Wow, great posts, John and others. Feel free to post thoughts (and qualms you may have) about the article in the comments field below it. Mark is there to respond, if necessary.
No apology necessary! ... The other big variable is the quality of the recordings, which can vary wildly. - no disagreement here ... Hi-Fi can degrade the recorded sound, it can't improve on it (though it sometimes masks it, albeit the music as well as the deficiencies).
It's a shame we're not neighbours, John (at least for me), as I would enjoy spending time with you discussing Hi-Fi and, of course, listening. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to each and all of my points (rebuttals ) and I fear that, to some extent, we're talking at cross purposes and may find we agree on quite a lot.
For example, I'm well aware that the Hi-Fi salesman is out to sell and will demonstrate how good item X is so as to achieve that sale. Accessories are well-known to carry high mark-ups and I've no doubt been influenced by expensive packaging and flashy products ... and I've also bought cheap leads and found the end connectors loose, or the sleeve leaves stains on your hands ...
I've a good computer-savvy friend who has sought to educate me re: digital interconnects but he does accept that a good quality analogue cable can make a difference. For the record, the Hi-Fi salesman did nothing to push the sale of the interconnect ... other than he had talked me out of buying a power supply which he felt would not deliver the benefits I was seeking, so I said I'd buy the interconnect instead. It did come in very nice packaging but I did not know that at the time
I regret I can't organise a blind test since our Hi-Fi set-up does not lend itself to changing interconnects that easily ... and this particular one is fiddly, it having 5-pin DIN connections and must be held carefully to avoid pulling the DIN connector away from the cable.
Anyhow, where we agree is that I do believe that speakers can have a significant effect on the sound but I refer you back to your earlier comment re: neutral-sounding speakers getting the best results in listening tests. Thus, by implication, other speakers will colour the sound and then it's down to individual preferences ... hence there is likely to be a wide choice of sound ... which equates to your statement.
My point is that, given a certain sound which the listener enjoys (and, to be honest, we can't go swapping speakers every week or two to find a sound more preferable) then a change in one of the Hi-Fi components can have as much, if not more, effect on the listening experience. It may not be an improvement and we're always encouraged (on the Hi-Fi forum) to listen before we buy.
In my case, would a pair of new speakers have more effect than the interconnect? Most certainly, and probably more than replacing the integrated amp with the power amp. But would the change be an improvement? Who knows ... I know that the upgrades have increased my listening pleasure. Your comment about diminishing returns is spot-on. But then why should someone buy a 50k motor vehicle when one priced at 40k would do the job just as well? And, as I wrote before, I'm sure I'd notice an improvement if I replaced the speakers (with better sounding ones) but I don't have full-freedom in this regard (and the real wood veneer adds to our enjoyment).
As for listening out for sounds I've not heard before, sorry, but not so ... I was writing my earlier reply and concentrating on that ... it was the new, clearer sounds which penetrated my subconscious to the extent that I knew it was different from the remembered sound. On this I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
We could discuss such matters for ages (and no one would intervene!) but in seeking to bring this to an end I'd like to add: - a friend did comment on hearing a piece of classical music (she and her husband visited to listen to Vivaldi's Violin Concerto, Op.8 "Le Quattro Stagioni") that she was impressed at the sound reproduction partly because, she said, she could properly hear the breaks/rests - on one noteboook, I have as the desktop picture a scanned drawing of a joke I saw years ago which I like: two tramps sitting in the hedgerow, one saying to the other: "I had a family, a good job, owned my own home. Then one day, I discovered that I could hear differences among audio components ... ".
Thanks, Mitch, for your thoughtful comments. Much appreciated.
Sounds like one of those old Rodriguez cartoons from the old Stereo Review - those were great!
RE: liking a certain speakers "sound." Don't we all want to hear what the actual musical instruments or vocalists actually sound like? IMO, a speaker should not have any "sound" of its own. Like all hifi components, the goal of a speaker should be to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible. A speaker that colors the sound is like having a graphic EQ in the signal path all the time, constantly coloring the sound whether you want it to or not.
Here is a Spinorama graph of a B&W speaker, the 683S2. The top three lines illustrate the frequency response of the speaker on axis (in front of the speaker), off axis frequency response, and frequency response in the listening window (the green line). Since the listening window is essentially the average of all the measurements, let's focus on that - the green line. This will give us a good representation of how the speaker will sound at a variety of positions in the room:
Notice the huge hole in frequency response between 1500 and 2500 hz? That represents the speaker's timbre, or tonal balance. No matter what you do, whatever you play through that speaker will lack a great deal of presence in that critical frequency band. In the case of much of the music much of us here on the FSM board listen to, there will be a distinct lack of "air" and openness to string and female vocal sounds.
If I were to plot that sound signature onto a graphic equalizer, it would look something like this:
Now, who would want that as an EQ setting permanently forced into your signal path? I'm actually being kind with the graphic EQ settings above - the frequency swings are actually much worse.
Now let's take a look at a Spinorama of the Revel F208 mentioned previously:
Notice how much smoother the frequency response is, not only on axis, but off axis? This is a speaker that continually beats speakers at many multiples its price point during the double blind listening tests. There is no magic here, just good engineering and knowing what the target should be when designing a speaker.
So, what's wrong with the B&W? Well, a midrange driver that's way too big to properly cross over to the tweeter, for one:
It's easy to see the problem just by looking at the speaker.
What the Harman / Canadian tests have shown is that that midrange - tweeter blend is all important when designing a speaker that will sound natural, as that is where the human voice resides and where our ears are the most sensitive.
Again, science, not magic, and a demonstration of how following where the evidence leads often gets you to the correct conclusions
(FYI I often have people ask me if they can't just EQ out the problems in the B&W speaker shown above. You could certainly apply a boost where the B&W speaker is lacking, BUT you would end up overtaxing the tweeter outside it's proper operating range. This would either add a lot of distortion, or even blow it up. The trick is designing a speaker that measures properly to begin with.)
I agree flat response is ideal and I tend to play my music without adding any EQ. But it is also quite common among those less interested in accurate reproduction (many of my friends) to apply big boosts to certain parts of the music at all times. People get used to bass-boosted heavy metal for example beyond what the engineers add. This is why half the time when I get into a rental car, someone has boosted the bass and treble. It is rare that I pick up a rental car where the values are flat.
Wow, great posts, John and others. Feel free to post thoughts (and qualms you may have) about the article in the comments field below it. Mark is there to respond, if necessary.
Thanks, Thor! I already write about much of this stuff on the AVS Forum, which is one of the most popular internet forums on the internet, period. And, as someone else already pointed out, these types of debates are all over the internet, with "discussions" often getting quite heated, complete with name calling and threats. I try to post the objective data and not get bogged down in the disagreements when they get personal.
If anyone really wants to get into this stuff, I started an epic thread about doing blind speaker shootouts on the AVS Forum where we compared the JBL M2 Studio Master Reference Monitor to the Revel Salon2 under double blind conditions. What made it fun is that these were two of the most accurate speakers ever measured but with totally different design approaches. There is a link to it here - Dr. Toole helped us set up the conditions of the test and participated in the thread as well:
I'm proud to say it was one of the most widely read and praised threads in the history of the AVS Forum.
Interestingly, the Revel Salon2 won by a hair.
But enough about all this! Believe it or else, my main focus in life is in filmmaking and film composing - home theater is just what I do on the side. Being a science geek, I find all the stuff I've been writing about fascinating.
While I'm at it, I'm going to post the proof of concept trailer for a film I'm working on called "The Gospel According to Stephenson." It actually ties in to all the stuff I've been writing about, about how us humans often believe things without supporting evidence. My film is about a "vampire" named Stephenson who capitalizes on the seemingly automatic belief that vampires live forever to start his own religion - a promise of eternal life, guaranteed. But it examines all this from a skeptical, scientific viewpoint: what evidence is there to actually support this claim? Is Stephenson really a vampire, or simply a new form of human being? And what evidence do we have that vampires actually live forever? Maybe they just live for 320 years and that's the top limit. Or maybe Stephenson is complete charlatan.
Whether or not people would actually believe in his eternal life "guarantee" and sign up to join his religion is what my film hopes to explore. And for those who do sign up, what is their motivation? As you might guess, some of this was inspired by all the recent documentaries, books and television shows about Scientology. Thor, you might appreciate my quote from a Williams score you are no doubt familiar with:
So, a taste of what I'd rather be known for. Still in pre-production and attracting investors. I am writing, directing and composing the score
I agree flat response is ideal and I tend to play my music without adding any EQ. But it is also quite common among those less interested in accurate reproduction (many of my friends) to apply big boosts to certain parts of the music at all times. People get used to bass-boosted heavy metal for example beyond what the engineers add. This is why half the time when I get into a rental car, someone has boosted the bass and treble. It is rare that I pick up a rental car where the values are flat.
LOL! Yes, this is so true re: rental cars. But then again, there we would need to know how accurate the speakers in the rental care are to begin with.
Most of the time people add bass because their speakers just aren't sufficient in this area, and the end up boosting the low midrange instead. The illusion of real bass
This is a good and pleasantly “pleasant” discussion. Refreshing and thanks. I’ve heard that B&W speaker on numerous occasions - it’s a good speaker but there are far better options for the money.
I concur on selecting an “accurate” speaker in the first place. Lots of good information and well described. As I stated previously, the elephant in the room, so to speak, is the room itself which almost always imposes huge dips in frequency response and other anomalies. This is a major factor that is often overlooked and the reason why showroom listening only often results in major surprise and/or disappointment when the speaker is placed in the owners listening space.
I’ve had my Thiel 3.6 speakers in at least three different rooms over the last 20 years. Even after careful positioning, all three resulted in wildly different sound presentations - unfortunately my current room is by far the worst requiring corner bass traps and other acoustical considerations. Back to the original question of speaker selection: did I throw out my speakers? No, just fixed the room. While there may be some speaker/room combinations that are just unworkable, I had too much time invested in system selection and matching and focused my efforts on the listening space.
Perfect? Of course not but I know when I sit down to listen I am no longer thinking about the system - just enjoying pure musical bliss.
As Dr. Toole says, below about 200 - 300 hz (transition frequency), the room absolutely controls what you hear. Over 200 - 300 hz the speaker controls what you hear. Over the transition frequency (again around 300 hz or so), it's important to have a speaker that measures equally well off axis as it does on axis. (This information is present in the Spinorama measurements posted above.) Since room reflections are unavoidable, it's important the side wall, floor and ceiling reflections are congruent with the direct sound coming from the speaker, otherwise you get weird comb filtering effects. And this is why so many studio mix rooms have heavy absorption at the first reflection points. Up until recently, many studio monitors were really good at making sure the direct on axis sound was smooth and neutral, but no attention was paid to the sound emanating from the sides, top and bottom. Since the sound hitting the side wall was often of drastically different timbre as what was coming directly from the speaker, it became necessary to absorb all of that sound using heavy acoustic treatments.
When you have a speaker with neutral response both on and off axis, however, the room becomes much less of a problem (at least, above the transition frequency). In fact, at this point it becomes a matter of preference on whether or not you treat the first reflection points. If you like a more spacious sound, leave them alone. If you prefer more pinpoint imaging, treat them with broadband absorption and diffusion. Of course, without having a measurement like the Spinoramas posted above, it's hard to know exactly how your speakers perform, both on and off axis.
Might be helpful for those curious - here again is the Revel F208 Spinorama with a primer on how to read it:
Here is the primer:
HARMAN Spin-o-rama Explanation
On-axis Response - This represents the direct sound heard by a single listener sitting on the design axis of the loudspeaker. A flat frequency response is an absolute requirement for all electronic devices. Therefore, it is not surprising that loudspeakers with a flat on-axis frequency response have a higher probability of being preferred in double-blind listening tests.
Listening Window - The well-designed loudspeaker should deliver good sound to a group of listeners -- not just the person sitting on-axis. The listening window is the average frequency response measured for listeners sitting on and slightly off the reference axis of the loudspeaker. Loudspeakers that receive high sound quality ratings in double-blind listening tests tend to have listening windows with a flat frequency response.
First, or Early Reflections -- Most of the sound we hear is reflected in rooms. The second loudest sound (after the direct sound) is the first reflected sound produced from the loudspeaker. Therefore, it is paramount that the sounds radiated by the loudspeaker in the off-axis directions generate early reflections that sound good. The shape of this curve should not differ greatly from the on-axis response curve.
Sound Power Response -This is a measure of the total sound radiated by the loudspeaker without regard to the direction in which it is radiated. The shape should be smooth and slightly downward tilting.
Sound Power and First Reflection Directivity Indices - These directivity indices tell us how the directivity of the loudspeaker changes as a function of frequency. At low frequencies most loudspeakers radiate sound omni- directionally (DI = 0 dB), where wavelengths are long. In forward-firing, 2-way and 3-way loudspeakers, as wavelengths get shorter, frequencies get higher, and more of the sound is radiated towards the front. The goal is to have this trend develop smoothly and gradually.
Agree that most of the difficult room issues occur below 300 hz; verified in my current challenging room by ear and microphone using REW (which was most helpful in selecting treatment). Pretty flat (and consistent with published review measurements) down to about 300 hz then MAJOR peaks and dips below 100 hz. Lots of time, effort and some money to get it listenable.
Reflection management and judicious placement of acoustic treatments for the midrange and upper frequencies is much easier with the selection of a proper speaker.
It’s hard to select a good speaker based on lack of available “worthwhile” measurements and the potential interaction in personal listening space. For those scratching their head, join the club. Requires research, patience, and some trial and error. Using the above information can certainly help limit the field and try before you buy, good return policies, and the used market can be your best friends. Don’t forget that cost is not directly proportionate to sound quality, a meager system can sound absolutely stunning.
Once you have the right speakers and properly integrate them with your room it’s well worth any effort.
Totally agree. BTW, a good source of independent measurements is on Soundstage - they are using the Canadian NRC test chambers, and are using Dr. Toole's old measurement system (before he developed the Spinorama):
Interesting too that Dr. Toole talks about speaker preference ratings do not change, even in different rooms. The only thing that changes is the overall score. But the listener scores still stay the same relative to one another.
Thanks Thor. FYI, the definitive article on this topic was published several years ago by Chris Montgomery, a leader in developing lossless sound formats. He cites all the reputable scientific studies done about this:
I posted some of the relevant info under the original article you linked to:
"Signal-to-noise ratio
It's worth mentioning briefly that the ear's S/N ratio is smaller than its absolute dynamic range. Within a given critical band, typical S/N is estimated to only be about 30dB. Relative S/N does not reach the full dynamic range even when considering widely spaced bands. This assures that linear 16 bit PCM offers higher resolution than is actually required.
It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear."
"Listening tests
Understanding is where theory and reality meet. A matter is settled only when the two agree.
Empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity playback. There are numerous controlled tests confirming this, but I'll plug a recent paper, Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback, done by local folks here at the Boston Audio Society.
Unfortunately, downloading the full paper requires an AES membership. However it's been discussed widely in articles and on forums, with the authors joining in. Here's a few links:
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate
Hydrogen Audio forum discussion thread
Supplemental information page at the Boston Audio Society, including the equipment and sample lists
This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!"
I really appreciate John's detailed and generous information sharing here. The doctrines of general equivalence in electronic circuits vs. widespread divergence in speakers and room environments have remained constant for decades amid scientific minds and objective tests. And yet the subjectivist demurals never end. I've no claim to personal expertise, but the scientific approach makes more sense to me.
Thanks Thor. FYI, the definitive article on this topic was published several years ago by Chris Montgomery, a leader in developing lossless sound formats. He cites all the reputable scientific studies done about this:
Thanks. The author of the article is responding to queries now, and he seems to know what he's talking about -- even if some of the assertions may seem like errors due to unclear communication.
