In Search Of Accurate Sound Reproduction: The Final Word!

[AJ Soundfield]

36 minutes ago, semente said:

I prefer a "dryer" sounding room, or less room contribution if you prefer but that is just a matter of taste.

Yep.

I prefer both 

[jtwrace]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So an "accurate" listening room is an anechoic chamber.

While my microphones would agree, my ears do not.

Floyd Toole agrees with you.  He told me a story about this when he did it.  Total disappointment.  

[STC]

13 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

That the terrible off axis and modal excitation of most loudspeakers, were the main source of perceived signal chain "coloration" in real rooms.

 

 

I've got the paper buried somewhere, snap shot above gives idea of age. "record" being vinyl

 

 

This paper ?

 

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112254.msg925048.html#msg925048

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

I prefer a "dryer" sounding room, or less room contribution if you prefer but that is just a matter of taste.

 

It may be matter of taste but none of my visitors preferred the lesser room influence. All of them when given the remote control or a choice to choose the level of "room" influence preferred room coloration or more correctly ambiance. Although, the level of preference differs with each individual. I think this will only work if the room coloration contributes positively. 

[AJ Soundfield]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

This paper ?

 

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112254.msg925048.html#msg925048

 

 

Yep

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

It may be matter of taste

...and belief. Many of those tested in the papers Toole referenced were (sighted) treatment believers. The results said otherwise.

The McGill follow ups were specifically of studiophiles, who hold even stronger beliefs about "treatments" etc. Those results were even funnier...

[semente]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

...and belief. Many of those tested in the papers Toole referenced were (sighted) treatment believers. The results said otherwise.

The McGill follow ups were specifically of studiophiles, who hold even stronger beliefs about "treatments" etc. Those results were even funnier...

 

This is not a criticism to their work but the Toole school is not as dominant here in Europe as it in North America and you don't have to be an expert to realise that several aspects of speaker design are not consensual amongst loudspeaker designers.

It's a very flawed element of the playback chain and designers seem to pick whichever compromise they find works best for them.

 

 

I had never thought of that - the placebo effect of room treatments (more specifically side wall treatments) - but it does makes sense.

But I don't think that room treating is a widespread practice amongst audiophiles.

 

I don't have a dedicated listening room and because almost all forms of commercial treatments look awful I am using bookcases to partially cover side walls and drapes over the large window behind my back.

The living room in my current home is quite small but fortunately it allows for a long wall setup which greatly reduces side wall interference.

 

R

[Doak]

9 minutes ago, semente said:

This is not a criticism to their work but the Toole school is not as dominant here in Europe as it in North America and you don't have to be an expert to realise that several aspects of speaker design are not consensual amongst loudspeaker designers.

It's a very flawed element of the playback chain and designers seem to pick whichever compromise they find works best for them...................

Yes, every speaker design is a set of compromises. Knowing and choosing what compromises one can best live with is key. 

[Ralf11]

I know what a placebophile is, but what is a studiophile?  Tho I can guess...

[semente]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I know what a placebophile is, but what is a studiophile?  Tho I can guess...

 

That is a good question...

[gmgraves]

In Search Of Accurate Sound Reproduction: The Final Word!

 

It's difficult to chase "the real thing" as a goal in music reproduction when the music that the vast majority listen to on their systems never existed in real time or real space. Electric guitars, Fender-Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, horns with contact microphones feeding directly into a recording console, all of these constitute the bulk of what comprises modern pop music. People who say that "reality" as a goal is irrelevant are correct as far the majority of the music reproduced in the home is concerned. How can there be accurate reproduction of music that never has existed, on its own in real space? What it really sounds like is not what one might hear in the performance studio, but rather it is what one hears in the control room, emanating from the monitor speakers when the mix is finalized. So, in actuality, the only way to reproduce accurately, what the original performance sounds like, is to have the same brand and model of speakers in one's listening room as the studio had in the room where the recording was mixed. That is wildly impractical, and almost impossible, since that information is rarely provided with the release's liner notes and nobody could own enough speakers to cover all the possible combinations of monitors used by all the studios in the world recording pop. JGH and I spoke of this paradox often. One would think that owning a pair of speakers that, themselves, would be as neutral as possible would take care of that, but it doesn't. A neutral pair of speakers might let you hear what left the recording console on it's way to the monitor speakers, but the final sound of the recording is judged by what came out of the monitor speakers, not what went into them. 

 

This dilemma does not exist with real, 100% acoustical music. The reason is simple: If you are in the recording venue while the recording was being captured, you can hear what the final result should sound like on your system and in your home. But here's the rub: even this is just an approximation. Your listening room does not have the acoustics of the venue where the recording was made. Even if it did, ostensibly, the microphones at the original event will capture a good deal of that venue's ambience which will then become part of the recording. When played back, the venue's ambience will be overlaid with the sound of your own listening environment. If someone could finally come up with speakers that were perfect, I.E. absolutely neutral, you would still have to listen in an anechoic chamber to hear the recording as it sounded while being captured. Even then, one would need to use microphones for that capture that also were perfect, as in absolutely neutral..... 

 

Noble goal, impossible task.

 

[fas42]

Interesting we have veered into a solid "speaker and placement is everything" discussion ... what I learned over the years is that a competent system can be plunked down into any location, as shambolic as you like, and it will always "sound right". "Accurate Sound Reproduction", which is what this thread is nominally about, has the implication that it always is convincing in the illusion that it presents, and if you have to play around with the fine tuning of how it is projected into the listening place "to work" then that says to me that it is defective sound, that has to use crutches of the room involvement, to get the job done.

 

Competent sound ticks the boxes when your ears are inches away from the drivers, down the other end of the house, or listening from outside through a window. Getting "magic" to happen in what you hear is not easy, but once heard becomes the goal from then on.

[STC]

48 minutes ago, fas42 said:

what I learned over the years is that a competent system can be plunked down into any location, as shambolic as you like, and it will always "sound right".

 

Not in my case. I am unable to see how a competent system can be any different from real instruments when dealing with room acoustics. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

In Search Of Accurate Sound Reproduction: The Final Word!

 

It's difficult to chase "the real thing" as a goal in music reproduction when the music that the vast majority listen to on their systems never existed in real time or real space. Electric guitars, Fender-Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, horns with contact microphones feeding directly into a recording console, all of these constitute the bulk of what comprises modern pop music. People who say that "reality" as a goal is irrelevant are correct as far the majority of the music reproduced in the home is concerned. How can there be accurate reproduction of music that never has existed, on its own in real space? What it really sounds like is not what one might hear in the performance studio, but rather it is what one hears in the control room, emanating from the monitor speakers when the mix is finalized. So, in actuality, the only way to reproduce accurately, what the original performance sounds like, is to have the same brand and model of speakers in one's listening room as the studio had in the room where the recording was mixed. That is wildly impractical, and almost impossible, since that information is rarely provided with the release's liner notes and nobody could own enough speakers to cover all the possible combinations of monitors used by all the studios in the world recording pop. JGH and I spoke of this paradox often. One would think that owning a pair of speakers that, themselves, would be as neutral as possible would take care of that, but it doesn't. A neutral pair of speakers might let you hear what left the recording console on it's way to the monitor speakers, but the final sound of the recording is judged by what came out of the monitor speakers, not what went into them.

 

 

In practice this is not a problem - I have yet to find a recording that doesn't interest me, that doesn't make me want to soak up what it has to offer ... wait a minute! There is an exception, and that's "audiophile recordings" - these are the most boring, contrived productions; they are the least played of any disks I have, most were acquired as cheapies, so, I'm not fussed ... .

 

An extremely unpromising set was some pure meditation music, the stuff you buy in a crystal shop; the single synthesizer note held on for 30 secs or so - nominally, boring to the max. But, it was produced by musicians who hate not adding their little touches - so, it's full of Easter eggs! Extremely faint sound effects, musical mutterings at very, very low levels, encoded with echo so they sound as if miles away; these are fascinating to watch out for, to enjoy, and make each track a treat to peruse, every time.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Not in my case. I am unable to see how a competent system can be any different from real instruments when dealing with room acoustics. 

 

Which is my point. The name of the game, for me, is that the behaviour mirrors how the live instrument would sound, in that environment. Personally, the buzz is that I feel I'm experiencing the "reality" of the instruments in action - if a string quartet, or rock group happened to knock on my door, and say that they wanted to play in my living place, full bore - should I reject that offer, because my acoustics weren't up to snuff?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

It's difficult to chase "the real thing" as a goal in music reproduction when the music that the vast majority listen to on their systems never existed in real time or real space. Electric guitars, Fender-Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, horns with contact microphones feeding directly into a recording console, all of these constitute the bulk of what comprises modern pop music.

As someone who listens to all of unamplified classical, unamplified jazz and live electronic jazz / blues / rock it has always impressed me that live music even when amplified with less than perfect equipment still has a "live" sound -- not always, I've heard absolutely terrible amplified music yet often at a small club the sound is unmistakably "live"

[STC]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is my point. The name of the game, for me, is that the behaviour mirrors how the live instrument would sound, in that environment. Personally, the buzz is that I feel I'm experiencing the "reality" of the instruments in action - if a string quartet, or rock group happened to knock on my door, and say that they wanted to play in my living place, full bore - should I reject that offer, because my acoustics weren't up to snuff?

 

No, you should not reject. It is not polite.   But to argue that a string quartet is going to sound as good as it sound in Carnegie hall in your living room then..................

 

The concert hall here has a movable ceiling which would be lowered or lifted higher depending on the size of the ensemble. One size doesn't ft all. Just like a rock band would sound different in a concert hall, it is impossible for one fixed acoustics environment can replay different genre accurately. There will be a compromise somewhere.

 

 

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, jabbr said:

As someone who listens to all of unamplified classical, unamplified jazz and live electronic jazz / blues / rock it has always impressed me that live music even when amplified with less than perfect equipment still has a "live" sound -- not always, I've heard absolutely terrible amplified music yet often at a small club the sound is unmistakably "live"

 

Indeed that is my goal - I chase the "live" feel - the impact, the visceral intensity, the dynamic hit that can be overwhelming; a huge wave of sound that buries me totally, in the best possible way ...

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

In Search Of Accurate Sound Reproduction: The Final Word!

 

It's difficult to chase "the real thing" as a goal in music reproduction when the music that the vast majority listen to on their systems never existed in real time or real space. Electric guitars, Fender-Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, horns with contact microphones feeding directly into a recording console, all of these constitute the bulk of what comprises modern pop music. People who say that "reality" as a goal is irrelevant are correct as far the majority of the music reproduced in the home is concerned. How can there be accurate reproduction of music that never has existed, on its own in real space? What it really sounds like is not what one might hear in the performance studio, but rather it is what one hears in the control room, emanating from the monitor speakers when the mix is finalized. So, in actuality, the only way to reproduce accurately, what the original performance sounds like, is to have the same brand and model of speakers in one's listening room as the studio had in the room where the recording was mixed. That is wildly impractical, and almost impossible, since that information is rarely provided with the release's liner notes and nobody could own enough speakers to cover all the possible combinations of monitors used by all the studios in the world recording pop. JGH and I spoke of this paradox often. One would think that owning a pair of speakers that, themselves, would be as neutral as possible would take care of that, but it doesn't. A neutral pair of speakers might let you hear what left the recording console on it's way to the monitor speakers, but the final sound of the recording is judged by what came out of the monitor speakers, not what went into them. 

 

This dilemma does not exist with real, 100% acoustical music. The reason is simple: If you are in the recording venue while the recording was being captured, you can hear what the final result should sound like on your system and in your home. But here's the rub: even this is just an approximation. Your listening room does not have the acoustics of the venue where the recording was made. Even if it did, ostensibly, the microphones at the original event will capture a good deal of that venue's ambience which will then become part of the recording. When played back, the venue's ambience will be overlaid with the sound of your own listening environment. If someone could finally come up with speakers that were perfect, I.E. absolutely neutral, you would still have to listen in an anechoic chamber to hear the recording as it sounded while being captured. Even then, one would need to use microphones for that capture that also were perfect, as in absolutely neutral..... 

 

Noble goal, impossible task.

 

 

To all who have responded thus far: you have all missed my point completely!

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

To all who have responded thus far: you have all missed my point completely!

 

Well, you said,

 

Quote

So, in actuality, the only way to reproduce accurately, what the original performance sounds like, is to have the same brand and model of speakers in one's listening room as the studio had in the room where the recording was mixed.

 

The original performance of sounds which were not created acoustically is the output from the programs and circuits which generated the digital, or analogue data. The control room playback system is just an effects unit, which presents one version of that data; why should I be interested in that version, versus another? I always have access to the "original performance', via the data; it means that I have endless capacity to spice it to taste, if I so want.

[semente]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

what I learned over the years is that a competent system can be plunked down into any location, as shambolic as you like, and it will always "sound right".

 

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

Not in my case. I am unable to see how a competent system can be any different from real instruments when dealing with room acoustics. 

 

I agree.

There's a best spot for your speakers and a best spot for the listening chair in every room.

Setting up a pair of speakers correctly is hard work, add two more speakers and this will increase the problems exponentially.

[semente]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

No, you should not reject. It is not polite.   But to argue that a string quartet is going to sound as good as it sound in Carnegie hall in your living room then..................

 

The concert hall here has a movable ceiling which would be lowered or lifted higher depending on the size of the ensemble. One size doesn't ft all. Just like a rock band would sound different in a concert hall, it is impossible for one fixed acoustics environment can replay different genre accurately. There will be a compromise somewhere.

 

 

 

The best venues will even have a smaller room for small groups and solo recitals.

The only reason why you get to listen to them in a large hall is profit $€£!!!

[STC]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

The best venues will even have a smaller room for small groups and solo recitals.

The only reason why you get to listen to them in a large hall is profit $€£!!!

 

 

100% agree. The big hall ambiance is not suitable for solo recitals which meant to bring intimacy such as soft passage and whisper like rendition. So make your own movable wall...

[semente]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

Interesting we have veered into a solid "speaker and placement is everything" discussion ...

 

Transducers (microphones, cartridges and speakers) and rooms affect the sound/signal much more than any other element in the chain; amplification is (mostly) a solved problem and digital is getting close...

[AJ Soundfield]

20 hours ago, semente said:

This is not a criticism to their work but the Toole school is not as dominant here in Europe as it in North America

There is no "Toole school", unless you mean AES, which he constantly references...mostly the work of others, in his books and lectures. More than half of those references are from Europe. The Eureka/Archimedes project that found essentially what Toole did at the NRC, was running concurrently with that work. That was in Europe.

KEF, Genelec, K+H etc and Salmi, Bech, etc, etc all Europe. There is no dichotomy as you imagine, regarding the science itself.

 

Quote

you don't have to be an expert to realise that several aspects of speaker design are not consensual amongst loudspeaker designers.

Of course not. Anyone who can cut a hole in a board and install a driver is a "loudspeaker designer".

No one has claimed otherwise. Actually, ability to pass a high school level Physics test seem highly detrimental in "High End" audio. There can be no consensus there.

 

Quote

had never thought of that - the placebo effect of room treatments (more specifically side wall treatments) - but it does makes sense.

I wouldn't call it placebo like magic widgets that can't be measured, etc.

The effects of "treatments" can be quite real, it's just that sometimes what people think they "hear" and prefer..may not be quite so, to their ears.

 

Quote

But I don't think that room treating is a widespread practice amongst audiophiles.

Disagree. It has become an integral part of high end fashion. Go to any show now and observe that it's no longer just jewelry shrines, but lots of "treatments" in many, if not most rooms. Much of this fashion refugees from studios.

 

Quote

 

I don't have a dedicated listening room and because almost all forms of commercial treatments look awful I am using bookcases to partially cover side walls and drapes over the large window behind my back.

The living room in my current home is quite small but fortunately it allows for a long wall setup which greatly reduces side wall interference.

 

 

As Toole shows with many measured examples, normal "furnishings" is usually all that is required "treatment" of most "living" rooms. What you describe is quite normal and has been found to be perceptually fine (ears) to most listeners. For the nth time, there is no "interference" from sidewalls unless precedence breaks down. The solution there is binning those terrible polar response speakers, not the Iso-ward approach...unless one is an audiophile/studiophile. Then it is probably highly appropriate.

 

cheers,

 

AJ