advertisement


What do electrical engineers know that many audiophiles do not?

Arkless Electronics said:
Easy. You're inefficient speakers are linn saras and I claim my prize!
Click to expand...
Thank-you for your explanation.

Now I fully understand why my least efficient speakers sound more coloured than my most efficient ones, despite you claiming that more efficient speakers tend to be more coloured.


Would you like me to give you more examples?
And every time you can give me the explanation that the reason for the less efficient speakers sounding more coloured is because they are (insert name of speakers).

And never at any time will you admit that no there is no particular corelation between how coloured a speaker is and how efficient it is. And that this may very well be a myth started by the marketing men of companies making inefficient speakers.
 
lindsayt said:
Thank-you for your explanation.

Now I fully understand why my least efficient speakers sound more coloured than my most efficient ones, despite you claiming that more efficient speakers tend to be more coloured.


Would you like me to give you more examples?
And every time you can give me the explanation that the reason for the less efficient speakers sounding more coloured is because they are (insert name of speakers).

And never at any time will you admit that no there is no particular corelation between how coloured a speaker is and how efficient it is. And that this may very well be a myth started by the marketing men of companies making inefficient speakers.
Click to expand...

There's also the possibility that your less efficient speakers are coloured because of the quality of design and of components.
 
camverton said:
I've always found that getting the best results from Quads and Martin Logans involved making use of the reflections from the room to give that "sense of space". If I moved my Martin Logans too far from the side wall they started to sound rather hifi and less like the real thing. Making use of the room is difficult, though, and taken too far can lead to a diffuse and unfocused prentation. I agree that panel speakers "suffer" from beaming which can be used beneficially, if you can damp the rear output enough, and you like that effect.

Personally, I have found the trick with panel speakers is to use that rear radiation to good effect, but it is a case of careful balance. To get control of how much influence the room has, Dirac is quite useful.
Click to expand...
I have never heard any loudspeakers in anechoic or highly-treated rooms but I suspect that for most types of loudspeaker some early reflections from the room are no bad thing, as long the reflections involved are acoustically similar to the direct sound.

An improved sense of space as you say. Slightly augmented image width. Better stability of central images.

I did read a summary of various pieces of research involving professional listeners at home vs at work. There was a notable preference for more room reflections at home compared to the preference at work. At work the preference was rather mixed depending on role.
 
John Phillips said:
I have never heard any loudspeakers in anechoic or highly-treated rooms but I suspect that for most types of loudspeaker some early reflections from the room are no bad thing, as long the reflections involved are acoustically similar to the direct sound.

An improved sense of space as you say. Slightly augmented image width. Better stability of central images.

I did read a summary of various pieces of research involving professional listeners at home vs at work. There was a notable preference for more room reflections at home compared to the preference at work. At work the preference was rather mixed depending on role.
Click to expand...

The "better stability" may be because the amount of image blur remains similar when you move your head. One of the things I find most distinct about QUAD ESLs is that the stereo 'sweet spot' is tiny. But if you can get things set up and put your head there, the stereo is vastly better than any conventional speakers I've ever heard.

Work tends to be different because you may not be listening for the same things. e.g. for finding and dealing with clicks on old LPs I tend to use headphones, and prefer ones that make the clicks 'stand out'. Not because I *like* the effect. IIUC studio engineers tend to use speakers with a balance quite different to most audiophiles, but have got used to the 'difference' so they can take it into account. (Hopefully!)
 
MattSPL said:
there are aspects of sound heard in Hifi that can’t be measured
Click to expand...

I think so. Although you can easily measure what a piece of equipment is doing, I suspect that we won’t all hear the same things.

Ultimately HiFi is about giving the brain enough clues to build a picture of a performance and develop some insights as to what the musicians are doing. If enough of that information is present then we have a satisfying experience

I’m starting to think that the information required to achieve this will vary for an individual depending on experience and memory.

After my last turntable upgrade, that piece of fusion jazz that made no sense for years suddenly works - the complex rhythms and bass lines just rock and it sounds great. When I listen to the digital version of the same track via iPhone and earbuds it still sounds great even though it never worked for me like this before.

Listening to a previously unknown song on a system A I can hear all the words clearly. When listening to the same song again on system B, I still hear all the words clearly but now I’m ‘hearing’ a combination of memory and audio cues. It will be hard to compare system A and B without trying another unknown song each time.

My professional musician friends tend to have little interest in HiFi taking the view that almost any system will do (one even listens using the tv soundbar via bluetooth). Could this be because the knowledge and insights gained through work mean that their brains require less (or different) cues to build a satisfying picture of the performance?

If so, then once you get past gross distortions, there’s no ‘good or bad’, just a best fit with your brain’s requirements at the time.

It could also account for some of the things that can happen when comparing multiple bits of equipment using the same track - like the time I listened carefully to 4 pairs of speakers and went home with a set that later sounded so bright that I just couldn’t live with them.
 
martinab2 said:
I think so. Although you can easily measure what a piece of equipment is doing, I suspect that we won’t all hear the same things.

Ultimately HiFi is about giving the brain enough clues to build a picture of a performance and develop some insights as to what the musicians are doing. If enough of that information is present then we have a satisfying experience

I’m starting to think that the information required to achieve this will vary for an individual depending on experience and memory.

After my last turntable upgrade, that piece of fusion jazz that made no sense for years suddenly works - the complex rhythms and bass lines just rock and it sounds great. When I listen to the digital version of the same track via iPhone and earbuds it still sounds great even though it never worked for me like this before.

Listening to a previously unknown song on a system A I can hear all the words clearly. When listening to the same song again on system B, I still hear all the words clearly but now I’m ‘hearing’ a combination of memory and audio cues. It will be hard to compare system A and B without trying another unknown song each time.

My professional musician friends tend to have little interest in HiFi taking the view that almost any system will do (one even listens using the tv soundbar via bluetooth). Could this be because the knowledge and insights gained through work mean that their brains require less (or different) cues to build a satisfying picture of the performance?

If so, then once you get past gross distortions, there’s no ‘good or bad’, just a best fit with your brain’s requirements at the time.

It could also account for some of the things that can happen when comparing multiple bits of equipment using the same track - like the time I listened carefully to 4 pairs of speakers and went home with a set that later sounded so bright that I just couldn’t live with them.
Click to expand...
Not sure about this.
 
martinab2 said:
My professional musician friends tend to have little interest in HiFi taking the view that almost any system will do (one even listens using the tv soundbar via bluetooth). Could this be because the knowledge and insights gained through work mean that their brains require less (or different) cues to build a satisfying picture of the performance?

If so, then once you get past gross distortions, there’s no ‘good or bad’, just a best fit with your brain’s requirements at the time.
Click to expand...

I think that a big part hi-fi is about recreating a spatial illusion and most musicians probaly only care about the music.
 
Put me in the musician category then, have little interest in "hifi" illusion, sweet spots, soundstage etc...never have, never will.
probably why I prefer a damped room to a live one, artificially creating space.
 
Ragaman said:
Put me in the musician category then, have little interest in "hifi" illusion
Click to expand...

Same here.

As Wagner once said to his friend Nietzsche at the Festival Theatre in Bayreuth "remove your spectacles, music is only to be listened to"
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The "better stability" may be because the amount of image blur remains similar when you move your head.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the fundamental problem with stereo reproduction itself: comb filtering when you have a "phantom central image". The effect is said to noticeably impact the timbre of the central image as you move small distances from the sweet spot. But the effect is said to be alleviated by moderate amounts of room reflection. Possibly the effect of reflections on perception of direct sound is what you meant by "image blur".

Of course the comb filtering effect is alleviated by a centre loudspeaker in home cinema systems.

Not having had the chance personally to check stereo image quality in anechoic or highly treated rooms I am commenting on what I have read in professional literature. So I am happy to be corrected.
 
martinab2 said:
After my last turntable upgrade, that piece of fusion jazz that made no sense for years suddenly works - the complex rhythms and bass lines just rock and it sounds great. When I listen to the digital version of the same track via iPhone and earbuds it still sounds great even though it never worked for me like this before.
Click to expand...
That's a familiar effect to me. Whenever I have changed a significant component I have found my reactions have changed to some familiar recordings. Is this an effect of the new equipment or is it something going on between my ears? I do suspect the latter but perhaps triggered by the former.

martinab2 said:
... once you get past gross distortions, there’s no ‘good or bad’, just a best fit with your brain’s requirements at the time.
Click to expand...
I agree. I find my reaction to music varies quite a lot according to mood and other non-technical influences. Whilst I am interested in the technology of sound reproduction, my philosophy around audio equipment is that it just has to be good enough to get out of the way of the music for when I am in the mood to enjoy it. According to my definition of good enough, anyway, which won't be the same for others. ​
 
tuga said:
As Wagner once said to his friend Nietzsche at the Festival Theatre in Bayreuth "remove your spectacles, music is only to be listened to"
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder why he went to the expense of staging his operas and didn’t have the singers performing behind a gauze curtain - I realise that at Bayreuth that’s effectively what happens to the orchestra. Sometimes people say things they don’t really mean.
 
Stunsworth said:
It makes you wonder why he went to the expense of staging his operas and didn’t have the singers performing behind a gauze curtain - I realise that at Bayreuth that’s effectively what happens to the orchestra. Sometimes people say things they don’t really mean.
Click to expand...

Maybe because speech would become unintelligible if the singers were placed inside the orchestra pit?
 
tuga said:
I think that a big part hi-fi is about recreating a spatial illusion and most musicians probaly only care about the music.
Click to expand...
Which one is the more important?
A Hi Fi loving friend told me after spending huge amounts of money on equipment, how much more of his music collection was now enjoyable therefore played more. On the surface, this is all fine & dandy but I do wonder if this is more about justifying spending lots of cash for diminishing gains. Some of my best musical enjoyment has been from listening to songs for the 1st time on rubbish radios then trying to sing them in a record shop in the hope they recognise the song then sell it to me!
 
tuga said:
Same here.

As Wagner once said to his friend Nietzsche at the Festival Theatre in Bayreuth "remove your spectacles, music is only to be listened to"
Click to expand...

That was before Nietzsche realized Wagner was a total arse (see his 'The Case of Wagner', 1888).
 
tuga said:
I think that a big part hi-fi is about recreating a spatial illusion and most musicians probaly only care about the music.
Click to expand...

For me it’s more due to ‘ignorance is bliss’. Sit a musician down in front of a proper HiFi with their favourite albums and it’s hard to ignore - here I am 12yrs later after I borrowed a mate’s system for the summer. I think people just don’t realise how much better the experience can be, for not a lot of money.

Am not as interested in soundstage and imaging as taut, fast bass, ‘grainfree’ sound, natural vocal sibilance etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top