Focus

[microstrip]

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

Tim,

Each room is a particular case and speculating about imaginary rooms is useless. We have many opinions about room treatment - and I have found that the treatment of the lateral first reflection points is a source of divergence among the learned and experienced acoustics people. Do you know who wrote " the side walls should not absorb sound at the reflection points but diffuse it? " He owns this room and he is a great speaker designer.

 

[mep]

That room appears like it would be highly reflective based upon all of that glass.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Each room is a particular case and speculating about imaginary rooms is useless. We have many opinions about room treatment - and I have found that the treatment of the lateral first reflection points is a source of divergence among the learned and experienced acoustics people. Do you know who wrote " the side walls should not absorb sound at the reflection points but diffuse it? " He owns this room and he is a great speaker designer.

I'm not speculating about imaginary rooms, micro, I'm expressing my view, based on my owns experiece.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I'm pretty sure that is Mr. Linkwitz' room.

I think the prerequisite for tight image focus is symmetry. By that I mean both electrical and acoustical. If you can't sum the center, good luck getting phantom images anywhere else. The tighter the tolerances the tighter the focus IME.

That said, it is not a high priority for me. I prefer a more row 10 to 12 presentation and it shows in my system pics. Loudspeakers are pretty wide apart with little toe in. I sit pretty far away too.

 

[Al M.]

Tim,

Each room is a particular case and speculating about imaginary rooms is useless. We have many opinions about room treatment - and I have found that the treatment of the lateral first reflection points is a source of divergence among the learned and experienced acoustics people. Do you know who wrote " the side walls should not absorb sound at the reflection points but diffuse it? " He owns this room and he is a great speaker designer.

My room treatment is entirely diffusive. The tube traps are also turned towards their diffusive side, not their absorptive one.

 

[Ethan Winer]

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" ... So IMHO is is not a myth, but a reality.

Please prove this with actual evidence. Not anecdotal "it sounds better to me and my friends" or similar. Show us some hard data of what differs between a competent all-in-one receiver and separate components. Please use the standard metrics of fidelity that are universally accepted and have a meaning that is not open to subjective interpretation.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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

You lost me, GG. What is exactly what MBL's do?

Tim

 

[mep]

Please prove this with actual evidence. Not anecdotal "it sounds better to me and my friends" or similar. Show us some hard data of what differs between a competent all-in-one receiver and separate components. Please use the standard metrics of fidelity that are universally accepted and have a meaning that is not open to subjective interpretation.

--Ethan

What "actual evidence" do you have that shows there is no difference between a "competent" all in one receiver and separate components? It won't be power output into 4 ohms and lower impedance dips of many speakers on the market.

 

[rbbert]

My room treatment is entirely diffusive. The tube traps are also turned towards their diffusive side, not their absorptive one.

I'm pretty sure TubeTraps don't have a "diffusive" side, it's either reflective or absorptive. Now since the reflective side is curved, there is a certain amount of something like diffusion, but it's not quite the same.

 

[microstrip]

I'm pretty sure that is Mr. Linkwitz' room.

I think the prerequisite for tight image focus is symmetry. By that I mean both electrical and acoustical. If you can't sum the center, good luck getting phantom images anywhere else. The tighter the tolerances the tighter the focus IME.

That said, it is not a high priority for me. I prefer a more row 10 to 12 presentation and it shows in my system pics. Loudspeakers are pretty wide apart with little toe in. I sit pretty far away too.

Bingo, Jack. It is effectively Mr. Linkwitz room. I have picked it to remember that in small room acoustics we do not have universal rules and even experts have very different opinions.

And yes, I also consider symmetry, mostly in the speaker boundary zone, is an important aspect for imaging.

 

[rbbert]

...Please use the standard metrics of fidelity that are universally accepted and have a meaning that is not open to subjective interpretation.

--Ethan

I'm curious; what are these "standard metrics of fidelity"?

 

[ddk]

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.

That can be true depending on the hall, your seat and of course how you listen to music. When I attend concerts I never strain to hear a particular instrument, I sit and listen to the performance, as you mentioned its like listening to a mono recording, which I prefer to stereo anyway. But the hall and location will also affect your experience. For example in Carnegie, Isaac Stern Auditorium, there's a dip in the floor starting around row G to row M, sitting somewhere in the middle in between those rows the sound is quite unspectacular and actually boring, I've fallen asleep almost every time that I sat there. Moving further back towards the end of the hall and back wall the sound explodes and becomes very lively, impossible to fall asleep. Things continue to change, the tonal quality and balance of the same orchestra during the same performance as you move around the hall and in the balconies. That's why there's no such thing as Absolute Sound, but there certainly is hifi!

david

 

[microstrip]

Please prove this with actual evidence. Not anecdotal "it sounds better to me and my friends" or similar. Show us some hard data of what differs between a competent all-in-one receiver and separate components. Please use the standard metrics of fidelity that are universally accepted and have a meaning that is not open to subjective interpretation.

--Ethan

This is an absurd request - you are requesting to use your standard metrics that are known not to describe subjective sound quality with discrimination enough in high-end audio to prove a subjective statement.

I know I do not have the resources or capability to prove anything. Our opinions on this forum are most of the time individual opinions about our beliefs. In this type of situations, people will read them, look at their previous experience and will agree or disagree with the statements, participating in the debate if they want to add something. I hope they will do it based in their listening experiences, not on the exchange of "proves".

 

[mep]

I'm curious; what are these "standard metrics of fidelity"?

I think there are only 3 measurements in the book of Ethan that tell you everything you need to know about audio components. Let's see what he says.

 

[microstrip]

I think there are only 3 measurements in the book of Ethan that tell you everything you need to know about audio components. Let's see what he says.

Mark,
I think they are 4.

 

[thedudeabides]

You lost me, GG. What is exactly what MBL's do?

Tim

Tim,

The tweeter and midrange "pods" on the 116's and the 111's have a 360 degree radiation pattern and make the back and sidewall reflections a part of the musical presentation experienced by the listener. IMHO, much like unamplified live music in a symphony hall or jazz club environment.

The 101's extend this concept further down into the frequency response. I don't know the "pod" cut off frequency for the 101's but I believe it is 2K for the other two models.

Hope that clarifies.

GG

 

[thedudeabides]

The standard metrics of musical fidelity that are universally accepted and have a meaning that is not open to subjective interpretation.

Oh my. I'm not going to touch that one.

GG

 

[Ethan Winer]

I'm curious; what are these "standard metrics of fidelity"?

Frequency response (can include ringing)
Noise (includes hum and buzz and vinyl crackles)
Distortion (THD, IMD aliasing)
Time-based errors (wow, flutter, jitter, ringing could go here too)

Much more here if you care:

AES Audio Myths
AES Damn Lies

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I know I do not have the resources or capability to prove anything. Our opinions on this forum are most of the time individual opinions about our beliefs.

Why am I not surprised? At least you acknowledge they're opinions and beliefs! That's definitely progress.

--Ethan

 

[JackD201]

Yours are the same Ethan.