For objective proof it has to be measurable and compiling opinions does not meet the requirements as opinions are subjective by definition. A subjective conclusion requires a measurable/quantifiable and repeatable assessment. In The example you made it could be the same system with the speakers just wired out of phase in the second instance.
Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.
- Thread starter Rexp
- Start date
For objective proof it has to be measurable and compiling opinions does not meet the requirements as opinions are subjective by definition. A subjective conclusion requires a measurable/quantifiable and repeatable assessment. In The example you made it could be the same system with the speakers just wired out of phase in the second instance.
Many claim because it's true. Some speakers that are capable of good imaging, ATC for example, need a high powered amp to image properly. Probably something to do with control of the drive units that gives controlled dispersion.
You can measure a difference in composite frequency response between a pair of speakers wired in-phase and out-of-phase, but that measurement will not tell you anything about how well that pair of speakers image.
If you were not color blind and asked to say whether something was red or green, would you say its and opinion? I bet you would.
I wonder also if you view pharmaceutical trials as opinions or objective proof.
So even at moderate sound levels (within the amplifiers capability) the speakers don't image properly unless the amplifier is high powered? That sounds like an interesting result.
Let's agree to disagree on that I think.
Back to your original topic, "hifi is not a subjective hobby" sounds a bit controversial / provocative. From a more general standpoint, surely people like different things, and from that perspective it is subjective what is the "best" component, system, etc?
As people value different qualities, different products may give any specific person the best result. Or do you propose that there is a system out there that we will all agree is objectively the best?
You're disagreeing, yet you haven't heard. Perhaps as a speaker manufacturer you could buy a pair of ATC 20T's to try out and write it off against tax. Never know you might learn something.
Here are some things not on the average audiophiles‘ radar I have found degrade the soundstage. it’s no wonder most systems, even very advanced ones, lack a big beautiful soundstage. By the way, none of these things below have anything to do with acoustic waves in the room or anything in the signal path anywhere in the system, with the exception of 3, open cell foam. This is not (rpt not) intended to be a complete list. Not by any means.
1. Any type of media in the room, including books and magazines, telephone books, LPQs, CDs, videos.
2. Too much wood, glass, metal in the room.
3. Open cell foam in the room, including SONEX room treatment and chairs, couches.
4. Cell phones and clocks and watches. Big no-no!
5. Spare/unused electronics, cables, cords, musical instruments, speakers.
6. Static electric charge on clothes, carpets, electric cords, windows, etc. degauss them pronto!
The big beautiful soundstage has been in your room the whole time, you just can’t hear it properly due to reasons 1-6.
Don‘t blame me, I didn’t create reality.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
1. Any type of media in the room, including books and magazines, telephone books, LPQs, CDs, videos.
2. Too much wood, glass, metal in the room.
3. Open cell foam in the room, including SONEX room treatment and chairs, couches.
4. Cell phones and clocks and watches. Big no-no!
5. Spare/unused electronics, cables, cords, musical instruments, speakers.
6. Static electric charge on clothes, carpets, electric cords, windows, etc. degauss them pronto!
The big beautiful soundstage has been in your room the whole time, you just can’t hear it properly due to reasons 1-6.
Don‘t blame me, I didn’t create reality.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Last edited:
Not to disagree or otherwise with the imaging thing -- but a speaker's dispersion characteristics are dependent on its design, not the amplifier used.
Additionally, the dispersion characteristics of the drivers become narrower the higher the frequency - regardless of the amplifier model: it's a characteristic of the device (the cone).
Were you perhaps thinking of inadequate driving resulting in a "thinner" sound (i.e. the low frequency units are not driven adequately)?
The bigger ATCs I have some experience with, certainly benefitted from a beefy amp!
How would books or a mechanical watch effect an audio system’ ability to project its soundstage?
I think this hobby is both objective and subjective.
Clearly everything we hear is going on in our heads and this means that it is inherently subjective from that perspective. However, there are shared experiences where everyone is basically hearing the same thing and this can then be considered objective/subjective. Although even what we hear is subjective the collective that hears essentially the same thing can then treat that effect generated by a system as an objective trait of the sound generated by that system.
The truth is that all experience and everything we see, feel, hear, touch smell etc. is subjective processing in our brain. Nonetheless, we can all (mostly) agree on what something looks like, smells like (at least to the degree we can all smell a rose, for example, and then when smelling it again go "ah a rose!" etc. With hearing it is more nebulous because the processing for hearing is not very centrally located...it happens in lots of different areas of the brain.
The more training someone has had the more similar that processing looks like from a functional MRI analysis. So, at least the way of processing starts to converge, if not the interpretation of what is heard.
A non-audio example of this would be something like organoleptic measurements. Humans can be trained to be very sensitive, and accurate, detectors of fragrance compounds. To the untrained, they might sense something, possibly be able to tell what it is associated with subjectively and that's that. Someone trained in detection will note what it comes from, what compound class it's in and the approximate concentration (smells character is molecule concentration dependent)...thereby being significantly objective and not just saying I smell rotten bananas and I don't like it (which is the level at which most audiophiles stop in their interpretation of what they hear).
In audio, I think it is possible to relatively accurately determine if a system has correct timbre of instruments, has 3 dimensional soundstaging and imaging or if it is flat sounding relative to live and comparing between systems, relative transparency in comparing systems with a mental template of what real, live unamplified music transparency sounds like. I don't consider this purely subjective. There might be disagreement between two people who hear it slightly differently...that could be a result of lack of experience on one person's part or that they both bring mental biases that overlay the perception.
I have found in listening sessions with experienced audiophiles and music lovers that there is less disagreement about WHAT is heard but more disagreement on how it made them feel and or how they translated it back to what they think is "right". Given that you can sit people down and get a pretty good agreement that A images better than B and greater transparency but B has more rich tone than A; however, they will not agree on what they think is the way it SHOULD sound and that is the wholly subjective part, IMO.
Clearly everything we hear is going on in our heads and this means that it is inherently subjective from that perspective. However, there are shared experiences where everyone is basically hearing the same thing and this can then be considered objective/subjective. Although even what we hear is subjective the collective that hears essentially the same thing can then treat that effect generated by a system as an objective trait of the sound generated by that system.
The truth is that all experience and everything we see, feel, hear, touch smell etc. is subjective processing in our brain. Nonetheless, we can all (mostly) agree on what something looks like, smells like (at least to the degree we can all smell a rose, for example, and then when smelling it again go "ah a rose!" etc. With hearing it is more nebulous because the processing for hearing is not very centrally located...it happens in lots of different areas of the brain.
The more training someone has had the more similar that processing looks like from a functional MRI analysis. So, at least the way of processing starts to converge, if not the interpretation of what is heard.
A non-audio example of this would be something like organoleptic measurements. Humans can be trained to be very sensitive, and accurate, detectors of fragrance compounds. To the untrained, they might sense something, possibly be able to tell what it is associated with subjectively and that's that. Someone trained in detection will note what it comes from, what compound class it's in and the approximate concentration (smells character is molecule concentration dependent)...thereby being significantly objective and not just saying I smell rotten bananas and I don't like it (which is the level at which most audiophiles stop in their interpretation of what they hear).
In audio, I think it is possible to relatively accurately determine if a system has correct timbre of instruments, has 3 dimensional soundstaging and imaging or if it is flat sounding relative to live and comparing between systems, relative transparency in comparing systems with a mental template of what real, live unamplified music transparency sounds like. I don't consider this purely subjective. There might be disagreement between two people who hear it slightly differently...that could be a result of lack of experience on one person's part or that they both bring mental biases that overlay the perception.
I have found in listening sessions with experienced audiophiles and music lovers that there is less disagreement about WHAT is heard but more disagreement on how it made them feel and or how they translated it back to what they think is "right". Given that you can sit people down and get a pretty good agreement that A images better than B and greater transparency but B has more rich tone than A; however, they will not agree on what they think is the way it SHOULD sound and that is the wholly subjective part, IMO.
The amp playing a role in the speakers controlled dispersion was just a guess on my part but it makes sense that if the speaker has big heavy drive units/cones, then you need some power to control them.
That speaker has very low sensitivity driver, but beyond that there seem to be nothing special about it. But I can understand one gets a feeling of them "not coming alive" until you have a powerful amplifier, given the low sensitivity. But soundstage as a concept isn't typically a result of the amplifier.
I wrote a list of some things that typically contribute to a large soundstage in combination with precise imaging in a thread about it on another forum:
- Point source. I don't think this is controversial, and I think this is almost a prerequisite. Coaxial drivers are of course the easy approach to this. There are speakers with traditional drivers that sound big too, but interestingly it's often 2-way speakers with relatively small drivers and/or with at least the midrange and tweeter placed pretty close to each other. Exactly why this elevates the quality of soundstage and imaging I'm not sure.
- Even off-axis response / controlled directivity, so that reflections feel like a natural addition to the direct sound as opposed to being perceived as a distraction or noise.
- Linear phase crossover between the tweeter and midrange.
- Less late reflections. So a well damped room, speakers not too far away, and/or cardioid speakers.
- Enough level and capacity in both the deep bass and the midbass. This I think is another relatively well known thing, that well defined, deep bass can often add to the sensation of space.
6. Placement and toe-in naturally affects this quality.
6b. Many argue that the speakers have to be well away from the front wall for good three dimensional, especially in the depth plane. I find this to partially true, but suspect there is one area where the mind plays some tricks on us. Seeing a speaker close to the wall, makes it harder to accept depth cues.
7. Sidewall reflections. This definitely affects this quality, but personally I've had varied results which make this a somewhat confusing one. In several rooms I've ended up not dampening the sidewalls for the best soundstage, while in others the opposite was true.
8. Directivity (also mentioned in point 2) - I'm not sure it's entirely clear what works here. My own designs are I guess somewhere in between wide and narrow directivity, and that subjectively works very well, but that's not to say that a different approach can't work well too.
9. Well tamed low-end (so good extension with smooth response) has also been suggested. I'm not sure if that is true directly, or perhaps indirectly due to the fact that uneven bass takes away our attention from the rest.
The interesting thing about the ATC SCM 20T floor stander is that it images far better than the SCM 20 stand mounter which is identical in all other respects.That speaker has very low sensitivity driver, but beyond that there seem to be nothing special about it. But I can understand one gets a feeling of them "not coming alive" until you have a powerful amplifier, given the low sensitivity. But soundstage as a concept isn't typically a result of the amplifier.
I wrote a list of some things that typically contribute to a large soundstage in combination with precise imaging in a thread about it on another forum:
After some discussion this was also added:
- Point source. I don't think this is controversial, and I think this is almost a prerequisite. Coaxial drivers are of course the easy approach to this. There are speakers with traditional drivers that sound big too, but interestingly it's often 2-way speakers with relatively small drivers and/or with at least the midrange and tweeter placed pretty close to each other. Exactly why this elevates the quality of soundstage and imaging I'm not sure.
- Even off-axis response / controlled directivity, so that reflections feel like a natural addition to the direct sound as opposed to being perceived as a distraction or noise.
- Linear phase crossover between the tweeter and midrange.
- Less late reflections. So a well damped room, speakers not too far away, and/or cardioid speakers.
- Enough level and capacity in both the deep bass and the midbass. This I think is another relatively well known thing, that well defined, deep bass can often add to the sensation of space.
6. Placement and toe-in naturally affects this quality.
6b. Many argue that the speakers have to be well away from the front wall for good three dimensional, especially in the depth plane. I find this to partially true, but suspect there is one area where the mind plays some tricks on us. Seeing a speaker close to the wall, makes it harder to accept depth cues.
7. Sidewall reflections. This definitely affects this quality, but personally I've had varied results which make this a somewhat confusing one. In several rooms I've ended up not dampening the sidewalls for the best soundstage, while in others the opposite was true.
8. Directivity (also mentioned in point 2) - I'm not sure it's entirely clear what works here. My own designs are I guess somewhere in between wide and narrow directivity, and that subjectively works very well, but that's not to say that a different approach can't work well too.
9. Well tamed low-end (so good extension with smooth response) has also been suggested. I'm not sure if that is true directly, or perhaps indirectly due to the fact that uneven bass takes away our attention from the rest.
