that focused on placement. When is that? When the music is on as background.
Does that mean when I stand up or am in the kitchen suddenly I’m not someone’s idea of an "audiofile"? Perhaps. However timbre and SQ still matter: It’s still has to sound "right" even if I’m not in the optimal physical location for the stereo image. And therein perhaps lies "redemption". LOL The point I’m trying to make is that so much of this avocation is subjective if not downright arbitrary. For my part, I refuse to get wrapped around the proverbial axle due to someone’s pronouncement of what is "right".
I hope everyone reading this understands that I wanted to celebrate a wide sweet spot much more than caring about who an audiophile is. Experience has led me to believe you guys only read threads that seem contentious though, so I had to lead with that. ;-D
I'm positioned in the sweet spot when listening and usually keep being seated there for the duration of the session, and yet I went for a pair of speakers that have a wider sweet spot compared to my previous speakers, because of what it does to the sound in that more or less fixated position.
If one were to visually outline it, it relates to how the overall presentation is "shaped" in front of you, and with a wider and higher dispersive nature compared to the earlier scenario (that now also involves physically taller speakers) - yet controlled by 90 x 40° Constant Directivity horns - it makes for a more enveloping sphere or bubble of sound, and one in this case more coherent and smooth at that. While sitting centered in front of the speakers is still preferable the presentation doesn't fundamentally change even when moving to the left or right seat in the sofa, and it has a relieving and relaxing effect on the listener. To me at least this type of presentation is more reminiscent of a live music event, if that's your thing.
Certainly the dispersive nature of dual 15" woofers and a Constant Directivity horn per channel is narrower than smaller, direct radiating speakers, and yet makes for a full, enveloping and rather dense (akin to live music, to my ears) presentation. Maintaining a uniform dispersion pattern over the cross-over region is also very important in creating a homogenous bubble/sphere of presentation.
I suppose with a wider/higher sonic field of presentation as something that relates to a live presentation, it may link more innately to being an audiophile as someone who cares about mimicking such an event, and yet I feel omnidirectional speakers like MBL and others are too "wishy washy" to instill that sense of realism and presence akin to live music. YMMV.
@erik_squires,@erik_squires, I think you are confusing image specificity with frequency response. Sanders ESLs beam like crazy. You will only get high end directly in front of them but because they beam there is much less room interaction and their image specificity is excellent at the listening position. Move of center and the image falls apart as well as the high end rolls off. Speakers with wide dispersion will sound balanced over a wider area but they also have more room interaction. The on center image is not as specific as the Sanders but it still falls apart off center just the same. The high end just does not roll off. You may not notice the image falling apart as much because the image is not as specific on center. What you really want is a crossoverless ESL with a 45 degree dispersion angle. You will get the sharpest on center image with reasonable frequency response across the listening area. The physics of a two channel audio system are such that the only place you are going to get an accurate image is on the center line. That vast majority of systems do not have a very specific image. This is because of the speaker's dispersion, room acoustics, phasing and time problems and asymmetrical frequency response of the two channels.
Acoustic is the most misunderstood subject in all audio by audiophiles and ordinary people alike...They all think that the gear magically give the sound almost by itself out of the room acoustic almost and at best "tweaks" are added....Pricier the gear and tweak better it is for sound... This is the market myth....
The room is not first a sum of 6 walls surfaces which passively reflect /absorb/diffuse sound waves...
The room is and could be ACTIVELY an heteregenuous pressurized set of air engines...Helmholtz science here...
Imaging and soundstage are important features of audio experience, but the benchmark of musical experience with an audio system is musical TIMBRE perception...
You can have a apparently relatively good imaging and soundstage without a natural timbre experience...
You cannot have a natural timbre experience without a good imaging and soundstage associated with it...
This is a big distinction....It is my conclusion after my own experiments ....And reading some facts about TIMBRE perception ....
No big deal. I carefully choose my seats for the symphony so I am in the sweet spot for the particular room, and I choose a optimal seating position in my listening room. I don't walk around when listening so what does it matter how wide the sweet spot is?
*G* My 'sweet spot' is currently out of town, but that's an another story unto herself... ;) *S*
@erik_squires ...you know how Anything posted is subject to 'topic drift'...*mea culpa*beats on chest*....(mine, not yours)
Mho, that's always been my 'issue' with the 'conventional' loudspeaker, the 'roll-off' one experiences when moving off-axis. Which triggers the 'sweet spot fixation'; great for critical listening ses, not so much for the 'pause for the cause' day2day listening whilst occupied with the 'd2d'...
(Critical listening is when the TT is cued to one's fav disc, or the like....*S* Everything is lit, and the fav imbibe in hand (or the equivalent), and all one wants is escape into the selection...)
For self, maps, and those of that distraction, Walsh, Ohms, and the other omnis do allow for both. Yes, omnis are not 'Perfect' in the sense of razor blade reproduction. To accomplish that, the room must be treated as an essential element of the equation...everything 'just so', to the point of surgical....
Nice if one can do so....most can't, as the sig 'other' will pitch a fit. Some have noted, ah, 'excising' that source of complaint....
For whatever rationale, most don't want to 'go there'. It IS pretty extreme, and tends to expensive....;(
The LS-50s' seem to be getting raves....Me, I'd 4chan and sub them, just because I'm 'bent' like that. Since it's out of my expendable $'s, I'll stand by and keep playing with my diy's...
As always, this is entertaining (thanks, Erik), and merely
mildly provocative.
I am starting to wonder if a whole-house Sonus system might
satisfy some better? <grin> When I listen to two channel music it is for
pleasure and I am not walking around in the room, nor in the rest of the home. Music
for that walkabout experience is known as ‘background music’ to me. Fortunately
my speakers sound fine from other rooms due to large openings.
When I am listening for pure musical pleasure I want the very
best experience. My spouse is not concerned. Having a large mushy sweet spot
and losing imaging, etc. seems like a poor trade-off for me. It’s great to want a large sweet spot, if you use
it, and if you have company that can actually appreciate it. But, understand
you are not getting the very best your system can offer. It may be the best it can
average out to over a large zone though.
(+1 to cymbop, prof,
musicfan2349, and wspohn, as I remember…)
I think it comes down to how one uses the audio system. I
can enjoy my primary at its best in the living room, or in another room if desired for
background. I just don’t move around enough in the living room to want to sacrifice
the best sound possible for when I am listening critically.
Finally, I’d say it is easier to argue that the true
audiophile is the person who demands the single best audio reproduction his
system can give. And that is not from
six different seating positions all over the living room. We know that. It
makes me chuckle if we are talking ‘true audiophile’. For me, a fat and wide, non-optimum, sweet spot doesn’t fit the bill.
(Remember Dunlavys? The largest wooden floor-standing
headphones on earth.)
Hello, Yesterday I just listened to the Dali Menuet SE. They are an $1800 bookshelf speaker designed to go near the wall. They sounded awesome even off axis. You wwould swear they had a subwoofer. Under 10” tall they play from 59hz to 25khz. Designed to go near the wall. I was checking them out yesterday at: https://holmaudio.com/ in the Chicagoland area. They are very unique that they let you try before you buy. If you want a tiny/ powerful sub they have the new KEF KC62 subwoofer that is like a 10” cube that plays way down below 20hz. I like the idea it takes up very little space but can still vibrate the room if you want it too.
What I’m going to suggest is sometimes called "time-intensity trading", as the off-centerline listening locations which have a later arrival from one speaker compensate by having greater intensity (loudness) from that speaker.
Briefly, start with speakers which have a very uniform radiation pattern of perhaps 90 degrees wide (-6 dB at 45 degrees off-axis to either side) over most of the spectrum. Then toe them in severely, such that their axes actually criss-cross in front of the centeral "sweet spot".
For an off-centerline listener, the NEAR speaker naturally "wins" arrival time, BUT because of the aggressive toe-in and relatively narrow radiation pattern width, the FAR speaker "wins" INTENSITY!
JBL aimed similarly with their DD55000 Everest's (DD for "Defined Directivity"):
The design went through a fairly extensive evolution before arriving at the final configuration. Originally, the concept was to develop a "super L300" with a similar sonic character. It was given the working designation of the L400. However, that designation had a notorious past and was soon dropped (see sidebar below). The system would be designed around a new acoustic concept referred to as "Defined Directivity" (the DD in DD55000). This concept had been pioneered by Don Keele in the professional 4660 ceiling speaker. That speaker was intended to provide rectangular coverage with constant volume from front to back. Bruce Scrogin realized that mounting this horn sideways in a home system could provide constant horizontal coverage. The asymmetric design would force more sound to the distant axis compared to the near axis so that someone walking a horizontal line between the speakers would be exposed to a constant sound level.
The rationale behind this acoustic concept, to my mind, would seem less realized if it didn't entail an appreciation of a sonic correlation as perceived in the seated sweet spot, apart from offering a wider listening area to move within. Image specificity in the extreme doesn't exist in a live acoustic performance, and yet it's a devoured trait in audiophilia. To me at least the predominant takeaway in the debate about a narrow vs. wider spot is honing in on the "sweet spot" between these two dispersive extremes that most closely emulates the perceived impression of a live acoustic presentation, and this also involves for the listener to be able to move from side to side, as one would at a live performance, without seeing the sonic "image" tilt severely.
Image specificity in the extreme doesn’t exist in a live acoustic performance, and yet it’s a devoured trait in audiophilia.
Very important observation....Thanks....
Which observation make me able to say that imaging is important soundwise but LESS difficult to obtain than natural timbre perception in an acoustic settings which perception and experience are the benchmark test of not only sound perception in audio but also of musical perception....
Audio is important but music surpass it, including it .... Electronic is important but acoustic surpass it making it shine or not....
It is MY experience for sure....But the experience of any musician i suppose....
Then the main central concept is no much mainly the "sweet spot" but more the dynamical "envelope " of the sound... One concept is more deep and englobe the other in a SMALL room and this subordination is understood well by any small room acoustic experiments which demonstrate that it is more difficult and ask for more fine tuning of the parameters controls to recreate the timbre dynamical envelope over some imaging ....
If this is true,we could begin to understand WHY we never listen to speakers ONLY in a small room, but to the room itself united with the speakers...
If this is true we could begin to understand why the room could be conceptualize not like a passive set of walls but like an ACTIVATED and ACTIVE participant filled with variable potential pressures zones able to participate and recreate the timbre perception....
«There exist a hierarchy of concepts and of their function. It means that my ass is not less important than my head but serves it, not the opposite»-Groucho Marx
«Is it true for the hierarchy of angels too?»-Harpo Marx
«You bet!»-Chico Marx
«Is this means that economy is the ass and politic the head?»-Gummo Marx
I once went to look at the Martin Logan Speakers. Don't remember the model. it was in the '90's I believe. The store attendant said they weren't set up properly. I don't know if that was true or not. I know this. Moving my head over 8-10 inches either side, lost the sweet spot. Standing up? Fugetaboutit! Sounded good as long as I sat completely still. Nah, Not for me.
Great discussion. I wonder if anyone can focus on bass. With Magen pan 1.7 planar speakers I’ve lately focused on bass. Since adding two REL subs I’ve realized how much perception of image and air in a recording comes from the air pressure described in this thread. And since very low bass is omnidirectional, I think it’s more critical to my enjoyment of the system. Also even more critical is bass at lower listening levels. The loudness control. If you have powerful bass at low volumes it’s pretty compelling. I used to have to play everything much louder to get satisfying sound. Now it’s just tweaking the subs a bit. Er, well quite a bit since matching the subs isn’t easy.
Moving my head over 8-10 inches either side, lost the sweet spot. Standing up? Fugetaboutit! Sounded good as long as I sat completely still. Nah, Not for me.
I doubt I've ever moved my head 8-10 inches either side at a live performance. Or stood up.
Properly set up and integrated, HiFi can do an amazing job at recreating a performance bet it Joe Pass playing acoustic alone, The Who or The London Phil. The trade off, due to physics, is the sweet spot is somewhat constricted.
In a live performance, if one has the ability to wander about, one will find there are gross variations in the sonic field, sometimes in as little as a foot.
It's my experience that a wide sweet spot never elicits comments like "Joe Pass is sitting RIGHT THERE!"
I used the Sumiko Masterset method with some small Thiels (CS1.6) and got a very wide sweet spot, even beyond the width of the speakers. It’s useless for the Naim NBLs I use at the moment as they’re designed for back against the wall placement, 5.5cm in my current room. I can still get a wide image but not as wide as with the Thiels, though it goes deeper into the wall. If my next room permits I’d like to give Omnis a go, Duevel Bella Lunas are available locally.
I doubt I’ve ever moved my head 8-10 inches either side at a live performance. Or stood up.
But I gather you’re not handed the same, specific seat that says "Reserved to Mr./Ms. [insert name]" as the one and only place to have a proper concert experience, in fact there’s a range seats centered to the stage that will be quite excellent sound-wise. Once seated, if that’s what you do, you could easily move your head about a foot shifting occasionally from one side in the chair to the other, and even so it’s hardly relevant with regard to any changes in sound. If you believe there is something tells me the you’re projecting the head-in-vise experience from your home set-up.
Properly set up and integrated, HiFi can do an amazing job at recreating a performance bet it Joe Pass playing acoustic alone, The Who or The London Phil. The trade off, due to physics, is the sweet spot is somewhat constricted.
No domestic set-up I’ve heard has come even fairly close to resembling a live acoustic concert, not to say some set-ups aren’t more successful in their approximation here than others, which is also to say: the effort isn’t futile. Let’s not fool ourselves though - the trade off is the recreation itself; you’re not there at the live event, you’re not going to fully experience it as such. A surplus in mage specificity, to a certain point, takes away from the holistic experience of music and in turn makes it more about something that’s supposed to impress sonically rather than musically, but that’s also about frequency response and the target curve at play.
In a live performance, if one has the ability to wander about, one will find there are gross variations in the sonic field, sometimes in as little as a foot.
Isn’t this the audiophile tendency to miss the forest for the trees? Just sit down and enjoy the damn music. A few changes in seating position shouldn’t make it a hit or miss; you still get to experience the totality of the event, something your home set-up can’t recreate - even perfectly positioned right smack in the middle.
It’s my experience that a wide sweet spot never elicits comments like "Joe Pass is sitting RIGHT THERE!"
Wide, narrow - to me it’s finding the proper balance somewhere in between here.
Which observation make me able to say that imaging is important soundwise but LESS difficult to obtain than natural timbre perception in an acoustic settings which perception and experience are the benchmark test of not only sound perception in audio but also of musical perception....
Audio is important but music surpass it, including it .... Electronic is important but acoustic surpass it making it shine or not....
It is MY experience for sure....But the experience of any musician i suppose....
Then the main central concept is no much mainly the "sweet spot" but more the dynamical "envelope " of the sound... One concept is more deep and englobe the other in a SMALL room and this subordination is understood well by any small room acoustic experiments which demonstrate that it is more difficult and ask for more fine tuning of the parameters controls to recreate the timbre dynamical envelope over some imaging ....
My thought on the post is along the same line as @mlsstl noting that at a Live 'unconstrained - varied' venue ambience with psycho acoustic space input presents much for the overall enjoyment as does HiFi Playback (to a degree-extent being discussed). Some of my best HiFi moments have been outside of a 'limited sweet spot). Perspective also comes into play IMO (as being notable). Headphones may not be the best comparison for many spatial cues. One of my most memorable 'Listening Events' at RMAF was a Presentation of a Remastered (ATT) DSotM in Quad on R2R Tape Playback. With the listening position being 5-7 seats across by 8-10 deep (approximate) and my relative position being L Front Row. I believe everyone there appreciated and enjoyed the experience.
I gather you’re not handed the same, specific seat that says "Reserved to Mr./Ms. [insert name]" as the one and only place to have a proper concert experience, in fact there’s a range seats centered to the stage that will be quite excellent sound-wise.
Actually, our seats are reserved. Took me three years to get them. I've paid stupid money for good seats in the great halls. If we can't get great seats, we don't go.
you could easily move your head about a foot ... it’s hardly relevant with regard to any changes in sound
In my retirement, I'm technical director for a production company. For acoustic music, mostly true. For amplified, not necessarily. Before I became TD, we've moved seats because the phasing of the direct and amplified sound was intolerable.
you’re projecting the head-in-vise experience from your home set-up
Hardly. I attended and played in live concerts before I had a HiFi. As a retired recording engineer, I spent thousands upon thousands of hours trying to recreate as close a facsimile to a live venue as possible. My HiFi is not head in a vice, but it accurately presents what a recording engineer put down. Most people have never heard a HiFi do that. For 40 years, musicians have been telling me that the music is "Right THERE!!"
No domestic set-up I’ve heard has come even fairly close to resembling a live acoustic concert.
Me neither. No one no how ever got the sound through the glass. However, a well setup system can transport you and make you believe. If Joe Pass is playing a 10 x 5 foot guitar, no one is ever going to even consider him even in the same room.
A surplus in mage specificity, to a certain point, takes away from the holistic experience of music and in turn makes it more about something that’s supposed to impress sonically rather than musically, but that’s also about frequency response and the target curve at play.
There can never be a surplus in image
specificity. If one can localize the source, it's a fatal flaw. Frequency response beyond a certain point is irrelevant. Imaging is about PHASE and TIME. Most systems are appalling on those parameters.
Isn’t this the audiophile tendency to miss the forest for the trees? Just sit down and enjoy the damn music.
Hardly. IMO, more artist are hindered than helped by sound reinforcement. People may not realize why they didn't groove on a favorite artist.
you still get to experience the totality of the event, something your home set-up can’t recreate
One recent visitor, a lifelong classical
musician, lover of most music and frequent concert goer, seated next to her hubby & neither with their head in a vice, upon hearing Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" queried "Who needs concerts?"
I think those who cavalierly toss the "high end audio gear" salad around and garnish it with Audiophile dressing like to talk shop to each other but not really seek best solutions. Klipsch Cinema systems have been doing this for a LONG time and generally have at least 104db efficiency and are capable of providing stereo sound in a huge sweet spot. Of course these Klipsch systems don't come with Audiogon bragging rights. All they come with is superb and superior sound quality and high efficiency. So, how long did it take you to figure this out besides way to long?
Darned right ieales."
There can never be a surplus in image
specificity. If one can localize the source, it's a fatal flaw.
Frequency response beyond a certain point is irrelevant. Imaging is
about PHASE and TIME. Most systems are appalling on those parameters.
" I bet hardly any Audiogon commenters set things up with DSP and bi or tri amping and have no clue.
Frequency response beyond a certain point is irrelevant. Imaging is about PHASE and TIME. Most systems are appalling on those parameters.
It is not my gear and his "superiority" over other brand that give me my imaging.... It is my acoustic settings and controls in my room...With also some controls over electrical grid noise and over mechanical noise... But the main cause is acoustical controls...
I bet hardly any Audiogon commenters set things up with DSP and bi or tri amping and have no clue.
Audio thread are filled with electronic design market mythology, not by acoustical laws and subtleties....
People not knowing acoustic use partial electronic solutions that could be useful as tool if they were not used replacing acoustic itself by limited programs...
A room is not a passive set of walls nor for the speakers neither for the ears.....
I am not a scientist just an average guy able to give to himself at low cost audiophile experience without buying anything....The opposite experience to all audio thread mythology.....
The question is not to know if your system is good or the best.... The question is how do we install our actual system optimally in his 3 working embeddings dimensions... The most important one being the acoustical one....No upgrade are most of the times necessary.....Contrary to all audio market conditioning...
As a recording engineer I am blown away you would claim this. This is totally not true. Timing is true in the live music world, but for playback, most of our imaging with the exception of specific dual microphone setups rarely used, imaging is primarily volume, and phase does not play into it, not even one little bit as long as the phase response is consistent on each channel.
It is incredible that you make the same mistake about imaging than about the timbre concept not knowing that it is necessary to take into account the acoustical settings of the room to recreate the timbre "envelope" perception rightfully...
For imaging, the distance between 2 speakers must be optimal at a precise critical point, and their location in the room will also play a role, to create a center image ... Then this distance between the speakers would need some precise room acoustic settings to work optimally in timing and phase....
You cannot replace acoustic....By a better files or recording technology....With an A.I. we will be able but it is not the actual matter of this thread....
What we hears dont come from the speakers, it come from the speakers modified by the room acoustical settings.....All information in the world in a digital files or on some vinyl cannot be recreated in a bad room.... Even if all the information of the source could be perfect...And it is never neither perfect nor complete anyway....We need acoustic not only bits....
Imaging is not a phenomenon reducible entirely to recording technique it is also for the listener a live musical event, then an event where acoustic play his part....It is the result of the acoustic sum of the room and the system....It is the same conditions for the timbre experience recreation for the listener , it is the result of the sum of the room and the system...No recording technique can REPRODUCE perfectly the original timbre event...we need the settings of the room acoustic to recreate it optimally...
Ok i am not an engineer only an average audiophile....But it is my experience and experiments....
Ok i give you something.... I am not competent for sure.... I am only an audiophile experimenting.... But explain to me how in the world we dont need a room?
Nevermind the recording technique used we need A ROOM not only a source...
Do you think we dont need timing and phase also for the acoustical waves in the room to optimize image and timbre perception also ?
With the same gear, the same source, i never had imaging and timbre....NEVER .... I worked the acoustical settings for months and the other noise sources and now i have plenty of the 2.... Then......
The room acoustic is central in audio and it is not a sum of bits....
I am perhaps totally wrong i will admit it ..... Explain that to me.....
And about my arrogance remember that my arrogance was an answering to your own about turntable users and other audiophiles....I admit my arrogance with you for sure you are right about that.... Admit your own arrogance....i will not name all the others you call liars or wrong....
By the way the question is not only about the way spatial positioning is recorded but also about HOW we recreate it in the room .... Even if the information of the spatial positioning is recorded rightfully in the source how can we enjoy it in a BAD room? I never enjoy it like i said BEFORE i installed my acoustic controls; same gear but different acoustical setting in my room and i now have natural timbre and imaging why?
It is not the BITS in the source that has changed, it the the timing and phase of the sound waves in my room that has changed (the electrical and mechanical noise were also decreased)...
Mahgister you don’t appear to have any idea of how recording works, or how spatial positioning is communicated in recorded music
I was guessing you are right, guessing that changing my room controls will give me a timbre and imaging experience....
My guess was right i have them now without changing the gear nor buying any tweaks... It is my my guess about the way i could install a better noise controls in the mechanical,electrical and acoustical working embeddings dimensions of my system that gives me my imaging and timbre experience...
But for the "latching onto one thing" remember that i only suggest after my guessing experiments and experience that a better perception of timbre or imaging ask for more than optimal recording tecnique.... I own the same files than you....If not the same i can buy them.... But to be able to enjoy natural timbre perception and imaging i needed way more than only a good source.... My guessing was that i need an optimal noise controls especially in the acoustic dimensions...
I dont pretend to anything....But you have never proved me wrong and when some pro musician was approving me about timbre concept you called him a liar...
I just this evening read your post where you called another engineer wrong...About phase and time...
I am not competent you are right to judge and give the final answer... But being arrogant with you like you are with others , i replied and give my guessing experience born from my own experiments in my own room... Phase and time of sound waves in a room matters for imaging perception not only the bits in the source sorry...
I apologize to be arrogant with you .... I will wait for your own apology to others....
By the way it is the sum total of my homemade "toys" that give me my Hi-Fi experience, not any costly upgrade nor anything sold like tweaks...
Then how in the world is it possible?
my answer was controls in mechanical electrical and acoustical embeddings...I listen with my ears open....
I was arrogant with you yes but perhaps not completely nuts...
I agree that if you arrange the speaker and room to obtain a wide area with some stereo imaging, you will compromise the imaging at the ideal spot in that area. If you utilize the extreme toe-in described above to trade off cues for loudness against early and late timing of arrival, you are presenting the ear/brain with conflicting cues that may may create a hazy picture or maybe fatiguing to resolve. Also, location is not merely determined by timing and intensity of the signal. When sound arrives at your head it hits both ears, and with some of the sound hitting one side diffracting around the head to also hit the other side. This changes timing, phase and the spectral content (frequency response) and these are also cues that the brain detects.
You can get a Chesky Test CD that has some very interesting computer generated signals that exploit these properties to create a signal that seems to create images that both extend beyond the speaker position and appear to rise up from the speaker and move forward until the image is almost overhead. The illusion is hurt by nearby reflections, so these signals (scratching sounds) are used to help you locate trouble with room interactions. They also don't work very well when one is not in the extremely narrow, ideal, sweet spot.
I agree that if you arrange the speaker and room to obtain a wide area with some stereo imaging, you will compromise the imaging at the ideal spot in that area. If you utilize the extreme toe-in described above to trade off cues for loudness against early and late timing of arrival, you are presenting the ear/brain with conflicting cues that may may create a hazy picture or maybe fatiguing to resolve. Also, location is not merely determined by timing and intensity of the signal. When sound arrives at your head it hits both ears, and with some of the sound hitting one side diffracting around the head to also hit the other side. This changes timing, phase and the spectral content (frequency response) and these are also cues that the brain detects.
You can get a Chesky Test CD that has some very interesting computer generated signals that exploit these properties to create a signal that seems to create images that both extend beyond the speaker position and appear to rise up from the speaker and move forward until the image is almost overhead. The illusion is hurt by nearby reflections, so these signals (scratching sounds) are used to help you locate trouble with room interactions. They also don’t work very well when one is not in the extremely narrow, ideal, sweet spot.
Thanks this is very well said and explain my point about the necessary acoustical settings in the imaging perception....This is also my exact experience in setting my room for imaging...
I will only add here what i said before, reaching better timbre perception ask for more precise or complex tuning than just imaging... The timbre"envelope" is a complex experience to recreate...It is the reason why i think audiophile must put their attention on the "timbre" perception...It is also more difficult to assess the presence of naturalness of "timbre" than just passing a test to assess the presence of imaging.... For imaging the test is about spatial experience, not for timbre perception... Then in my experience,one encompass the other in the sets of acousticals precise controls and treatment we must set in place...
By the way i succeeded to create a good imaging for 2 spots in my room.... The better for imaging is near field at 3 feet from speakers... The better for timbre perception is regular listening in my room at 8 feet from speakers...But the 2 locations are very good even if very different from one another, very good on imaging and timbre account...I cannot chose one over the other.... 😊 In nearfield it is so good imaging with a good timbre, i trash my 7 headphones in a drawer....In regular position the timbre is so natural with a good imaging, i decide to use no more any headphones....
Nearfield best any headphone experience i had; regular position of listening is more akin to a lived event and exceed my headphones possibilities....
I begin my audio journey 7 years ago with headphones including 2 Stax,one hybrid, 2 magneplanars, 2 dynamics one, because the speakers gear was not on par at all with them....Even my actual speakers bought before my 2 years acoustical room settings journey weere not at all so refine like they are now......Then it was acoustical controls the key not my choice of speakers..... I was prefering hedphones 2 years ago, it is the complete opposite now....😁😊😎😊
Acoustic controls could often be, or generally, more powerful impact than the upgrade of any piece of gear....Imagine the controls over the 3 embeddings working dimensions together....
With my Pioneer S-1ex I can move them further away and wider apart for a wider sweet spot. Out into the room and closer together and sounds like wearing high end head phones but the sweet spot narrows considerably. I prefer the latter.
I'd like to push back a little bit against the idea of a speaker with a wide sweet spot not being great in the middle.
Let's take 3 common models, the Magico S1 Mk II, Revels and modern Wilsons.
They all have great imaging in the center spot, but the Wilson's dont do as well off axis. I think this blows out the idea that you can only get a great sweet spot with a narrow one.
pretty much all my field recordings are simple two microphone gigs, piano the exception. Multi track in the studio, well those are not references, just flavors we like. i am not going to play your argument game, too many neat acoustic musical events to enjoy in reverberant space.....
Acoustic controls could often be, or generally, more powerful impact than the upgrade of any piece of gear
Yep, and a good sounding room will often gets people off the merry go round of gear buying and trading. "What kind of cables will fix the boomy bass? My speakers are too bright so what kind of power conditioner do I need" all sorts of issues audiophiles go chasing vanish.
Yep, and a good sounding room will often gets people off the merry go round of gear buying and trading.
It is what happened to me....Any upgrade, even some good one i dream about, seems to me now a bit ridiculous like useless spending of money for some improvement, yes, but no more comparable to what my acoustics controls and treatment were, huge S.Q. increase, then....
Most well chosen good gear, the right speakers for the right room for sure, will create miracles only with acoustical embeddings treatment and controls.... Not so much without any in most room..... I am with you about that 100%....
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
