It would help if you'd point to specific statements you believe are in error. Anyone can say "you're wrong." But without saying why it's wrong or, better, what is right, yours is just an unfounded opinion that can't be taken seriously.
--Ethan
Focus
- Thread starter alexandrov
- Start date
It would help if you'd point to specific statements you believe are in error. Anyone can say "you're wrong." But without saying why it's wrong or, better, what is right, yours is just an unfounded opinion that can't be taken seriously.
--Ethan
This might be the single most simplistic misguided sentence I have ever read. I guess this is an endorsement of receivers and a pot shot at separate high-end components that you seem to disdain. Unless you stick with receivers, you just can't connect "anything to anything" and expect it to work correctly if at all. Even with a receiver, try connecting a low output MC cartridge into a receiver that was designed for 4.7 mV MM cartridges loaded at 47k ohms for example and tell me how well it works. Of course you don't listen to vinyl, but that was just one example. A preamp with a high output impedance connected to a low input impedance power amp would be another.
Last edited:
Thanks, MEP. Speaking for myself, I admit to being a bit confused. If driving a tough load with an underpowered amp causes distortion, then that is a lack of synergy (ie, working well together)...whereas driving a tough load with a higher powered amp that can handle tough impedances is good synergy.
Either of those components set up with other components might be great, just not together. For example, the Eggleston Ivy and an 8 watt SET are almost certainly not synergistic...i think the SET might go up in flames trying to drive it...but the same 8 watt SET with a 109-db efficient horn may be great. And the Ivy might sound great with a whole slew of Boulder 3050s driving them.
Components working well together or not working well together.
Ethan,
We are debating state of the art sound reproduction using stereo, not simply audio. Using synergy and SOTA equipment it is possible to get sound reproduction that systematically is more enjoyable and more gratifying for a great number of people than simply connecting parts that do not "degrade the audio signal". Many people find that these synergistic systems are more capable of recreating the illusion of the real and the artist intentions than just competent audio. So IMHO is is not a myth, but a reality.
One of the best discussions of the effects of loudspeakers and rooms in focus can be found in chapter 8 - "Imaging and Spatial Effects in Sound Reproduction" of the Sound Reproduction book by F. Toole. Section 8.2.2 The Audible Effects of Loudspeaker Dispersion Patterns—Other Opinions is of particular importance in this thread, as it debates weather recreational and professional listening have different criteria about lateral reflections, and most of all, that in sound reproduction the opinions of experts can be very different.
When picking parts of a book to illustrate a point we naturally pick those that illustrate our preference or we appreciated - I quote from 8.2.2.
In summary, it is clear that the establishment of a subjective preference for the sound from a loudspeaker incorporates aspects of both sound quality and spatial quality, and there are situations when one may debate which is more important. The results discussed here all point in the same direction: that widedispersion loudspeakers, used in rooms that allow for early lateral reflections are preferred by listeners especially, but not exclusively, for recreational listening.
There appear to be no notable sacrifices in the “imaging” qualities of stereo reproduction. Indeed, there are several comments about excellent image stability and sensations of depth in the soundstage.
When picking parts of a book to illustrate a point we naturally pick those that illustrate our preference or we appreciated - I quote from 8.2.2.
In summary, it is clear that the establishment of a subjective preference for the sound from a loudspeaker incorporates aspects of both sound quality and spatial quality, and there are situations when one may debate which is more important. The results discussed here all point in the same direction: that widedispersion loudspeakers, used in rooms that allow for early lateral reflections are preferred by listeners especially, but not exclusively, for recreational listening.
There appear to be no notable sacrifices in the “imaging” qualities of stereo reproduction. Indeed, there are several comments about excellent image stability and sensations of depth in the soundstage.
Why bother gentlemen? Life is short.
[Edited] has become increasingly more irrelevant to the WBF "consensus" as time goes on.
[Edited] has become increasingly more irrelevant to the WBF "consensus" as time goes on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just heard a live chamber concert and heard the same thing I hear with a full orchestra: the instrument localization and specificity may exist at the recording microphone but does not in the auditorium - at least not so beginning in row 9.
All I have ever hear at a live symphony concert is huge mono. While I too want the "focus" you are discussing, it has never been what I have heard in the audience of a live (unamplified) concert.
Hello, thedudeabides. Please refrain from comments that are personal in nature. It only invites friction, which is against the goals set forth by the founders of this forum and it also against the Terms of Service.
Tom
Certainly does for me. Just saw The Kronos Quartet and friends Friday and Orpheus Chamber Orchestra Saturday at Carnegie. Certainly can tell where strings, reeds, horns, brass, tympani are positioned. Could certainly see and hear where Wu Mann was standing behind the quartet. Perhaps it's the hall or your seats? Now I think there's a better argument that it's exaggerated on recordings by the better engineers to make up for the absence of sight to localize the instruments.
In a live concert you have visual clues that will complement the sound clues. Sound engineers know that they must "manipulate" the raw data coming from microphones to "help" the listener recreating the experience without the visual.
I can not understand how you can refer to "huge mono" listening to live symphony - I never sit in advance of row 12-15 and always have a clear perception of the localization of of the orchestra sections. Perhaps we learn during the first minutes of the performance, but I have tried several time closing my eyes and I can localize most of the orchestra during a concert.
One think that surprises me in top systems is that they manage to reproduce the spread of the orchestra sections pretty well with suitable recordings, sometimes in a similar way I feel it at live concerts. I do not like sharp pin-point imaging systems, but love systems that can separate and locate everything with the help of natural timbre, decays and micro dynamics.
Lots to agree with here....
+2, and then some, though I think it often might be a bit too much focus...
Audioguy --
Pluses here, too. In a really good hall, huge mono might be a bit of an overstatement, but not by much. There will be none of the pinpoint imaging, the clear instrument placement that we hear in recordings made with mics on stage, then mixed to stereo. And that's ok, because A) We might need that pinpoint imaging as a psychological substitute for the visual instrument placement we get in a live performance, B) We're listening to a recording, not a live performance. That is what we have to reproduce, all we have to reproduce and there's a pretty good argument in favor of doing it well, and C) I like it. Your mileage may vary, but I really enjoy that imaging that I think we're calling "focus" here, where I can close my eyes and easily envision the bass right there, on the left, behind the guitar, the piano forward and to the left of the drum kit, and the singer dead center in a plane in front of all the rest. I like it. I'm not fooling myself into believing it is what I would experience in the club, listening live, but I like it.
And it would seem that in this thread, I can even agree with microstrip
. Or at least I can agree with microstrip agreeing with Toole:
I like my stereo imaging, but I don't like extremes, I don't like dead rooms. And while I've heard rooms that could benefit from serious dulling of first reflections, I've heard many more typical domestic living spaces, with their rugs and their overstuffed furniture and their shelves of books and nicknacks, that I thought would be better left alone. Your mileage definitely may vary on that. But while I think that deadening first reflections can enhance the pinpoint imaging referred to above, but can very easily go too far and sacrifice too much in the process.
I think I'll leave the synergy discussion alone. My opinion there would just be a lighting rod.
Tim
+2, and then some, though I think it often might be a bit too much focus...
Audioguy --
Pluses here, too. In a really good hall, huge mono might be a bit of an overstatement, but not by much. There will be none of the pinpoint imaging, the clear instrument placement that we hear in recordings made with mics on stage, then mixed to stereo. And that's ok, because A) We might need that pinpoint imaging as a psychological substitute for the visual instrument placement we get in a live performance, B) We're listening to a recording, not a live performance. That is what we have to reproduce, all we have to reproduce and there's a pretty good argument in favor of doing it well, and C) I like it. Your mileage may vary, but I really enjoy that imaging that I think we're calling "focus" here, where I can close my eyes and easily envision the bass right there, on the left, behind the guitar, the piano forward and to the left of the drum kit, and the singer dead center in a plane in front of all the rest. I like it. I'm not fooling myself into believing it is what I would experience in the club, listening live, but I like it.
And it would seem that in this thread, I can even agree with microstrip
. Or at least I can agree with microstrip agreeing with Toole:I like my stereo imaging, but I don't like extremes, I don't like dead rooms. And while I've heard rooms that could benefit from serious dulling of first reflections, I've heard many more typical domestic living spaces, with their rugs and their overstuffed furniture and their shelves of books and nicknacks, that I thought would be better left alone. Your mileage definitely may vary on that. But while I think that deadening first reflections can enhance the pinpoint imaging referred to above, but can very easily go too far and sacrifice too much in the process.
I think I'll leave the synergy discussion alone. My opinion there would just be a lighting rod.
Tim
Lots to agree with here....
(...)
And it would seem that in this thread, I can even agree with microstrip
In summary, it is clear that the establishment of a subjective preference for the sound from a loudspeaker incorporates aspects of both sound quality and spatial quality, and there are situations when one may debate which is more important. The results discussed here all point in the same direction: that widedispersion loudspeakers, used in rooms that allow for early lateral reflections are preferred by listeners especially, but not exclusively, for recreational listening.
Tim
Tim,
Although I am happy with your agreement I would be even more if you quoted the whole block including the two final conclusive lines. They were the more relevant to this thread, and ommiting them changes the sense ofwhat we were agreeing.
In summary, it is clear that the establishment of a subjective preference for the sound from a loudspeaker incorporates aspects of both sound quality and spatial quality, and there are situations when one may debate which is more important. The results discussed here all point in the same direction: that widedispersion loudspeakers, used in rooms that allow for early lateral reflections are preferred by listeners especially, but not exclusively, for recreational listening.
There appear to be no notable sacrifices in the “imaging” qualities of stereo reproduction. Indeed, there are several comments about excellent image stability and sensations of depth in the soundstage.
Myles,
Small world. My daugther was in NY this week - she must be flying back now - and yesterday she told me she went to the Kronos Quartet 40th anniversary spectacle at the Carnegie. I wil surely ask her opinion about the acoustics when she comes home.
Tim,
Although I am happy with your agreement I would be even more if you quoted the whole block including the two final conclusive lines. They were the more relevant to this thread, and ommiting them changes the sense ofwhat we were agreeing.
In summary, it is clear that the establishment of a subjective preference for the sound from a loudspeaker incorporates aspects of both sound quality and spatial quality, and there are situations when one may debate which is more important. The results discussed here all point in the same direction: that widedispersion loudspeakers, used in rooms that allow for early lateral reflections are preferred by listeners especially, but not exclusively, for recreational listening.
There appear to be no notable sacrifices in the “imaging” qualities of stereo reproduction. Indeed, there are several comments about excellent image stability and sensations of depth in the soundstage.
That would be where you and Toole and I part company. In fact, I'm a little shocked that Toole, or anyone as learned and experienced as Toole, would say this. Perhaps I need even more context, to understand what he means by "sacrificing imaging qualities." Semantics, perhaps. "image stability and depth in the sound stage" are not the same thing as pinpoint imaging and instrument placement. Maybe Toole is talking about something completely different, but I know for certain that if you take speakers out of a heavily treated room and set them up in a significantly more reflective one, there are unquestionably notable differences in the imaging. "Sacrifices?" We've just dived deep into the subjective zone again, but there is no doubt that if enough reflections are brought into play in the more reflective room, the placement of instruments in the horizontal field will be less precise. But it will also be arguably less natural. Do we not agree on this as well?
Tim
FWIW, that's exactly what MBL's do and that's why I, along with some others, consider them a superior transducer in their ability to approximate the experience of hearing live, unamplified music in one's listening room.
The question, of course, is the degree of reflectivity.
Less natural? Purely subjective.
GG
The question, of course, is the degree of reflectivity.
Less natural? Purely subjective.
GG
I agree, Myles. Like others I had thought a while ago that precise location is an artifact of stereo systems, but recent concert experiences have made me revise my views on this.
Yes, when you sit way back in the hall, everything becomes a 'huge mono' -- but actually, when you close your eyes it is obvious that at a greater distance from the stage the image becomes rather small, even from a large orchestra. Yet more close-up, you do get precise location.
You do not get small pin-point location though. The pin-point voices on many pop recordings are indeed an artifact, born from, as the senior technician at Goodwin's High End explained to me, anechoic recording in a booth and compression on top of it (compression thus seems not just to affect dynamics, it's just bad overall). From vocals on classical recordings in real spaces I rarely get small pin-point location, but believable life-size projection.
Some have blamed minimonitors for artificial pin-point imaging. Yet the above comparison between pop pin-point imaging and voices on classical recordings (or good pop or jazz recordings) shows that good minimonitors llike mine just mercilessly expose the imaging flaws in recordings, whereas some larger speakers may gloss over them.
How about the opposite problem like when you get pianos that are 20' wide and drum kits that stretch across the stage for 50' and voices that sound like they are coming out of those 'Big Head' posters you see at sporting events?
That is precisely one reason (among others) why I would be hesitant to move away from the minimonitor concept even if I had a larger room than mine. Large speakers have advantages, but they also tend to have a lot of problems that you have to work on hard to get things right.
When minimonitors are paired with a good subwoofer I also don't see a comparative advantage with large speakers in terms of frequency response. On the contrary, the precise and thus more impactful bass that I get from my combo beats that of quite a few larger speakers that I''ve heard. And even better, the bass is more easily adjustable by recording. And the low midrange of my minimonitors is just as gutsy and powerful (tuba, trombone, cello, lower register of piano) as that of good large speakers, while more easily avoiding the 'bloating' problem (not that it can't be done right with good construction and room positioning of large speakers).
Last edited:
Similar threads
Members online
- Lojay
- Zigis
- nattonrice
- Glide3
- Mike Lavigne
- agrinfeld
- pdxaudio
- tmiddle2
- Davidny
- Slash21
- Stevet
- Another Johnson
- markgarm
- rt662
- TKK
- Maril555
- cs3255
- thedudeabides
- Hificlips
- Opabin
- five
- Wavetouch
- tomas329
- 3rdRock
- Peterhongkong
- Giotrude2
- Young Skywalker
- 3776Meters
- ton77
- Gryffles
- the sound of Tao
- shel50
- Tlay
- pjwd
- Jambo
- thekong
- digit_linn
- mtemur
- Holli82
- pnp
- MadFloyd
- JohnP
- skids929
- Polygonhell
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |