I feel that there are at least 2 speaker brands which prove you can have really good imaging and a really wide sweet spot, given a wide enough room.
Revel and Magico.
Don't these two brands prove that great imaging in the center and very good off axis listening is not mutually exclusive??
¿Que? We must have divergent views on what constitutes imaging. Magico S7 give a very wide & expansive presentation. However, they lack focus and create their own 'space'. Nebulous and homogenized is how I hear them. Of course, it is possible that everything else in the $400,000 system was at fault. |
I will only add that a room is like an hearing aids...You must fine tune it for your specific ears problems and structure...No ears are perfect....
You set a hall or a theater for group of people....it is another matter with small room early and late reflections, reverberation short time etc...
But SMALL room acoustic could be set for your own specific ears with Helmholtz method, not only passive materials treatment...
I will add that i am not a scientist but i devised listrening experiments and it is my method to reach hi-fi experience at low cost.... |
We must have divergent views on what constitutes imaging. Magico S7 give a very wide & expansive presentation. However, they lack focus and create their own ’space’. Nebulous and homogenized is how I hear them.
Well, I’m not a Magico fan boy, I just think they are commonly heard speakers we can use as a common experience to discuss. :) Also, the problems with their imaging is not so much that they don't image, it's' that they need so much width or extremely well treated rooms. |
With an electronic equalizer, the measuring "rod" so to speak, are a set of tested feed back precise frequencies with a microphone for a very narrow location in millimeters...
With a mechanical equalizer , the measuring "rod", so to speak is the range and "timbre" of the human voice perceived by our ears in a room ..
All music is derived from the innate and learned abilities of the human ears to recognize and evaluate the more subtle changes and hue in vocal timbre.... |
This is, and has been, one of the most intelligent and rancor free forums I've had the pleasure to follow.
I want to express my appreciation of this instance. *VBS*
Great premise, Erik. 👍
Mahgister, earlier you apologized for seeming 'rude'.
I'm not sure you're capable of that. *L*5's* Distaste, perhaps...;)
But you're entitled to that, for sure....and a great 'read'.
All speakers have their own 'voice', much like us. Subject to the driving equipment, the space provided, and the music presented, they can only attempt to duplicate the latter. That is subject to all the forgone means and methods to transcribe such.
Then it hits our ears; mine now hobbled by the aids in mine, which adds yet another layer, another device with its' own limitations.
Finally reaching the tympani and wetware between them, subject to my tastes, preferences, and interpretation of what it all is.
We hear the same; more or less. We can only sit or stand so close together.
Our experience: similar, never the same. I suspect even conjoined twins can argue about the details.
To each, it will always be to their own.
Cheers, Gentlemen.
Have a pleasant weekend.
J |
Also, the problems with their imaging is not so much that they don't image, it's' that they need so much width or extremely well treated rooms.
The room where I heard them had treated walls, carpeted floors and seemed very well behaved. There was as much room outside the speakers as between. While quite enjoyable, not all boxes were ticked for yhs. [I do consider that my perspective may be suspect vis a vis non-professionals.] |
Dear @mijostyn : "" I have listened to corrected point source speakers particularly a friends Watt/Puppy JL Audio subwoofer system and dead on center it produces a beautiful miniature image. Move off center and it falls apart as you would expect.
It is sort of the exact opposite of what the OP says, the more noticeable the sweet spot the better the system ""
everything the same your statements are absolutely rigth and one way or the other @audio2design is in agreement with and the @mikem experiences are exactly the same too.
Yes @erik_squires OP is exactly the other way around.
Even in a music hall the specific sweet spot is only one where if we change to the next l/r " chair " things change because that critical timing. We could think that there the sweet spot is wider, certainly not: if we move things will comes different.
Obviously that many of us think different and even I read that a gentleman posted that has two sweet spot positions.
Not me, I have one and only one specific sweet spot position and yes when we have it MUSIC reproduction experiences are just amazing.
That’s why is so important the intrinsical relationship between room treatment, speaker/subs positions and seat position, these overall accurated set up just makes the true differences.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
While I concur broadly with @rauliruegas, there are speakers that image better than others. And there are speakers with narrower and wider sweet spots, Generally point source speakers have better imaging and because of more consistent room reflections wider sweetspots. A special case are Omnis, they can have good imaging provided their radial dispersion is even. |
You know, I think of the "sweet spot" for speakers completely differently than I do for live music, especially acoustic.
To me, the sweet spot for a speaker is tonal and spacial. That is, that it preserves a stereo image within it AND sounds good.
In a live environment, the idea of losing the stereo image does not apply to me at all. The musicians and instruments exist in the space and as I move around the "quality" of the image remains constant. There’s no concept in my mind of finding a listening location where I have "good imaging" in a live performance. It is all good.
Of course, being too close and too much at an angle of a symphony orchestra I won’t hear all the instruments equally well, but the imaging is always accurate.
This is not the same of course as wanting to be surrounded by the musicians.
|
Skip trying to perfect a grossly inadequate number of speakers (i.e 2) for the ultimate music listening experience and go to 5.2.2 atmos setup powered by a good surround processor and amp. Some very smart guys declared that you need a lot more than 2 channels to make it work and they were not wrong.
My 15k multichannel setup beats the living daylights out of 100k+ 2 channel setups i have/had. 2 channel setups will have you chasing your tail forever. It's the very nature of 2 channel setups! |
My 15k multichannel setup beats the living daylights out of 100k+ 2 channel setups i have/had. 2 channel setups will have you chasing your tail forever. It’s the very nature of 2 channel setups! Boasting is not an idea.... I dont doubt that your multi channel is right and wonderful...I believe you completely till proof of the contrary... But 2 channel acoustical embedded right with passive acoustical treatment and active one like with Helmholtz method could be so good that the sound upgrading obsession die...Then advising all people to trash their 2 channels for a fad of yours , so good it is, is not an idea or a possibility for almost all people here... It is my case like many others who own a 2 channel system done right and by the way i am proud to boast about my 500 bucks system that tail behind anything at any price for musical pleasure ( not soundwise for sure)...Not because of the gear but mainly like a results of adequate controls in his 3 working dimensions... Price has nothing to do with accoustic, nothing at all, save for sellers....But i used only homemade stuff... |
Dear @erik_squires : "
There’s no concept in my mind of finding a listening location where I have "good imaging" in a live performance. It is all good. "
It's almost all good but not the same, exist differences in between locations/positions.
My choice in a music hall is as close I can if the direct sound of violins are at least at around same level than my ears and seated as close center field as I can. Not that out of the center I don't like what I'm listening because I like too.
The issue in a live event is that the overall music hall space is truly big with a wider really wider dispersion and direct sound certainly it's not at 2m-3m. from our seat, so things are different that in a home system but even in a live event the sound timing that the sounds arrives to our ears is just critical too.
O ther main and crucial difference is that in a live event exist almost " nothing " but air between the transients and fast harmonics developed between the sound sources/instruments and you.
R. |
I think that the power and very high dynamics of those transients/harmonics is what permits that almost everywhere can happens what you posted:
""
image within it AND sounds good. "
Yes, in a live event is almost impossible that at some position/hall location the sound can be really bad. Live and home are two totally different " worlds " for experience MUSIC.
R. |
Skip trying to perfect a grossly inadequate number of speakers (i.e 2) for the ultimate music listening experience and go to 5.2.2 atmos setup powered by a good surround processor and amp. Some very smart guys declared that you need a lot more than 2 channels to make it work and they were not wrong.
Horse puckey. 5.2.2 Atmos is nebulous beyond extreme. One may be enveloped in sound but no-one no-how nowhere gets an image such an engineer captured or created. Listening to well recorded 2 channel music, either actual space or studio synthesized, with good ambience on 5.2.2 is almost nauseating. |
Yes, you need music recorded for immersive sound systems. |
@mahgister, Huh? No boasting or fad on my side….Quit the blanket accusations, relax and try to think this through for a minute. All I did was share the results of a 20 year long exploration of what can be achieved with well made electronics and speakers. In fact, it is this 2 channel “purist” notion that is perpetuated in these circles that leads to constant disgruntlement and endless emptying of one’s wallet with vendors who are happy to take your cash.
After one spends an arm and a leg on the best 2 channel gear/speakers money can buy, he will realize that it is only trying to scratch the surface of what a multichannel setup can achieve at a fraction of the cost. This was my reason to throw some cost numbers out there
You can treat your room all day long and keep praying. But, if you want the orchestra to come right home, those 2 speakers are simply not going to cut it. A multichannel setup is also a lot more forgiving for mortals who don’t have the best rooms/treatments in place as well. SCIENCE and research will deliver you the ultimate music listening experience, not this notion of “purism” spread in these circles.
I hope this post save the wallets of some of the 2 channel tail chasing mortals out here. But, if you achieved some miracle with your God like homemade gear and your God like understanding of room acoustics (done the right way apparently!), more power to you. Good luck.
|
You can treat your room all day long and keep praying. But, if you want the orchestra to come right home, those 2 speakers are simply not going to cut it First i apologize for my choice of the word "boasting".... I did not wanted to offend you but i did... Then my complete apology... I am like you a passionate temper... Second i intervened because your view even if right is not a balanced opinion... I dont have a God like understanding at all, in fact i am ignorant, but i figure out something that work but which is not taught in audio forum: the Helmholtz method.... I thank you for your passion we all like that, at least most of us .... But two opinions are better than one....😁😊😁 If not? Who knows how many people would trash their 2 way system in the river? My deepest respects..... |
Don't get me wrong, there are expensive and cheap seats and, unlike in a lot of audio, you always get what you pay for! :)
What I mean is, the idea that my listening position will no longer convey the location of the performers accurately because of dispersion or phase or timing issues vanishes. The violin or the singer or the piano sound arrives at my head without the degradation possible by attempting to reconstruct the music via 2 speakers. Or 20 speakers. The imaging in real life is always correct.
|
Dear @deep333 : "
go to 5.2.2 atmos setup powered by a good surround processor and amp. Some very smart guys declared that you need a lot more than 2 channels to make it work and they were not wrong.
My 15k multichannel setup beats the living daylights out of 100k+ 2 channel setups i have/had. 2 channel setups will have you chasing your tail forever. "
I think that you are making " universal " statements in two way different sound reproduction room/systems.
A multichannel set up has totally different main targets that a plain stere/two speaker system and because the targets are different in between you can't or I can't said that one of these alternatives is superior to the other one.
You speak for your self and according your sound reproduction priorities and I speak for my self where the main target in my room/system ( is not that the orchestra be in the room. This not even a multichannel can do it, it's just a crazy statement. ) is to stay nearer to the recording nearer to what the recording microphones pick-up and to achieve that in the best way I need to put all type of generated room/system distortions at minimum adding the less audio signal manipulation at all system levels.
My main target precludes/avoids the multichannel alternatives where there is no way to stay nearer to the recording no matters what.
Certainly you have a different target or targets and your multichannel system is not superior to a two speaker system in any way. We can't compare oranges with apples as you did it.
R. |
@rauliruegas As far the mastering apparatus is concerned, atmos/dts X/auro mastering suites offer the ability to accurately place all musicians in a 3D soundfield and get away from this 2 channel gimmickery. Unfortunately, as it is fairly new, not many mastering engineers are educated/have acquired the higher skill level to work with this mastering suite yet. Perhaps it’s harder to teach a old dog new tricks, but, i have more hope for the younger mastering engineers moving up in life. After these recordings start coming out en masse, all this 2 channel gimmickery is bound to look plain silly. Even when it’s not natively done, a majority of the 2 channel recordings that continue to come out right now are awful. Even in these instances, the intelligent algorithms built into upmixers tend to do a commendable salvage job and make it sound quite good.
This is not to be confused with quad and all the other failed attempts from the past decades, which is what more guys are familiar with. Entry level users watching movies with entry level receivers and crappy surround/in-ceiling speakers have further muddied the perception of what this platform is actually capable of. But, a serious atmos setup that means business does exactly what it was designed to do.
Before mag lev bullet trains came around, coal trains were king indeed. I am sure many guys would continue to ride a coal train for sweet nostalgic purposes with soot on their faces. I choose to move on. |
After these recordings start coming out en masse, all this 2 channel gimmickery is bound to look plain silly. I listen Scriabin on my 2 channel extraordinary 3-d holographic imaging encompassing even me , if the recording process was top notch.... But all my 10,000 files losless, were recorded decades ago, and i dont need your 5 channels.... In my next life when the bad actual recording of one of the greatest pianist, Sofronitsky, would be recreated for 5 channels i promise i will do.... In the mean time enjoy your few perfect recordings ... I will enjoy my less perfect numerous one on my perfect 2 channels filling my room with in some good recording of Weill operas voices behind my head from a 2 channel speakers system, do you believe me?...I bet no... Acoustic is way more important than electronic design in audio for now... But you are right it will not be so perhaps in few years to come... But for now it is and i am too old to wait A.I. in the 10 years to come in audio...A.I. will be the revolution not 5 channels recording process only... My best to you, apologizing for my rant .... |
The death of stereo recordings and stereo systems has been predicted repeatedly and come to naught.
In large part due to the lack of willingness for most consumers, including movie buffs, to invest in more than a 2 channel system.
|
I worked for dts 20 years ago. I could have gotten product for free and took none. I detested the multichannel stuff we produced.
Some of my much smarter pals worked for Warner and Universal writing processing code. Not one of them ever thought the processed sound was superior to 2 channel. Processed sound is just that. It 's processed. More than once I've asked a host to either turn off their sonic wallpaper or I'll have to leave because the constant image shifting makes me nauseous. Adding speakers and $10 software is no panacea. Cost is no arbiter of how much a system will engage the listener. Processing cannot solve room problems. see
ieLogical Lossy for a bit on how processing messes up signal integrity |
Processed sound is just that. It ’s processed. i repeat your words here because you said better than my post what i want to speak about... thanks....
Processing cannot solve room problems.
I will add this one... And i dont need to post more here... |
As they say "Teach a man to fish..."
Looks like someone taught you well erik. Nice haul ;-)
|
@ieales Every recording you ever listened to in life went through a whole lotta "processing" before you bought it. Any DAC you've got is "processing". Your turntable setup is immensely colored. If you don't like processing, forget multichannel gear, you should toss all your recordings/2 channel gear as well and go watch live unplugged performances in a good venue (or start singing by yourself like a lark). |
When we were setting up my dual purpose room for audio and video (only overlap being the main speakers) using some very nice computer analytics as well as our ears, we found that my main speakers (*large Wilsons) nailed the centre image even better than the Vandersteen centre speaker we were setting up with, so I went with that and will sell the Vandersteen. Surprised both me and the guy setting it up. |
|
|
Every recording you ever listened to in life went through a whole lotta "processing" before you bought it. Any DAC you've got is "processing". Your turntable setup is immensely colored. If you don't like processing, forget multichannel gear, you should toss all your recordings/2 channel gear as well and go watch live unplugged performances in a good venue (or start singing by yourself like a lark).
No it is not processed. What is intended in 2 channel from start to finish is a simacrulum of a performance, either live or simulated. Multi-channel and processed [i.e. bandwidth limited] sound screws with the audio signal to the extent that the original image NO LONGER EXISTS.
I once castigated a friend doing an FM Motown retrospective because he ripped all the material rather than playing the discs. I told him that while I loved the music and his show, I could not listen due to the lack of focus. This was over FM which is not a patch on the true system fidelity.
He said he had no idea what I was talking about, so I asked him to bring the original CDs and the rips over and we would sync them up and listen. He said he was astounded at how badly the 192k rips compared, BUT I was the only one who complained!
SO, while some drink CharBux, no serious cafficianado would ever mistake it for coffee. Ditto 5.2.2 Atmos for HiFi. |
The MBL’s (though pricey) excel, in the two channel mode, to present a wide soundstage and can be enjoyed in many different listening positions. |
Dear @deep_333 : " I choose to move on. "
Yes because your targets/priorities are different.
Oranges has its own characteristics/advantages and disadvantages and apples too but both are way different.
Some of us like more an apple than an orange but this fact does not means that apple ( multichannel. ) is superior to orange ( stereo. ).
The forums as Agon it’s not to see which win and which one beated and you want to win and this is your misunderstood because a forum is a place to share experiences with other gentlemans where those experiences could be or could helps to some one of us and for others gentlemans could helps to confirm what we already know, no one lost and every body ( some way or the other ) win.
Btw, for two way different targets exist two differentiaded solutions: multichannel solution for you and stereo for some of us. That is all about. @ieales posts explain it very well.
R. |
When we were setting up my dual purpose room for audio and video (only overlap being the main speakers) using some very nice computer analytics as well as our ears, we found that my main speakers (*large Wilsons) nailed the centre image even better than the Vandersteen centre speaker we were setting up with, so I went with that and will sell the Vandersteen. Surprised both me and the guy setting it up.
Not surprised the Vandersteen did not work with your Wilson speakers because every other driver is out of phase with each other. All Vandersteen centers are time and phase correct therefore all drivers are in phase. Regardless which design one prefers this combination would be a mess and not require any super analysis to know. |
