Which component has the biggest effect on the sound?

[ItemAudio]

I disagree.

Room related frequency response aberrations are significant, but here's the thing. I can continue to recognise different voices as they move from room to room. This isn't just a contiguous thing (that my brain adapts to their voice in room as I hear it move from room to room) - I can hear someone's voice in another room and recognise it with no prior experience of that person's voice in that room. In extreme cases I may not be able to hear what they are saying articulately (if, say, the reverberation in the room was extremely long and powerful), but I'd still be able to recognise the individual voices.

If the changes in room dynamics were so impassable, this should be impossible. Their voices will be shaped and influenced fairly heavily by the room in which they are speaking and its treatment, but their fundamental 'character' remans extant. The same applies to musical instruments (both live and recorded), animal sounds, kettles boiling, washing machines spin drying, the sound of typing, etc, etc.

Why would loudspeakers be an exception to this?

I disagree with you disagreeing, although parts of what you say I do agree with, and support your right to disagree at all times.

Voices, like faces, are a peculiar example of acute human acuity: we see faces where there aren't faces. Despite the inherent similarity of all faces, every one strikes us as unique. The same would not apply quite as readily to differentiating pianos in different acoustics - although it's testimony to the brain's pattern-resolving ability that you can to some extent. Consider how much information about a recording can be derived from hearing it over the phone.

The bottom line is that everything's pretty good and we're counting angels dancing on pinheads.

 

[Steven Toy]

I disagree.

Room related frequency response aberrations are significant, but here's the thing. I can continue to recognise different voices as they move from room to room. This isn't just a contiguous thing (that my brain adapts to their voice in room as I hear it move from room to room) - I can hear someone's voice in another room and recognise it with no prior experience of that person's voice in that room. In extreme cases I may not be able to hear what they are saying articulately (if, say, the reverberation in the room was extremely long and powerful), but I'd still be able to recognise the individual voices.

If the changes in room dynamics were so impassable, this should be impossible. Their voices will be shaped and influenced fairly heavily by the room in which they are speaking and its treatment, but their fundamental 'character' remans extant. The same applies to musical instruments (both live and recorded), animal sounds, kettles boiling, washing machines spin drying, the sound of typing, etc, etc.

Why would loudspeakers be an exception to this?

Indeed. The room would have to be pretty bad for a voice to be unintelligible even if not indistinguishable.

 

[merlin]

Indeed. The room would have to be pretty bad for a voice to be unintelligible even if not indistinguishable.

A voice is intelligible and recognisable through a telephone speaker so why bother buying a hifi let alone worrying about "setup"?

 

[arthur]

Haha...

 

[F1eng]

I disagree.

Room related frequency response aberrations are significant, but here's the thing. I can continue to recognise different voices as they move from room to room. This isn't just a contiguous thing (that my brain adapts to their voice in room as I hear it move from room to room) - I can hear someone's voice in another room and recognise it with no prior experience of that person's voice in that room. In extreme cases I may not be able to hear what they are saying articulately (if, say, the reverberation in the room was extremely long and powerful), but I'd still be able to recognise the individual voices.

If the changes in room dynamics were so impassable, this should be impossible. Their voices will be shaped and influenced fairly heavily by the room in which they are speaking and its treatment, but their fundamental 'character' remans extant. The same applies to musical instruments (both live and recorded), animal sounds, kettles boiling, washing machines spin drying, the sound of typing, etc, etc.

Why would loudspeakers be an exception to this?

I agree with this.
We host the Associated board music exams in our music room. My listening room is used as a waiting/warmup room by the examinees since it is far enough for my wife to play the piano in the music room and me a Mahler symphony in my listening room without being able to hear each other. I have listened to loads of musical instruments in my listening room, and whilst where the musician sits for his practice does indeed effect the perceived sound my ears/brain compensates for this immediately. I believe this happens to a great extent with speakers too. Unless the room/speaker location has huge problems our ears are capable of, and do, cancel out room effects very effectively IME.
I can see what people may like about room correction systems, I have one and have experimented with it myself, but I don't believe they are necessary in all cases and I no longer use mine.
OTOH an inaccurate speaker is poor in any room (IMO) since the brain's ability to compensate room effects - which must exist as you illustrate - is -not- capable of compensating for poor speakers, though maybe it can over a period of time??? The reality of burn in perhaps???
Anyway, I think transducers are the hard bit. If you have a turntable all aspects of it and its location will influence the sound, it must be tuned to taste since IME there is no good/bad just preferred/not-liked for LP replay.
The difference between the digital front ends I have tried has been minimal so in a non-turntable system the speakers have by far the biggest influence IME (as long as the amp can drive their load).

 

[palacefan]

I suspect that I will upset the moderators,but having read some of this thead,can I just say...............BLIMEY

 

[merlin]

Frank I'm afraid I never adjust to a bass note in a riff being 10db louder than all the others, or half of the energy of a rock band going missing because of a broadband suck out caused by huge room.

It's obvious on any recording that highlights it. Maybe we steer way from listening to those recordings - thinking them uninteresting or simply annoying?

No modern loudspeakers suffer from that on their own. They may exhibit high distortion components if pushed beyond their performance envelope but they will not have gross tonal aberrations these days.

 

[Mescalito]

I said secondary.

You also said

"Perception is everything. Nothing else really matters. "

So which one do you mean?

Chris

 

[Steven Toy]

A voice is intelligible and recognisable through a telephone speaker so why bother buying a hifi let alone worrying about "setup"?

Through a phone speaker the voice usually sounds intelligible and recognisable but it doesn't sound real. A live voice in a less-than-perfect room still sounds real.

 

[merlin]

That's because it is Steven.

The sound coming from your speaker isn't - it's recorded elsewhere.

If you are interested in accurately reproducing what is on that recording, you will have to address the way the speaker and room interact.

It's another example of " they are here" or "you are there" IME.

 

[Purité Audio]

Really low bass can really drive the room crazy, electronic correction can really make a huge positive improvement, as would a room full of huge passive traps.
Keith.

 

[Tony L]

No modern loudspeakers suffer from that on their own. They may exhibit high distortion components if pushed beyond their performance envelope but they will not have gross tonal aberrations these days.

I don't agree. To my ears modern speakers are more characterful than ever. This is partly down to the fashion of using far too-small drivers in far too-small boxes and attempting to redress the inevitable thin and feeble sound with reflex port shenanigans etc, and it's also partly down to the desire to get a product to sound 'impressive' in a quick A B shop dem. I've witnessed many of this type of dem in my time and it is almost always the most hyped-up presentation that wins favour with the nodding dog types who start using words such as 'coherence', 'timing' and 'detail' to describe a thin and forward presentation that bares little if any connection to that heard from a real instrument or in a studio control room. I'd go as far as saying the 'flat-earth' approach of audio marketing has actually moved audio further away from natural music in the home than at any time since stereo was invented. Much modern audio is hopelessly compromised IME. My error is that I grew up in a house with a grand piano in it and have spent a lot of time in recording studios so unfortunately I know what it should sound like!

 

[darrenyeats]

Less than 10db variation in in-room bass response is actually really good going! For some reason my Helmholtz resonators reduced the decay time of my 32ishHz mode significantly but the FR improved only slightly, according to XTZ. Subjectively it was an improvement though.

Obviously all measures (DSP, bass traps) have effects measurable from FR and time perspectives but they aren't exactly the same effects.

Personally I think it's the discontinuity of decay time from room modes that's more difficult to ignore.

 

[ItemAudio]

I have listened to loads of musical instruments in my listening room, and whilst where the musician sits for his practice does indeed effect the perceived sound my ears/brain compensates for this immediately.

This filtering effect happens in gross terms very quickly, but takes longer to refine. You are a better listener in a room you're very familiar with - ie, one for which you have built a finely-resolved model.

I believe this happens to a great extent with speakers too. Unless the room/speaker location has huge problems our ears are capable of, and do, cancel out room effects very effectively IME.

I would definitely not say 'cancel out' - rather, 'compensate for'. However, the difference between interpolating that information and actually receiving it is the difference between a good and a very good system. All the analogies to digital imaging and lenses again fit here . . .

 

[DevillEars]

Hmmm... This thread is rapidly degenerating into the same "I believe in one God the Father Almighty" series of dogmatic exchanges as the recently deceased "Best Transport Poll" thread - i.e. a thread in which no-one is prepared to:

a) Agree on the definition of what constitutes a "component"
b) Agree on whether or not "biggest effect" should be positive or negative
c) Agree on the definition, as implied in the title, of "sound"

Taking a), one question has to be whether or not the 'room' constitutes a 'component' or is, in fact, the de facto environment for listening. In the same vein, should we also question whether or not 'mains feed', 'equipment support', 'cable elevator blocks', Shakti stones, etc. also qualify as 'components'?

Under b), I've long held the belief that no component can 'improve' the sound of any signal passed though it - all it can contribute to the process is to do the least 'damage' to the sound. Under this umbrella caveat, all 'effects' will be negative, in that they will 'damage the sound'. The best components will do the least damage (i.e. have the 'smallest effect'), while badly designed/built components could do significant 'damage to the sound' (i.e. have the 'biggest effect').

As far as c) is concerned, we've already had posts that differentiate between the effects of components on 'sound' and on 'music'. For me, its all about the music and how a system communicates the music and its various aspects (including spatial aspects such as imaging and soundstaging). I battle to understand the relevance and/or importance of 'sound' as used above if the 'musical' aspects are all addressed.

Until we all agree on the definitions and how they apply, this debate will comprise people arguing at cross-purposes and will not produce any meaningful consensus...

Pity!!

 

[Daniel Quinn]

for the purpose of this debate the room cant be a component , or else the only advise would be save up and getter a better house

for everyone making a choice upon the allocation of resources to equipment the room is not a variable .

 

[Joe Hutch]

for the purpose of this debate the room cant be a component , or else the only advise would be save up and getter a better house

Or invest in some physical or digital room correction equipment. Or listen on headphones and take the room out of the equation altogether.

 

[Purité Audio]

You can treat your room or experiment with placement to obtain a better sound.
The room is inextricably linked to the overall SQ.
Keith.

 

[Daniel Quinn]

Or invest in some physical or digital room correction equipment. Or listen on headphones and take the room out of the equation altogether.

unnecessary pedantry ,they are of course components upon which the question "which component as the biggest effect on sound" can be addressed .

 

[Steven Toy]

I don't agree. To my ears modern speakers are more characterful than ever. This is partly down to the fashion of using far too-small drivers in far too-small boxes and attempting to redress the inevitable thin and feeble sound with reflex port shenanigans etc, and it's also partly down to the desire to get a product to sound 'impressive' in a quick A B shop dem. I've witnessed many of this type of dem in my time and it is almost always the most hyped-up presentation that wins favour with the nodding dog types who start using words such as 'coherence', 'timing' and 'detail' to describe a thin and forward presentation that bares little if any connection to that heard from a real instrument or in a studio control room. I'd go as far as saying the 'flat-earth' approach of audio marketing has actually moved audio further away from natural music in the home than at any time since stereo was invented. Much modern audio is hopelessly compromised IME. My error is that I grew up in a house with a grand piano in it and have spent a lot of time in recording studios so unfortunately I know what it should sound like!

Er, if that is aimed at me I use large(ish) Tannoys, remembe,r not tiddy Focal 1008s on the end of Accuphase amps that are a bit soft in the bass in such combination.