Accuracy is such a misnomer.. you'd have to define what is "accurate" - *VERY* specifically.
And of course measurements, while usually useful, *require* interpretation - which is in fact a subjective process. So no, OPINIONS trump measurements. Measurements only serve as a point of reference for formulating an opinion.
An obvious case in point is the typical "flat response" as a measure of accuracy..
..with what? 1 meter distance with an anechoic condition? Will that necessarily result in flat-freq. response accuracy for any given listener in-room?
The answer is of course a resounding NO.
Don't get me wrong, I like as much objective data as possible - but this hobby (or even profession), has so many variables that it remains an art (..if guided by science).
yes, there is no realistic sound reproduction with a conventional stereo
again - for a conventional front-firing speaker
also - who says that it has to be uniform over the entire audible bandwith and why?
Last edited:
why not "give me something that sounds realistic"?
in other words - the alternative that You have given is false - it's not that we can only choose between the perfectly imperfect and the euphonic because we can choose realistic instead
from the times of H. A. Hartley - who invented the term - the goal of "Hi-Fi" is REALISTIC sound reproduction
so who is facetious really?
there is - the real thing
there is - it is the sound reproduction as realistic as posssible
to the real thing
sure but there is another measure available to every music lover - how it (unamplified voices and musical instruments) sounds live
Thus, people should simply forget about a fortunate buzzword which created a very unfortunate myth and start thinking about what matters. That is, enjoying music.
why not rather go back to the original - Hartleyan - meaning of the term?
yes - more or less realistic illusion - and this is exactly where the HiFi matters
but measurements are meaningless in themselves
measurements, while usually useful, *require* interpretation - which is in fact a subjective process. So no, OPINIONS trump measurements. Measurements only serve as a point of reference for formulating an opinion.
exactly
Last edited:
If you keep your car in the middle of the lane, there is some
tolerance due to environmental influence and also driver's errors.
Without having a speaker presented to a variety of listeners
- and hopefully also under a variety of conditions - it is hard to
tell, whether there is some space to the left or to the right.
I am not believing in a pure evaluation by measurement. Listener's
findings should be correlated with measurements and changes to the
object should be documented by measurement too.
I am also not believing blindly in what single listener's say ...
yes, this is I believe the right method for a speaker designer and this is also Dr Toole's method
Furthermore the need for room adaption may arise in certain situations.
A result "as close as possible" will usually not be possible without
room adaption of the reproduction chain.
Placement of speakers and listener may not be sufficient to balance
modal bahaviour of the room/speaker system.
And also the need for room treatment might occur, which usually
conflicts with the use of a listening room as a living room.
A good speaker for the home IMO is one that minimizes these conflicts
and gives reasonable results even if the listeners readiness for room treatment is rather low.
In most cases you can be happy if speakers and listener are placed in a
manner, which is really appropriate to the room's situation.
That is my point of view and there is only little space left for "correctness"
in most cases.
One thing possibly enhancing the listeners readiness for carefull placement
- even after the "speaker guy" left the room - and room treatment is:
Don't sell good speakers too cheap. People have to suffer hard for what
they achieve, otherwise the cannot honor what they get.
A result "as close as possible" will usually not be possible without
room adaption of the reproduction chain.
Placement of speakers and listener may not be sufficient to balance
modal bahaviour of the room/speaker system.
And also the need for room treatment might occur, which usually
conflicts with the use of a listening room as a living room.
A good speaker for the home IMO is one that minimizes these conflicts
and gives reasonable results even if the listeners readiness for room treatment is rather low.
In most cases you can be happy if speakers and listener are placed in a
manner, which is really appropriate to the room's situation.
That is my point of view and there is only little space left for "correctness"
in most cases.
One thing possibly enhancing the listeners readiness for carefull placement
- even after the "speaker guy" left the room - and room treatment is:
Don't sell good speakers too cheap. People have to suffer hard for what
they achieve, otherwise the cannot honor what they get.
(very) old Hartleyan ideal of "HiFi as a room service like central heating"
yes! very true
from the times of H. A. Hartley - who invented the term - the goal of "Hi-Fi" is REALISTIC sound reproduction
so who is facetious really?
Here again, the word "realistic" is still subjective, at least the way you're using it.
To what part of the recording chain are we trying to be "realistic"? If it's "the performance" then you have the monumental task of designing a system that conveys every possible recording technique / venue / style in your recreation. So let's say you get this flooder idea tuned perfectly, so sitting in your room just envelops you in perfect omnidirectional sound, where you can shut your eyes and be transported to any venue or theater or jazz club and it's perfectly believable.
Then what happens if you put on a recording of something that isn't live / acoustic, but dead and electronic? How do you judge "realism" on electronic music generated by computers or studio "dead" modern recordings?
Here's my argument in a nutshell:
There's a difference between "realistic" for this.
And "realistic" for this.
That's why I prefer to put my effort into being "transparent". I know some people will jump all over this.. "Oh, hurrrrr, you can never really be transparent..." Really all I'm saying is this is what we should be pursuing...don't attack that idea as if I'm claiming to have done it...nobody has...if they had, we wouldn't have a hobby and this website wouldn't exist.
I can see the group delay changes vs angle. However one cannot avoid the question why is this ? I mean the device is not small and the measurement is propably not done in a far field ? Is the delay changing because acoustic center is moving while series of measurements are performed ?
Another question worth considering is how much 'delay' is really needed to decorrelate signals in perceptual sense ?
And maybe above all, how much decorrelation is really needed in the first place ?
why? what's subjective about it?
it is impossible and therefore such recording material is irrelevant for the purpose of assesing the quality of audio equipment
You mean like those guys?:
Are You On The Road To... Audio Hell? by Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup
the "comparison by contrast" method?
One can get transparency in the sense you're describing if the whole reproduction chain is sufficiently low in distortion -- because that situation is hard to achieve there's not much of it around, but it's definitely worth pursuing.
This does mean that then you can put on any sort of music or recording, and it all works, it never jars ...
Aren't these two things completely contradictory? Toole is a strong proponent of measurements! As am I. And we both believe in correlation of those measurements with perception. We have both done a lot of work in that area.
Once one achieves correlation, the measurements trump the individuals subjective opinion because, as well all know, individual judgment is highly variable and unreliable - subject to strong biases.
Thanks for conceding the point then.
I aim to be able to enjoy all facets of music, the way they were intended to be enjoyed. The moment you start disqualifying certain types of music or recording techniques due to personal musical bias, or because the mere act of acknowledging that people actually listen to music like that would render your reproduction techniques inferior, you automatically lose.
Perhaps the thread title needs another change.."Optimum speaker placement for enjoying acoustic music." springs to mind.
From day one every music reproduction system has been called "realistic" until the next "more realistic" system came up. "Realistic" isn't only most subjective, it is most relative too. So we best forget about that word altogether.