2. speakers
  3. 164823-20253

If you don't have a wide sweet spot, are you really an audiophile?

Hi, it’s me, professional audio troll. I’ve been thinking about something as my new home listening room comes together:

The glory of having a wide sweet spot.

We focus far too much on the dentist chair type of listener experience. A sound which is truly superb only in one location. Then we try to optimize everything exactly in that virtual shoebox we keep our heads in. How many of us look for and optimize our listening experience to have a wide sweet spot instead?

I am reminded of listening to the Magico S1 Mk II speakers. While not flawless one thing they do exceptionally well is, in a good room, provide a very good, stable stereo image across almost any reasonable listening location. Revel’s also do this. There’s no sudden feeling of the image clicking when you are exactly equidistant from the two speakers. The image is good and very stable. Even directly in front of one speaker you can still get a sense of what is in the center and opposite sides. You don’t really notice a loss of focus when off axis like you can in so many setups.

Compare and contrast this with the opposite extreme, Sanders' ESL’s, which are OK off axis but when you are sitting in the right spot you suddenly feel like you are wearing headphones. The situation is very binary. You are either in the sweet spot or you are not.

From now on I’m declaring that I’m going all-in on wide-sweet spot listening. Being able to relax on one side of the couch or another, or meander around the house while enjoying great sounding music is a luxury we should all attempt to recreate.
erik_squires
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,029 posts
 
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.
deep_333
1,307 posts
 
@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.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,964 posts
 
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 ....
erik_squires OP
16,021 posts
 
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.
ieales's avatar
ieales
1,201 posts
 
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
More to discover