What Really Matters?

[Folsom]

What do others think? Do Eichenbaum's questions get to the essence of this hobby?

The answer is as personal as your favorite food. What matters to you may not matter in the least to me. To me I just want it to sound as close to live music as possible and could care less what contraption conveys that experience.[/QUOTE]


So you would prefer a studio album that has no intention to sound live, be portrayed as if it were live anyway?

 

[witchdoctor]

No question about that!




When speakers have a very defined sweet spot, that means there are LOTS of SOUR spots for the ears to contend with!

This is why they invented Auro 3D, 5 bed channels + 4 height channels+ 1 VOG channel + 1 sub= the entire room is a sweet spot!

 

[fas42]

So you would prefer a studio album that has no intention to sound live, be portrayed as if it were live anyway?

The answer here is that such albums project a soundscape which is its own experience - they become immersive in the same way as a spectacular ride at an amusement park is: no-one expects the latter to be 'real' - it's the intensity, the overwhelming sense of being transported to a place which has its own set of rules, and which has full integrity to it that counts. If halfway through the ride you start becoming bored, or you become too much aware of the stage machinery making it happen - then the ride has failed; and so also for the playback of those sort of recordings.

 

[witchdoctor]

[/I]

So you would prefer a studio album that has no intention to sound live, be portrayed as if it were live anyway?

That is a VERY insightful question, you nailed my listening preference. When an album is mixed in the studio in stereo in my system it generally sounds best in 2 channel. On my marantz 7702 in pure direct mode its good. With my Sunfire Theater Grand 3 there is a special feature called Sonic Holography and when you setup the speakers exactly as described in the manual it sounds awesome in my room. not live but a helluva lot better then regular stereo. That is about the most I can squeeze from a studio album to answer your question. I listen to studio albums about 20% of the time. I like the playlist feature in tidal and the curated playlists as ways to discover new music.

Thanks goodness for Qello.com, concertvault.com, livestream.com, broadwayhd.com, and the concerts they stream on tidal. I listen to music recorded live the other 80% of the time. I have an Auro 3D hometheater and with live music and turned up to concert hall levels it is amazing the in your face representation it makes of a live concert.

Today on concert vault I listened to Bob Dylan and the band play a concert recorded in 1974 at the Boston Garden.

http://www.concertvault.com/bob-dylan-and-the-band/boston-garden-january-14-1974.html

They played All Along the Watchtower so my brain went into Hendrix mode.

Next up the Jimi Hendrix Experience recorded at the Winterland Ballroom 1968:

http://www.concertvault.com/jimi-hendrix-experience/winterland-october-12-1968-late.html

Once you listen to these types of shows in an immersive environment you can't go back to regular old studio recordings unless you have to. Check this out:

https://qello.com/concert/Greatest-Hits-Live-at-Montreux-2011-4247

 

[DaveC]

The question in the original post seems very strange, another way of asking what's the most important component in a system... But the more interesting question of what individuals find most important is indeed very different from person to person.

I have been studying this over the last few months and have had a couple dozen people listen to two different speakers and give me their opinions. The context is one speaker is a reference and the other is my design

What I've found is, as I said, it's very different. People pick up on certain things and they are all possible deal breakers as that is what the individual is most sensitive to. A few people have really keen hearing at high frequencies, they can hear any little imperfection and others don't notice or don't care. For others it's soundstaging and the ability of the speaker to sound like a concert. Others it's bass... Of course many people notice and comment on multiple things but the top priority and what they are sensitive to differs quite a bit. However, one thing that I find odd is despite this I've had 100% of people choose the same speaker as their preference, luckily it's mine but my reference is no slouch either so I expected preferences to differ as the speakers do have trade-offs... the reference has a flatter on-axis response, better driver spacing (it's a coax) and excellent upper mid to high frequency clarity and resolution. So personally I appreciate both speakers and expected split preferences; personally I like my own speaker but that's fairly meaningless

As we all know from Amir, Toole found the same thing... consistent listener preferences in his own testing so I guess I should have expected it. The large variety of comments and observations are interesting though and point out the different experiences different people have listening to the same system despite the overall preferences being the same.

I am pretty convinced the key to speaker design is not actual, technical speaker design... let's face it... it's not exactly rocket science. The key is understanding psychoacoustics so you can set your priorities straight and make design decisions based on how people actually hear rather than strictly by the numbers. Or in other words understand which numbers are important and what can be compromised for more important things.

 

[NorthStar]

I was reading a thread this morning, and someone posted a link to a quote by fellow WBF member Eichenbaum. It was written on Jan. 31st, 2014. Eichenbaum wrote:

"What really matters? The signal that reaches the speaker or the sound that reaches your ears?"

I hope Eixhenbaum does not mind me referring to his quote and using it to start a new thread.

I think these are two great questions and they get at the heart of the discussion we had in the recent vinyl versus digital thread. There, we discussed people's goals with their systems. One argument was that digital presents a more accurate copy of the original mic feed while the other was that vinyl presents a sound from a system that more closely resembles live, acoustic music, at least for some listeners. The discussion was basically about the final system sound versus maintaining signal integrity.

This question of "what really matters" also just came up in Amir's Entreq thread in the measurement forum while discussion testing protocols. What should we test for, and do the tests tell us what we really want to know?

I would like to discuss these two questions because I think how one answers them describes much about the way he approaches this hobby and what his priorities and goals are.

I tend to care most about how a system sounds and whether or not it reproduces my music in a believable and convincing way. My goal is to have the music recorded on my records sound like live acoustic music and to attempt to recreate the recorded performance in my listening room. Does this mean that I don't care about the signal that reaches my speakers? I do not think so, because the integrity of that signal must matter to the final sound, but it does mean that I am more interested in the final sound than in what is happening to the signal between my stylus and my speakers.

What do others think? Do Eichenbaum's questions get to the essence of this hobby?

Peter, another aspect of this audio audition business stuff that matters are the people. If we can respect the sound quality of our music recordings as much as the people surrounding us, we'd be ahead. ...The respect of our elders and youngsters and equals and ancestors and inferiors and superiors and all the living and dying. ...Life, the human race, the animals, our living planet.

Sorry, but it matters too. Easier to appreciate the music more when we take care of each other, and of all our surroundings...twenty-five thousand miles across and in all directions, plus under the ground and above in the air, ...our walking ground and space.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

the last year I've worked on tuning and tweaking my room. there has been power grid (outlets and plugs), signal path (grounding), and speaker (bass tower amp EQ) adjusting. however; there is no doubt that the acoustical changes to the room (after 11 years in the room and 20 years building the system) have yielded the most dramatic and valuable changes in the last 12-14 months. and they cost me maybe 2-4% in dollars for what i spent on the other 'system' changes.

as i went step be step around my room dealing with reflective issues over a 6 month period, and then proceeded to eliminate a suckout and then fine tune my bass amplifier EQ the 'suspension of disbelief' got better, and better, and better.....

when Peter says;

I tend to care most about how a system sounds and whether or not it reproduces my music in a believable and convincing way

it seems to me that what I've done acoustically has been the 'magic elixir' to overall believability and realism. so it's what I hear not what the speakers emit. no matter the output the room has to get-out-of-the-way.

why do things work that way?

my SWAG is that the type of distortion our rooms can overlay the music emitting from the speaker is more harmful that any signal path deficiency.

obviously this is a broad generalization and no doubt there is a gradual back and forth approach from signal path to acoustics and back over time.

 

[fas42]

my SWAG is that the type of distortion our rooms can overlay the music emitting from the speaker is more harmful that any signal path deficiency.

obviously this is a broad generalization and no doubt there is a gradual back and forth approach from signal path to acoustics and back over time.

So, Mike, would you say that the acoustic output from your speakers direct always strikes you as being real, no matter where you stand in relation to them?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So, Mike, would you say that the acoustic output from your speakers direct always strikes you as being real, no matter where you stand in relation to them?

Frank,

the short answer is yes. but allow me to explain.

when I treated the room surfaces I was caught by surprise by the degree of reflective distortion present. like peeling an onion it seemed to be an endless process. I would treat a surface and listen, then remove the treatment and listen, then put it back. my room is relatively large and maybe as reflective as any you might find. this reflective 'hash' energy affected all listening positions quite profoundly. as i found more and more areas to 'improve' frequent visitors commented on the changes. I would tell them sorta what I had done.....their reaction was interesting as they did not necessarily accept my explanation for why it was different but they could easily hear the differences. a few never cared for the sweet spot so sat back or to the side. my final and most significant reflective treatment was directly above my listening position and directly above the other listening seating. so all along while I was working on all the other reflective spots, that 'hash from the ceiling was still overlaying everything.

Marty was just here and you may have read his comments. he was in my room a year ago when I had been about 6 weeks into dealing with the reflective hash issues. it's hard for anyone to know what is causing what unless you are doing the daily A/B work.

that all makes sense now. but when I recall my 'belief' structure prior to going down that road it's scary how out of touch I was.

my final step acoustically was to laser align the speakers; I was quite surprised how some very tiny changes in vertical and horizontal orientation would yield performance improvements out of the sweet spot. I'm guessing that with the reflections controlled and the speakers precisely aligned and at the same height that everything just snapped into place.

looking at the picture below I'd say any seat on my sofa or rear chairs gets a quite linear musical message. and it's better just walking around the room or even just talking in the room with the music off. added note; I grabbed that picture from my hard drive.....now I notice it's not current....it's from last October. when I get a chance i'll take a fresh one.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I have done the same as mike in my room , I have an "end" system for myself in what I can afford or am willing to spend on the gear itself.

The room however was not getting the best out of the system and thus I addressed it .. the signal hitting my ear thing.

I went to town in the room to get it to at least allow me to listen to the signal that hits the speakers with the least mangling possible.
Room within a room , bass traps , diffusion , absorption , multi subs to smooth room response , dirac , eq and and and.. all to STOP the room messing up what I spent my hard earned lolly on...

Every room enhancement has wrought amazing returns , as mike says , each improvement has further improved the sensation that you are there or they are in your room..suspension of disbelief. Best of all , it has cost me fractions of the system price . I wish I had done all this many years ago...

I think that is the essence of Eichenbaums conundrum... are you concerned about how the space between the speakers and you mess up your pristine signal or not.

 

[fas42]

Mike, thanks for that comprehensive "picture" of your approach ... :b

 

[Al M.]

it seems to me that what I've done acoustically has been the 'magic elixir' to overall believability and realism. so it's what I hear not what the speakers emit. no matter the output the room has to get-out-of-the-way.

Yes, you want to be able to listen to the recorded space, which is only possible if your room 'disappears', i.e. all the reflections that impose their own signature on the signal from the recording are removed or diffused by proper acoustic room treatment.

my SWAG is that the type of distortion our rooms can overlay the music emitting from the speaker is more harmful that any signal path deficiency.

Absolutely. This is my own experience as well, Mike.

Dealing with the room is paramount, no matter how fancy or expensive your gear is.

 

[Al M.]

the last year I've worked on tuning and tweaking my room. there has been power grid (outlets and plugs), signal path (grounding), and speaker (bass tower amp EQ) adjusting. however; there is no doubt that the acoustical changes to the room (after 11 years in the room and 20 years building the system) have yielded the most dramatic and valuable changes in the last 12-14 months. and they cost me maybe 2-4% in dollars for what i spent on the other 'system' changes.

Yes, proper acoustic treatment of the room can be one of the most cost-effective things that you'll ever do for improving your system's sound.

Even for my relatively modest system/room the acoustic treatment was a rather low portion of the total cost, but the impact on sound quality was enormous.

This also plays into the original question:
"What really matters? The signal that reaches the speaker or the sound that reaches your ears?"

The sound that reaches our ears is fundamentally impacted by the quality of the room acoustics and the room/speaker interaction. If that is not right, anything that happens until the signal reaches the speaker is of lesser importance because the signal is markedly degraded and distorted by the room once the speaker transduces it.

 

[fas42]

The sound that reaches our ears is fundamentally impacted by the quality of the room acoustics and the room/speaker interaction. If that is not right, anything that happens until the signal reaches the speaker is of lesser importance because the signal is markedly degraded and distorted by the room once the speaker transduces it.

Which is not how it works for me. When a system is working properly the acoustic of the recording takes over, dominates the listening space, it sets the agenda for what I will hear as the primary source of sound in that area: if it's a small space in the recording then that's what I'll be aware of, if it's one far larger than the physical walls of the room that I happen to be in then that far greater size is what I perceive.

This extends to being to move around anywhere in the listening area, and the acoustic of the recording remains locked in place, it doesn't shift and vary in its nature depending on where I position myself.

Note, this only happens when the sound from the speaker drivers is good enough; anything less in quality than a certain essential level will cause the perceived sound to drop back to conventional behaviours in the listening. So, this is a totally subjective experience, which may not happen at all for some individuals; for me, it's quite magical to experience ..

 

[witchdoctor]

the last year I've worked on tuning and tweaking my room. there has been power grid (outlets and plugs), signal path (grounding), and speaker (bass tower amp EQ) adjusting. however; there is no doubt that the acoustical changes to the room (after 11 years in the room and 20 years building the system) have yielded the most dramatic and valuable changes in the last 12-14 months. and they cost me maybe 2-4% in dollars for what i spent on the other 'system' changes.

as i went step be step around my room dealing with reflective issues over a 6 month period, and then proceeded to eliminate a suckout and then fine tune my bass amplifier EQ the 'suspension of disbelief' got better, and better, and better.....

when Peter says;



it seems to me that what I've done acoustically has been the 'magic elixir' to overall believability and realism. so it's what I hear not what the speakers emit. no matter the output the room has to get-out-of-the-way.

why do things work that way?

my SWAG is that the type of distortion our rooms can overlay the music emitting from the speaker is more harmful that any signal path deficiency.

obviously this is a broad generalization and no doubt there is a gradual back and forth approach from signal path to acoustics and back over time.

It would be great if you could post some pics of the room treatments you did. I think the 2%-4% investment sounds well worth it.

 

[Bobvin]

All this talk of the room treatment—has me full of anticipation for my room. With design complete, both visual and acoustic, I am only waiting for the general contractor to finalize the timeline and budget. By end of summer...

 

[fas42]

As an example of what I've come across recently on YouTube, that captures the type of playback I aim for, are better demos of the Living Voice speakers, as in this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj47yYIDUh0. Particularly note the quality of the soundstage as the camera moves around an individual speaker, this is the effect that occurs when the system is in the zone ...

 

[witchdoctor]

As an example of what I've come across recently on YouTube, that captures the type of playback I aim for, are better demos of the Living Voice speakers, as in this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj47yYIDUh0. Particularly note the quality of the soundstage as the camera moves around an individual speaker, this is the effect that occurs when the system is in the zone ...

WOW! Even through youtube these monsters are amazing. if you like Living Voice what do you think of this JBL classic?

https://youtu.be/9HXpikQ6gCg

 

[fas42]

Ahh ... good old Kenrick! Not bad, but the tonality is not quite together - my favourites are the big Rey Audio, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-JfHjn9LC4 and JBL Baron, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frii1NS5AMw.

 

[KostasP.]

Hello still-one,
Thank you for your feedback but I think that you really overlooked the essence of my comments. Of course, we all attempt - within our means and constraints - to optimise our listening pleasure by various methods, both substantial and necessary as well as psycho-acoustic. My article made no inferences to the opposite; in fact, it did not touch on these at all.
As for the comment that you found ''somewhat insulting'', please place it in its COMPLETE context by reading the sentence that follows. If you still find it deprecatory ( insulting ) then it is also self-deprecating because I referred to all the passionate audiophiles, including myself!
The agitation that is sensed in your response is really not justified. If anything, the ethos of my comments was good-spirited with the intention of soothing our ''insanity".
Cheers, Kostas.