Audio Myths?
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Ok, my opinion about the room…
I will try two miths at the same time !
opcorn:
Here we are getting in war zone, or at least in shifting sands with these.
First the need of acoustic treatment. IF you have a dedicated room to audio stuff, naked of furniture, where there is only the system and your chair, I would say, OF COURSE, some room treatment will be need. BUT, if you have a normal living room, with some standard furniture, probably with a sofa, curtains in the windows, a good carpet, and IF there is no echo (clap test), you don't need any acoustic treatment. Voilá! :sigh: All the problems that you ear are in the system. (*)
I don´t even think the position of the speakers are so critical than you. At some point is more a matter of taste. When things are right at the "back" of the system, as we all know, different position brings a different sound. As an example, more toe-in gives more focus and speed, less toe-in more stage and less defined bass. But somehow you feel that in a way or another things are "right" and you have to decide what you like more.
BUT, as it seems to me that there are very few truly fine-tuned systems that have reached high levels of performance, and especially when these are expensive with pedigreed brands, the tendency is to blame the room. That´s why, in my opinion, the importance of the room is overrated.
I leave this exercise again: imagine a room normally furnished as described above, but where it is difficult to take pleasure in an audio system. We take out the audio system and put in a piano or a bass guitar. Is it going to sound so bad that we're immediately looking for acoustic treatment?
(* I don´t have problems with my room. And my system reacts to all changes.
I will try two miths at the same time !
opcorn:Here we are getting in war zone, or at least in shifting sands with these.
First the need of acoustic treatment. IF you have a dedicated room to audio stuff, naked of furniture, where there is only the system and your chair, I would say, OF COURSE, some room treatment will be need. BUT, if you have a normal living room, with some standard furniture, probably with a sofa, curtains in the windows, a good carpet, and IF there is no echo (clap test), you don't need any acoustic treatment. Voilá! :sigh: All the problems that you ear are in the system. (*)
I don´t even think the position of the speakers are so critical than you. At some point is more a matter of taste. When things are right at the "back" of the system, as we all know, different position brings a different sound. As an example, more toe-in gives more focus and speed, less toe-in more stage and less defined bass. But somehow you feel that in a way or another things are "right" and you have to decide what you like more.
BUT, as it seems to me that there are very few truly fine-tuned systems that have reached high levels of performance, and especially when these are expensive with pedigreed brands, the tendency is to blame the room. That´s why, in my opinion, the importance of the room is overrated.
I leave this exercise again: imagine a room normally furnished as described above, but where it is difficult to take pleasure in an audio system. We take out the audio system and put in a piano or a bass guitar. Is it going to sound so bad that we're immediately looking for acoustic treatment?
(* I don´t have problems with my room. And my system reacts to all changes.
Let´s try another… quickly 
No. We must spend a lot of TIME and passion to achieve a great playback performance.
BUT, when I listened some high priced gear, most of times I hear great potential but most of the time untapped. When I hear a big and strong bass, most of the times it intrudes through the other ranges and dominates and pollutes the whole presentation. When I hear a detailed presentation, most of times it is almost always anemic, “digital”, dry and lacking in groove. In many high priced systems, especially when speakers have exotic drivers, the human voice often sounds electronic and unpleasant. Most of times, the high frequencies are the “Achilles heel”, but I think in that case the problem is often outside the active components.
To conclude and trying to explain better, large systems, namely large speakers, “amplify” everything, even the problems:weird:, and often this result in lower performance. I like and pursue the effortless scale, dimension (*) and presentation that many speakers achieve but the problem is balance. I feel that many brands are trying to solve these problems, inside the equipment or even outside of them (**). In short, money alone does not guarantee a good performance.
(*) even bigger than natural because just like in the cinema I don't worry about a 2 meters face, I also don't dislike the instrument being reproduced beyond its natural size...
(**)McIntosh AS125 and AS901 amplifier stands Launches as dedicated stands for its highest amplifiers - YouTube
No. We must spend a lot of TIME and passion to achieve a great playback performance.
BUT, when I listened some high priced gear, most of times I hear great potential but most of the time untapped. When I hear a big and strong bass, most of the times it intrudes through the other ranges and dominates and pollutes the whole presentation. When I hear a detailed presentation, most of times it is almost always anemic, “digital”, dry and lacking in groove. In many high priced systems, especially when speakers have exotic drivers, the human voice often sounds electronic and unpleasant. Most of times, the high frequencies are the “Achilles heel”, but I think in that case the problem is often outside the active components.
To conclude and trying to explain better, large systems, namely large speakers, “amplify” everything, even the problems:weird:, and often this result in lower performance. I like and pursue the effortless scale, dimension (*) and presentation that many speakers achieve but the problem is balance. I feel that many brands are trying to solve these problems, inside the equipment or even outside of them (**). In short, money alone does not guarantee a good performance.
(*) even bigger than natural because just like in the cinema I don't worry about a 2 meters face, I also don't dislike the instrument being reproduced beyond its natural size...
(**)McIntosh AS125 and AS901 amplifier stands Launches as dedicated stands for its highest amplifiers - YouTube
a.wayne
Well-known member
Klingon Class A ...!!!
Ok, my opinion about the room…
I will try two miths at the same time !
Here we are getting in war zone, or at least in shifting sands with these.
Isn't most anything in high-end audio a potential war zone?
Acoustic treatments. Note that I specifically stated aftermarket acoustic treatments. I'm all for carpeting/pad, light furnishings including possible bookcases, ottomans, etc. IMO, that's all that's really needed. But then I’ve never possessed a large room nor a small room. There are those who claim we must employ aftermarket acoustic treatments and bass traps to maximize our playback presentations. Indeed, all the problems we hear are in the system. Well, sorta....., see below.
Speaker positioning, IMO, is the second most critical sector to address in the playback vineyard. The first being a greatly reduced playback system's noise-floor threshold. In my limited experience, speaker/sub placement and/or tuning is the only way to achieve a truly musical bass as well as provide an overall balanced and musical presentation. In theory, I suspect there is AN or perhaps THE optimal speaker placement location within a room to maximize speaker's level of musicality. I call this acoustically coupling the speaker (or sub) to the room. There is the ballpark, the outfield, the infield, and the pitcher's mound, and my experience leads me to believe that the closer I'm able to pinpoint my speaker at the exact center of the pitcher's mound, the more musical the bass and entire presentation. And the closer to the pitcher's mound dead center (wherever that is) the greater the benefits. Extraordinary benefits actually. That's why I consider this the 2nd greater improvement we can make. But oh so potentially painstaking.
There are indeed very few truly fine-tuned systems. But as mentioned earlier, like the speaker, the room itself is irrelevant while the speaker / room interaction is near everything. But this can only be accomplished by extremely precise speaker placement and it’s regardless of which room anybody is talking of. Sure, there are hideous rooms and perhaps a few outstanding room but in all cases, I’m guessing the final presentation including levels of bass, balance, tonality, warmth, etc are all greatly impacted by speaker placement.
Excellent point. I suspect there’s enough about this topic to dedicated an entire thread. But you’re example is excellent. The main point being that with a live instrument in the room, you hear it all including all the associated ambient info. Whereas with most any playback system, we hear far less than all, especially when it comes to the lowest of low-level detail which is the volumes of ambient info embedded in a given recording but much remains inaudible at the speaker.
No but without careful speaker placement, I’ll bet dollars-to-donuts you have speaker / room interaction deficiencies.
Let´s try another… quickly
No. We must spend a lot of TIME and passion to achieve a great playback performance.
BUT, when I listened some high priced gear, most of times I hear great potential but most of the time untapped. When I hear a big and strong bass, most of the times it intrudes through the other ranges and dominates and pollutes the whole presentation. When I hear a detailed presentation, most of times it is almost always anemic, “digital”, dry and lacking in groove. In many high priced systems, especially when speakers have exotic drivers, the human voice often sounds electronic and unpleasant. Most of times, the high frequencies are the “Achilles heel”, but I think in that case the problem is often outside the active components.
To conclude and trying to explain better, large systems, namely large speakers, “amplify” everything, even the problems:weird:, and often this result in lower performance. I like and pursue the effortless scale, dimension (*) and presentation that many speakers achieve but the problem is balance. I feel that many brands are trying to solve these problems, inside the equipment or even outside of them (**). In short, money alone does not guarantee a good performance.
(*) even bigger than natural because just like in the cinema I don't worry about a 2 meters face, I also don't dislike the instrument being reproduced beyond its natural size...
(**)McIntosh AS125 and AS901 amplifier stands Launches as dedicated stands for its highest amplifiers - YouTube
Actually, like the speaker, doesn't every component / accessory also behave much the same? You used the word amplified. But when a new component / accessory is truly more revealing, ought it be indiscriminate about what it reveals? You hear more music and detail but you should also hear more distorition, grunge, etc because components / accessories ought to be indiscriminate about what they reveal more of, right?
I actually consider this more distortion, etc as a cry for help elsewhere in the system.
Who wouldn't be interested in other ways, epsecilally if they offer shortcuts? Do tell.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
No shortcut. Have the speaker(s), in the same exact placement, vary its directivity full bandwidth. So that in the bass, the room modes, subsequent excitement and decay lengths, are driven differently and thus perceived differently at the listening position. Direct away from "too close" boundaries if needed. Ditto for the midbass through treble, so that boundary proximities don't degrade, but rather enhance the clarity, imaging and soundstaging characteristics. Without moving a mm.Who wouldn't be interested in other ways, epsecilally if they offer shortcuts? Do tell.
Spatial rendering can vary quite a bit based on program material/recording techniques. The rendering requirements of a solo guitar recorded in studio is vastly different than a full orchestra in a hall. Its a fools errand to attempt both with direct plane waves radiation from 2 channels and expect similar results. That's been known for about 70 years, dating back to Bell Labs. Yet here we are.
cheers,
AJ
Touché!
No, i only have earthly things.
Class XD (*) (Cambridge Pre)
Semi Digital (Lyngdorf power)
(*) whatever that means
No shortcut. Have the speaker(s), in the same exact placement, vary its directivity full bandwidth. So that in the bass, the room modes, subsequent excitement and decay lengths, are driven differently and thus perceived differently at the listening position. Direct away from "too close" boundaries if needed. Ditto for the midbass through treble, so that boundary proximities don't degrade, but rather enhance the clarity, imaging and soundstaging characteristics. Without moving a mm.
Spatial rendering can vary quite a bit based on program material/recording techniques. The rendering requirements of a solo guitar recorded in studio is vastly different than a full orchestra in a hall. Its a fools errand to attempt both with direct plane waves radiation from 2 channels and expect similar results. That's been known for about 70 years, dating back to Bell Labs. Yet here we are.
cheers,
AJ
Regarding the first part I'm unsure what you're alluding to unless it's some type of dsp or EQ.
Regarding the 2nd part, I think there's a misunderstanding here. When we're talking playback there are but two primary areas of concern that I'm aware of to ensure what we hear from our listening chairs.
1. The playback system's electrically-induced noise floor threshold which essentially determines what remains audible at the speaker as well as the quality thereof.
2. The interaction or acoustic coupling of the speaker / room which in itself is an acoustic type of noise floor that also determines what we hear and don't hear in a given room as well as the quality thereof.
Notice how I did not put equipment in that list? But in both cases the target on the wall remains our attempt to ensure as much of that 100% music info embedded in the recording remains audible from our listening chairs.
1. What remains audible at the speaker - based on what we've accomplished with the playback system's noise floor.
2. What remains audible at the speaker also remains audible in the room - based on what we've accomplished with our attempts to acoustically couple a speaker to its room.
Because we're actually combatting 2 noise floors. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but nowhere do I see any need for us in any of our endeavors to distinquish the type of instrument note and the type of venue. Or as you said, between a guitar in a studio vs a full orchestra in a concert hall.
For better or worse, all the music info embedded in the recording has already solved that for us. Based on our sufficiently addressing the playback system's noise floor as well our sufficiently addressing the acoustic noise floor induced by the speaker / room config. Or based on how insufficiently we addressed these sectors.
Not the only way.
From my experience, cables and accessories have a big role to play. My new speaker cables brought me the last improvement in the bass.N Vasilic on Vimeo
But we'll get soon to the accessories...
irate:No but without careful speaker placement, I’ll bet dollars-to-donuts you have speaker / room interaction deficiencies.
You are probably right because i don't sacrifice everything in the living room for the sound. I see some of my audiophile friends (at least two of them) who have the speakers almost in the center of the room. And this kill the space for other uses. In a house, the space (m2) is too expensive to waste!
Exactly. That´s what I mean when I say that “Most of times, the high frequencies are the “Achilles heel”, but I think in that case the problem is often outside the active components.”
We can't exploit the best of the high frequencies until we act on electricity...
Ok, let´s go now to another...
Here it is pure minefield.:reallymad:
No audiophile admits 2 things:
- that he made a wrong purchase (what he has is always the best the market has to offer)
- that he doesn't know how to listen
BUT the hearing can be trained!
And it is obvious that many audiophiles lack listening training. It's amazing how, for example, certain colorations are not perceived and, on the contrary, they are even praised as a “good sound”. Like when the bass is fat and boomy, and some people like it! Of course, many are not true practicing audiophiles. For them, listening to music is an accessory activity to reading the newspaper or something else. And of course quality is sacrificed in the altar of convenience.
Anytime i have the opportunity to listen another system, i look for what my system doesn´t have.
I think the best way to evolve is listening other systems and look for what´s good about them.
Not the only way.
N Vasilic on Vimeo
But we'll get soon to the accessories...
You are probably right because i don't sacrifice everything in the living room for the sound. I see some of my audiophile friends (at least two of them) who have the speakers almost in the center of the room. And this kill the space for other uses. In a house, the space (m2) is too expensive to waste!
Exactly. That´s what I mean when I say that “Most of times, the high frequencies are the “Achilles heel”, but I think in that case the problem is often outside the active components.”
We can't exploit the best of the high frequencies until we act on electricity...
Ok, let´s go now to another...
Here it is pure minefield.:reallymad:
No audiophile admits 2 things:
- that he made a wrong purchase (what he has is always the best the market has to offer)
- that he doesn't know how to listen
BUT the hearing can be trained!
And it is obvious that many audiophiles lack listening training. It's amazing how, for example, certain colorations are not perceived and, on the contrary, they are even praised as a “good sound”. Like when the bass is fat and boomy, and some people like it! Of course, many are not true practicing audiophiles. For them, listening to music is an accessory activity to reading the newspaper or something else. And of course quality is sacrificed in the altar of convenience.
Anytime i have the opportunity to listen another system, i look for what my system doesn´t have.
I think the best way to evolve is listening other systems and look for what´s good about them.
Nice recording. With regard to bass, it's not an either/or situation regarding speaker/sub placement/tuning vs cables, component upgrades, other accessories, etc. Rather it's a both/and situation. it's cables, it's energy mgmt, it's speaker placement, upgrades, etc. I like to say that everything has its role of responsibility in its part of the playback vineyard and with very little overlap into other parts of the vineyard. Well, except for electrical and mechanical energy mgmt which overlaps into almost every part of the playback vineyard.
But instead I think I'll say everything has its role of responsibility in their part of the noise floor vineyard - and as mentioned we're talking two primary noise floors. One electrically induced and the other acoustically induced. Where each noise floor has little influence over the other. Actually the electrically-induced playback system noise floor will potentially influence the acoustic noise floor but not vice versa. Though I can't prove it, I suspect everything we do electronically-related to our systems will contribute to the accumulated playback system's noise floor threshold. And it's the playback presentation we hear as determined ultimately by its noise floor threshold.
Yes, the ability to discern / interpret what we hear requires much training, practice, etc.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
This, which I previously quoted:
No hinting, just the facts of other way, stated in my response.
cheers,
AJ
Well, i go now for my last one, because in many of the others I have no opinion.
This one is, perhaps, the most dangerous of all.:heart:
Going straight to the point, just making it clear that:
- in the accessories theme I include the cables.
- what I will say next is on the assumption of the full optimization of a system to obtain the best possible performance.
So, in my opinion, at least 50% of the sound is played outside the active components. (*)
I know that there are many systems that don't show big differences, namely in cables. I do not know why. I leave the explanation of compatibilities in terms of impedances, etc. to others. But I trust much more in a system that reveals differences. Transparency levels are typically much higher, and the performance potential is much bigger. Systems that do not reveal differences play what they play and no more.
(*) One of Greek audiophiles in the video below says that electricity is 50% of a quality sound. I'm more reasonable. I give 50% to everything that is not an active component, with a large share for cables.
Clube de audiofilos de Atenas, ano 2006 - YouTube
Finally, I leave you with another myth: If the system seems to have different performances on different days, that it's only in our heads. We are the ones who make a different assessment because the system is always the same. Is that true?
This one is, perhaps, the most dangerous of all.:heart:
Going straight to the point, just making it clear that:
- in the accessories theme I include the cables.
- what I will say next is on the assumption of the full optimization of a system to obtain the best possible performance.
So, in my opinion, at least 50% of the sound is played outside the active components. (*)
I know that there are many systems that don't show big differences, namely in cables. I do not know why. I leave the explanation of compatibilities in terms of impedances, etc. to others. But I trust much more in a system that reveals differences. Transparency levels are typically much higher, and the performance potential is much bigger. Systems that do not reveal differences play what they play and no more.
(*) One of Greek audiophiles in the video below says that electricity is 50% of a quality sound. I'm more reasonable.
I give 50% to everything that is not an active component, with a large share for cables. Clube de audiofilos de Atenas, ano 2006 - YouTube
Finally, I leave you with another myth: If the system seems to have different performances on different days, that it's only in our heads. We are the ones who make a different assessment because the system is always the same. Is that true?
Well, i go now for my last one, because in many of the others I have no opinion.
This one is, perhaps, the most dangerous of all.:heart:
Going straight to the point, just making it clear that:
- in the accessories theme I include the cables.
- what I will say next is on the assumption of the full optimization of a system to obtain the best possible performance.
So, in my opinion, at least 50% of the sound is played outside the active components. (*)
I know that there are many systems that don't show big differences, namely in cables. I do not know why. I leave the explanation of compatibilities in terms of impedances, etc. to others. But I trust much more in a system that reveals differences. Transparency levels are typically much higher, and the performance potential is much bigger. Systems that do not reveal differences play what they play and no more.
(*) One of Greek audiophiles in the video below says that electricity is 50% of a quality sound. I'm more reasonable.
Clube de audiofilos de Atenas, ano 2006 - YouTube
Finally, I leave you with another myth: If the system seems to have different performances on different days, that it's only in our heads. We are the ones who make a different assessment because the system is always the same. Is that true?
Not so sure about cables in and of themselves being an accessory. After all, they are a requirement. No cables, no sound, right? But many of the more traditional "accessories" have to do with electrical purification as well as various forms vibration mgmt. Probably deemed as "accessories" because systems will function without a line conditioner or power regenerator, without cryo-treating cables, plugs, connectors, fuses, etc and will also function without spikes or points or racking systems, cable lifters, etc.
But I do get your point, especially since your speciciality is what you do with your cables. But generically cables are necessary and hence, not deemed by most as an accessory. So some might say your cabling is a necessity but what you do with them after-the-fact may be deemed an accessory. But if they heard how your cabling alterations change the sonics, the performance-oriented types might immediately claiim what you do for cabling is a requirement, right?
With regard to the Greek audiophile claiming that electricity is 50% of the sound quality - assuming of course the sound quality coming from the playback system and speakers but not the room. I'd venture the quality of electricity impacting what we hear (and don't hear) is closer to 85 - 90%. That includes electricity coming in from the street into the components as well as the electric current flow (all voltages) throughout each and every component and speaker. And of course cable.
But IMO, if top performance is absolutely paramount, then certain accessories become the requirement and components and speakers become the accessories. Primarily because electrical and mechanical energies are a requirement for any system to function, but when poorly managed will induce a performance-limiting governor - a glass ceiling of sorts. And because unlike any other sector, electricity and vibrations permeate and greatly influence perhaps every part of the playback vineyard. To me, that implies foundaitonal. And every last system is built is on this foundation - which is our management of these two energies. But really it's utlimately all electrical energy that is our concern. IMO, vibration mgmt is simply one of the priimary means of cleansing / purifying the electric current flow. But superior forms of vibration mgmt's role is huge in this regard.
As for your new myth? I agree that it is a myth for the most part. Much is happening with our systems even though we may not recognize it. If total and complete vibration isolation is impossible to achieve (it is), then that implies there is always potential for new mechanical settlements to occur. Not to mention a few new burn-ins perhaps. Of course then there's outside influences like power companies switching our power from one grid or dam to another. Or anything unusal going on in the neighborhood perhaps?
As for differences being in our heads, that's more of a cop out than anything. My suspicion is that the nay sayers who usually possess few listening skills can't believe when others in the forums claim to hear differences. So the nay sayers will go to many lengths to say it's all in your head. Simply because they rarely hear anything different. That's my guess.