Hi anatech,
It could be that your following reply was addressed to me, although I'm not sure since you usually address your interlocutor with a nod of greeting and by name and you didn't do that in this case, but since your post chronologically comes immediately after mine I'll assume the above. 🙂
I'm rather awkward because it is not easy at all, indeed it is decidedly difficult to exchange opinions considering the enormous gap that objectively distinguishes our mutual technical cultures.
However, I will try to describe my modest point of view anyway, certain that you will have the magnanimity to realize its authentic spirit.
When a person with a very long and great experience and authority like you states that something simply does not exist except in the imagination of others, it is hard to argue without appearing presumptuous.
But if you allow me to say it with the utmost consideration and respect that I have for you, I have not yet met a single person who could not be subject to being "presumptuous" because I believe that generally speaking the possibility of being wrong is a law common to man, to all men.
No one has the truth in their pocket forever, without taking anything away, I repeat without taking anything away in the slightest from the great importance that I myself attribute to your great and very long experience.
And all men are subject to their own beliefs, even those regarding the possibility of being convinced by the arguments of others of the opposite of what was believed up to now.
The point is, in my humble opinion, that to be convinced of the opposite of what one thinks and what one believes one is experiencing, one must be convincing.
There are those who are convinced quickly and there are those who are convinced after an objective comparison, perhaps with evidence and counter-evidence in hand.
So, just as you ask me to prove that the fact that I perceive different imaging from different amplifiers is valid, I respectfully ask you to demonstrate that it is not.
But, since the above would probably not lead to anything revolutionary with respect to what we have already seen too much, perhaps it would be wiser to maintain one's beliefs without striking a blow.
Because I believe that it would be impossible for me to change even slightly your beliefs that you have experienced in the field for many years and that I deeply respect, and it would be a bit unexpected for me to change mine following the experience that was not mine.
An old Italian saying (I don't know if there is the same in English) said that "experience is acquired, but not bought", in the sense that my mind leads me to want to have my own experiences, while taking into great consideration the experiences of others and especially yours.
Ultimately, technological progress comes from scientific progress and it is not uncommon for mankind to have realized that it believed in something that over time has no longer proven to be true.
And this applies to each of us, in my opinion, without exceptions.
I also believe that a pinch of illogicality can sometimes even help progress, because if we don't aim high we will never reach high goals.
Of course, one could also realize that one was wrong using that pinch of illogicality, but the history of mankind teaches us that we can be wrong even using the logic and the rationality at all... 😉
IMHO
It could be that your following reply was addressed to me, although I'm not sure since you usually address your interlocutor with a nod of greeting and by name and you didn't do that in this case, but since your post chronologically comes immediately after mine I'll assume the above. 🙂
However, I greatly respect both your experience, which it matters and it is very important to me, and you as a person and a professional, but in some cases we may not completely agree.
I'm rather awkward because it is not easy at all, indeed it is decidedly difficult to exchange opinions considering the enormous gap that objectively distinguishes our mutual technical cultures.
However, I will try to describe my modest point of view anyway, certain that you will have the magnanimity to realize its authentic spirit.
When a person with a very long and great experience and authority like you states that something simply does not exist except in the imagination of others, it is hard to argue without appearing presumptuous.
But if you allow me to say it with the utmost consideration and respect that I have for you, I have not yet met a single person who could not be subject to being "presumptuous" because I believe that generally speaking the possibility of being wrong is a law common to man, to all men.
No one has the truth in their pocket forever, without taking anything away, I repeat without taking anything away in the slightest from the great importance that I myself attribute to your great and very long experience.
And all men are subject to their own beliefs, even those regarding the possibility of being convinced by the arguments of others of the opposite of what was believed up to now.
The point is, in my humble opinion, that to be convinced of the opposite of what one thinks and what one believes one is experiencing, one must be convincing.
There are those who are convinced quickly and there are those who are convinced after an objective comparison, perhaps with evidence and counter-evidence in hand.
So, just as you ask me to prove that the fact that I perceive different imaging from different amplifiers is valid, I respectfully ask you to demonstrate that it is not.
But, since the above would probably not lead to anything revolutionary with respect to what we have already seen too much, perhaps it would be wiser to maintain one's beliefs without striking a blow.
Because I believe that it would be impossible for me to change even slightly your beliefs that you have experienced in the field for many years and that I deeply respect, and it would be a bit unexpected for me to change mine following the experience that was not mine.
An old Italian saying (I don't know if there is the same in English) said that "experience is acquired, but not bought", in the sense that my mind leads me to want to have my own experiences, while taking into great consideration the experiences of others and especially yours.
I agree that understanding is a goal and a belief sometimesis it is not demonstrable, but without convictions one can't even move forward, and one has to put them to the test and be willing to retrace his steps.
Ultimately, technological progress comes from scientific progress and it is not uncommon for mankind to have realized that it believed in something that over time has no longer proven to be true.
And this applies to each of us, in my opinion, without exceptions.
I also believe that a pinch of illogicality can sometimes even help progress, because if we don't aim high we will never reach high goals.
Of course, one could also realize that one was wrong using that pinch of illogicality, but the history of mankind teaches us that we can be wrong even using the logic and the rationality at all... 😉
IMHO
Last edited:
Asr, isn't concerned with soubdstage because there's no measures for it. Doesn't mean members, me included don't listen for it
Science tells you that imaging is a product of timing differences between the sound sources. People’s perception appears to go beyond that. 99.999% of it MAY be expectation bias, but asking someone to prove its not is like asking to prove that the universe is or is not finite. It boils down to whether one has taken the red pill or the blue pill. The thing they don’t tell you is that once done, you cannot un-take it. Then everything, including cables which do nothing changes their perception. Getting someone to change their mind about it is like telling a religious person to un-convert. Goes over like a lead zeppelin, and hell hath no fury.
Consider auditory system part of it: if it doesn't lock in to sounds due to poor SNR basically, it won't provide good perception of localization, imaging in case of stereo, if original harmonics are mingled by the whole system including room reflections and the fact that phantom center is "made" by two sound sources, not one! This stuff is really brittle for stereo, see this paper by Griesinger about the whole subject and this paper has a stereo listening test and not just in context of concert halls as most of his work is. Imaging, and SNR i mention here, is not property of amplifier or speakers or room, but everything together, and whether the auditory system locks in or not. Beyond this on/off event in auditory system there is of course some more perceivable diffrences to imaging and spatial sound, but this would be the key difference everyone should learn to listen to, because it enables AB testing your imaging utilizing your own auditory system 😉 Crazy stuff? Try it!🙂
I can imagine and speculate that this kind of differences happen, as people suddenly hear their auditory system switch state, for what ever reason, and attribute that to amplifier for example. One amplifier could provide poorer SNR in this regard so that for brain to lock in one needs to get closer to speakers, while another one could make it happen bit further out into the room before early reflections ruin it. If you happen to have listening spot somewhere here, the two would sound very different if one amplifier gets your auditory system switch state, and the other doesn't, unless you moved yourself bit closer to speakers. To rule this stuff out, one must learn to perceive, to find at which distance of speakers the auditory system switches state and root the imaging perception to that. Now it's possible to use logic to decipher the perception, and differences between amplifiers. IF not, then it's not this but something else, like expectation bias or what ever. Logic nevertheless. This stuff happens with any sound source in any environment, as it property of your own auditory system, and not specific to any sound sources or rooms or anything else than processor inside your head. If you learn to listen where the transition happens, you learn to listen how it sounds like when brain pays attention and when it doesn't, and this really opens up listening skill regarding imaging, as you can always find the brain switching state and base your perception in relation to that.
I can imagine and speculate that this kind of differences happen, as people suddenly hear their auditory system switch state, for what ever reason, and attribute that to amplifier for example. One amplifier could provide poorer SNR in this regard so that for brain to lock in one needs to get closer to speakers, while another one could make it happen bit further out into the room before early reflections ruin it. If you happen to have listening spot somewhere here, the two would sound very different if one amplifier gets your auditory system switch state, and the other doesn't, unless you moved yourself bit closer to speakers. To rule this stuff out, one must learn to perceive, to find at which distance of speakers the auditory system switches state and root the imaging perception to that. Now it's possible to use logic to decipher the perception, and differences between amplifiers. IF not, then it's not this but something else, like expectation bias or what ever. Logic nevertheless. This stuff happens with any sound source in any environment, as it property of your own auditory system, and not specific to any sound sources or rooms or anything else than processor inside your head. If you learn to listen where the transition happens, you learn to listen how it sounds like when brain pays attention and when it doesn't, and this really opens up listening skill regarding imaging, as you can always find the brain switching state and base your perception in relation to that.
Last edited:
Well, since, for example, different amplifiers are perceived differently in terms of spatiality and contour of the sound events, there seems to be an objective reality that lies outside the wishes and imaginations of the listener.
By the way, regarding "science" and also engineering: do I measure what I claim to measure;-?!
I once drew something, again in children's colors, to make it easier to understand - sufficiently precise: sound, tone events are frequency bundles that take place in differentiation to others, and that also processually, let's call it tact, beat. Many of us also perceive sounds in color - of course: it is a translation of frequencies, seeing and hearing are frequency events.
Claim I audio, but measure the wrong thing at the wrong place, then I am disregarding both science and the art of engineering: I do NOT audio,-)
The example of a monitor perhaps makes it clearer: measuring an (red) LCD amplifier per line, not even including the LCDs concerned, then without the signal that it has to amplify and without its fellow players: further amplifiers for other colors and more...-)
Aside: "Universe" means "All". Collection of all parts. All parts of uni/one relation. "Universe" is a concept only.
The fact that the majority imagine universe as a object is due to the inability to distinguish between object and concept. And this is where it becomes important to deal with e.g. propaganda;-) > 100 years of Einstein relativity propaganda. And nobody looks that Einstein made a mistake at the very beginning of his SRT: he disregards one observer of the necessary two, because relativity through motion: two systems (ergo two observers). Even Einstein could not distinguish between object and concept.
So the question remains: what is the red pill, what the blue;-)
By the way, regarding "science" and also engineering: do I measure what I claim to measure;-?!
I once drew something, again in children's colors, to make it easier to understand - sufficiently precise: sound, tone events are frequency bundles that take place in differentiation to others, and that also processually, let's call it tact, beat. Many of us also perceive sounds in color - of course: it is a translation of frequencies, seeing and hearing are frequency events.
Claim I audio, but measure the wrong thing at the wrong place, then I am disregarding both science and the art of engineering: I do NOT audio,-)
The example of a monitor perhaps makes it clearer: measuring an (red) LCD amplifier per line, not even including the LCDs concerned, then without the signal that it has to amplify and without its fellow players: further amplifiers for other colors and more...-)
Aside: "Universe" means "All". Collection of all parts. All parts of uni/one relation. "Universe" is a concept only.
The fact that the majority imagine universe as a object is due to the inability to distinguish between object and concept. And this is where it becomes important to deal with e.g. propaganda;-) > 100 years of Einstein relativity propaganda. And nobody looks that Einstein made a mistake at the very beginning of his SRT: he disregards one observer of the necessary two, because relativity through motion: two systems (ergo two observers). Even Einstein could not distinguish between object and concept.
So the question remains: what is the red pill, what the blue;-)
Attachments
“Poor SNR” indicates something is either broken or being driven into high enough distortion to degrade the SNR (usually clipping). If an amplifier isn’t big enough not to do that at the desired levels, get a bigger one. Claiming that imaging is “ruined” by an amplifier driven into flat topping isn’t fair. It means you run the equipment too hard.
Hi, please read the post, I do not mean amplifier SNR but how auditory system locks into sounds, it's explained in the Griesinger paper linked.
In nonscientific language it's something like this:
Our ears are constantly sensing crazy amount of sounds, but luckily auditory system processes it all and filters out stuff before it turns into perception. All sounds are together the noise, while some of them have original harmonics preserved well meaning the sound soirce is near by and important for survival. The original harmonics make huge periodic amplitude peaks making the sound poke above the noise every fundamental cycle, and if sufficiently so auditory system pays attention to it and provides good perception of it, while suppressing other stuff a bit.
Ear is apparently extremely sensitive and high resolution device, but there is very complex process between sound of your stereo entering ear canal and when it pops up as conscious perception of it, the auditory sysyem. See paper linked in this post: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ality-preference-or-skill.417471/post-7799669
For a fun example, there is process which clenses your own heart pulse, and I could imagine also sound of blood rushing in your veins, out of perception.
So, it os foolish to think everything perceived is explained by equipment in the stereo system, as it's more of how the auditory system processes it all. Well, of course the equipment and measurements are important, but the rest "unexplainable" and mysterious stuff happens inside yer hed.
In nonscientific language it's something like this:
Our ears are constantly sensing crazy amount of sounds, but luckily auditory system processes it all and filters out stuff before it turns into perception. All sounds are together the noise, while some of them have original harmonics preserved well meaning the sound soirce is near by and important for survival. The original harmonics make huge periodic amplitude peaks making the sound poke above the noise every fundamental cycle, and if sufficiently so auditory system pays attention to it and provides good perception of it, while suppressing other stuff a bit.
Ear is apparently extremely sensitive and high resolution device, but there is very complex process between sound of your stereo entering ear canal and when it pops up as conscious perception of it, the auditory sysyem. See paper linked in this post: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ality-preference-or-skill.417471/post-7799669
For a fun example, there is process which clenses your own heart pulse, and I could imagine also sound of blood rushing in your veins, out of perception.
So, it os foolish to think everything perceived is explained by equipment in the stereo system, as it's more of how the auditory system processes it all. Well, of course the equipment and measurements are important, but the rest "unexplainable" and mysterious stuff happens inside yer hed.
Last edited:
Its not just the amplifier. If you use a dac, a preamp, the power amp, the speakers, their placement, room treatment, ground loops in the whole system, etc., can adversely affect sound stage. IME its very hard to get a really accurate and precise sound stage. Everything has to be good enough, and not just in terms of FR, and PSS distortion and noise measurements.
I like to think that the perception is not what enters the ear, but what auditory system provides. Basically we do not listen our equipment but our auditory system, it is what it lets through that becomes our perception. As it's subconscious process we have no direct control over how it works, how good of an image it provides for us to perceive, but we can affect it indirectly, like moving the listening position until the auditory system provides what we want to perceive. Very philosophical stuff, but this is whats missing from all the technical conversation the forum content mostly consists of. Also, it's not just the audio sensory input that affects, but also vision, memories and such that affect the outcome, the perception.
For example, if you put microphone like 30cm or 1foot apart, both sides of the griesinger LLD, the measurements are almost identical and it might be hard to notice what makes the difference, is it the amp, or reflections or what, and there is very little difference compared to what the difference is perceptually, which is huge, and got nothing to do with the gear as such, and is all about how auditory system is able to pick up something important out of all the "noise".
As disclainer I am a hobbyist interpreting written concepts and what I perceive, trying to connect dots between them to reduce confusion around the subject, to improve listening skill, to make better systems. And write colorfully about this stuff 🙂
For example, if you put microphone like 30cm or 1foot apart, both sides of the griesinger LLD, the measurements are almost identical and it might be hard to notice what makes the difference, is it the amp, or reflections or what, and there is very little difference compared to what the difference is perceptually, which is huge, and got nothing to do with the gear as such, and is all about how auditory system is able to pick up something important out of all the "noise".
As disclainer I am a hobbyist interpreting written concepts and what I perceive, trying to connect dots between them to reduce confusion around the subject, to improve listening skill, to make better systems. And write colorfully about this stuff 🙂
Last edited:
Hi Logon,
Part was addressed specifically to you, much just in general.
Disagreement is fine. I reevaluate things when there is disagreement, unless that road is well travelled. But I always consider where someone is coming from. I do my best anyway. My cultural approach is from I guess an American/Canadian and Austrian perspective. Much of my audio technical training was done with an Austrian mentor, that may explain the way I respond. For example, I had to prove I was worth training, and ego does not survive in that environment. In fact, I question myself before saying anything. I learn more. lol! But he was not gentle if you were incorrect. He was a very kind, knowledgeable man. Most people I learned from were considerate and helpful as it happens.
As for examining the imaging aspect of different amplifiers, I began wondering about everything in the mid 1970s working in a high end stereo store. We sold the top brands and more speaker systems than you can hope to imagine. I was worried back then at the differences and our inability to explain them. I was also interested in electronics, and so these two interests shaped my future. I had to know what differences there were, and then why. We didn't have the equipment back then that could answer anything. The belief we can't measure what we can hear stems from that time when it was true. I also became very interested in testing equipment as a result. Each avenue was pursued and I worked professionally in those fields (including test equipment repair and certification). In so doing, I gained an good understanding of what equipment was capable of, and how it can lie if you don't set your tests up properly. So setting up an experiment is more important than the numbers you get in many cases.
Through experience with reviewers and other audio professionals, I learned how poorly human beings perform. We can compare things well, we sure as heck aren't very good at assessing absolute performance. We can figure out one system is better than another if they both perform well, but that is a long, multisession experience for those who can do it. Others simple cannot tell. I think it is the method of observation, some folks have a knack for it. One thing was absolutely positive. Today we easily measure things way beyond what the human body can even perceive. Given the right equipment and correct interpretation of the results. There is an element of art in that.
The other thing I learned is that if you only measure, or only listen you only get part of the information. Who in researching anything will willingly ignore half the information? Certainly no good researcher that expects valid results. When both measuring and listening agree, you are on the right track. No real surprises there.
Really, I am only trying to make people think instead of accepting what others say. Imaging is time difference between our ears. When a person places an instrument in their mind, they are applying what they hear with a mental image of how that performance is set up. This completes the mental picture, imagining where the instruments should be referencing what they already know. Tonal difference might give a clue as to elevation, but that is all about the speaker and room. Any amplifier I've seen is far more flat in response to any speaker. I did live sound as well among other things, so this is all old hat.
I only have a problem when an idea is pushed that disagrees with what is actually known. "We don't know everything". Okay, but there is a lot we actually do know. The first statement does not give anyone license to discard known facts. The current trendy high end industry works on ambiguity where there isn't really. That is how they make their money, confusion. I'd like to end that. It causes people to waste money and miss reaching their dreams.
Part was addressed specifically to you, much just in general.
Disagreement is fine. I reevaluate things when there is disagreement, unless that road is well travelled. But I always consider where someone is coming from. I do my best anyway. My cultural approach is from I guess an American/Canadian and Austrian perspective. Much of my audio technical training was done with an Austrian mentor, that may explain the way I respond. For example, I had to prove I was worth training, and ego does not survive in that environment. In fact, I question myself before saying anything. I learn more. lol! But he was not gentle if you were incorrect. He was a very kind, knowledgeable man. Most people I learned from were considerate and helpful as it happens.
As for examining the imaging aspect of different amplifiers, I began wondering about everything in the mid 1970s working in a high end stereo store. We sold the top brands and more speaker systems than you can hope to imagine. I was worried back then at the differences and our inability to explain them. I was also interested in electronics, and so these two interests shaped my future. I had to know what differences there were, and then why. We didn't have the equipment back then that could answer anything. The belief we can't measure what we can hear stems from that time when it was true. I also became very interested in testing equipment as a result. Each avenue was pursued and I worked professionally in those fields (including test equipment repair and certification). In so doing, I gained an good understanding of what equipment was capable of, and how it can lie if you don't set your tests up properly. So setting up an experiment is more important than the numbers you get in many cases.
Through experience with reviewers and other audio professionals, I learned how poorly human beings perform. We can compare things well, we sure as heck aren't very good at assessing absolute performance. We can figure out one system is better than another if they both perform well, but that is a long, multisession experience for those who can do it. Others simple cannot tell. I think it is the method of observation, some folks have a knack for it. One thing was absolutely positive. Today we easily measure things way beyond what the human body can even perceive. Given the right equipment and correct interpretation of the results. There is an element of art in that.
The other thing I learned is that if you only measure, or only listen you only get part of the information. Who in researching anything will willingly ignore half the information? Certainly no good researcher that expects valid results. When both measuring and listening agree, you are on the right track. No real surprises there.
I agree with you strongly! Well said.
Really, I am only trying to make people think instead of accepting what others say. Imaging is time difference between our ears. When a person places an instrument in their mind, they are applying what they hear with a mental image of how that performance is set up. This completes the mental picture, imagining where the instruments should be referencing what they already know. Tonal difference might give a clue as to elevation, but that is all about the speaker and room. Any amplifier I've seen is far more flat in response to any speaker. I did live sound as well among other things, so this is all old hat.
I only have a problem when an idea is pushed that disagrees with what is actually known. "We don't know everything". Okay, but there is a lot we actually do know. The first statement does not give anyone license to discard known facts. The current trendy high end industry works on ambiguity where there isn't really. That is how they make their money, confusion. I'd like to end that. It causes people to waste money and miss reaching their dreams.
Hi cumbb,
Besides, this would make listening to a variety of music next to impossible. You need to process, but the ear is ready to go all the time. If you experience and explosion - yes. You overloaded things and it has to settle down. Your hearing also has an attenuator built in. With loud stimulus, the muscles tighten, reducing sensitivity. This goes on all the time. However the fluid is damped pretty well, it doesn't continue vibrating.
As for connected PSUs, good power supplies = no difference. Poor supplies + poor PSRR = differences. Some great amplifiers have regulated power supplies for the voltage amp section. Separate for each channel. So ... zero difference. I've studied this decades ago.
Studying electronics is a prerequisite to being an audio electronics technician.
No.
Besides, this would make listening to a variety of music next to impossible. You need to process, but the ear is ready to go all the time. If you experience and explosion - yes. You overloaded things and it has to settle down. Your hearing also has an attenuator built in. With loud stimulus, the muscles tighten, reducing sensitivity. This goes on all the time. However the fluid is damped pretty well, it doesn't continue vibrating.
As for connected PSUs, good power supplies = no difference. Poor supplies + poor PSRR = differences. Some great amplifiers have regulated power supplies for the voltage amp section. Separate for each channel. So ... zero difference. I've studied this decades ago.
Agreed. However. You cannot be a real electronics technician without a lot of formal study in electronics, chemistry and materials science. You also need to understand and study individual components and actually understand where they are suited and not. The specialized knowledge required is on top of all that.
Studying electronics is a prerequisite to being an audio electronics technician.
Not at all! I try not to single anyone out in my replies, but speak to the idea instead. The idea or question is one perhaps many dozens of people have who dont interactively participate have; that you brought it up is an opportunity to give my answer to the idea / question.
Personally, I dont think it's possible. There's too many speakers of varying design. It's more like once you're settled on a particular speaker, then one can choose the amplifier that sounds the best with it. Now it's an interacting system, where the two components compliment one another in a particular way that someone finds pleasing to their ears.
So that leads to an even worse question; what's the best pairing that leads to imaging quality? In quadrature, with one quadrant being Tough loading with mighty-mite amplifier, another soft load with softy (Hi Z / little to no feedback) output amplifier? Imaging, being only one attribute that can be pleasant to the ear / brain. What happens when you have a combo that images like crazy, but there's no "slam" to it? Now we enter the art of compromise.
I've read where an amp designer has their own standard test load and it's not a resistor, It's their best guess of the worst reactive load any speaker may present to their amp design. They look at how their amp behaves when driving this tough load. So, somebody's thinking about it, trying for a design that remains impervious at least amplitude wise to loading conditions. I assume they arrived at something better than most in that regard.
Since imaging is reproducing at least the timing uniformity of the various signals in a musical recording. I'm suspect of reactive loading, which by definition throws phase shifts between voltage and current, If an amplifier is correcting for voltage, to match that with the music signal, but the current is never the less no longer in phase with it - and current is what moves the speaker VC. Perhaps that thinking is hogwash, I dunno.
Because if it was such a problem, one would think active xover would have long since replaced passive, where the amp can just drive the speaker directly via a wire. I have to suppose the convenience of having just one amplifier per stereo channel is still what the vast majority of audiophiles value most, trumping everything else. Hence passive xovers remain the most common, the gold standard, despite the difficulties they present to the designer and ultimately, the amplifier.
"Amplifier design and stereo imaging"
First: In order to achieve a balanced sound stage in all dimensions, I recommend the following procedure for setting up loudspeakers, because different loudspeakers have different imaging sizes and shapes.
First of all, place the speakers almost zero distance apart and listen to them. After listening for a while, increase the distance by 10 cm and listen. After a while, move them 10 cm further apart again and listen. And so on until the sound stage tears apart. Then move them together again until it fits.
Then pay attention to the angle - the axes generally cross in front of the listening position.
And the distance to the rear wall: until the bass and the fundamental tone fit.
Don't be alarmed: The distance of the vast majority of compact speakers will be far less than one meter! The largest floorstanding speakers will rarely exceed 1.5 meters.
This position has some advantages:
the sound image is closed, the stage is right, the tones are full-bodied.
It is possible to check a difference in the sound of e.g. devices or parts by correcting this set-up: If a correction of the set-up is necessary in order to achieve a balanced stage and tuning again. This is because devices and parts also have different image sizes, for example.
The excitation of the listening room is also less problematic.
First: In order to achieve a balanced sound stage in all dimensions, I recommend the following procedure for setting up loudspeakers, because different loudspeakers have different imaging sizes and shapes.
First of all, place the speakers almost zero distance apart and listen to them. After listening for a while, increase the distance by 10 cm and listen. After a while, move them 10 cm further apart again and listen. And so on until the sound stage tears apart. Then move them together again until it fits.
Then pay attention to the angle - the axes generally cross in front of the listening position.
And the distance to the rear wall: until the bass and the fundamental tone fit.
Don't be alarmed: The distance of the vast majority of compact speakers will be far less than one meter! The largest floorstanding speakers will rarely exceed 1.5 meters.
This position has some advantages:
the sound image is closed, the stage is right, the tones are full-bodied.
It is possible to check a difference in the sound of e.g. devices or parts by correcting this set-up: If a correction of the set-up is necessary in order to achieve a balanced stage and tuning again. This is because devices and parts also have different image sizes, for example.
The excitation of the listening room is also less problematic.
"Amplifier design and stereo imaging"
Second:
Amplifier design is generally understood to mean the circuit, I think. However, in electrician training, attention is not paid to the physical, objective prerequisites, the parts and their influence on the current, i.e. the signal, because current is not analyzed either. Current is taught as a concept, in the form of lines and numbers, which is physically incorrect.
So first of all: parts modulate current, signal, not in form of lines and numbers, but audibly and essentially through various types of noise. Audi-ble.
Different parts modulate differently. All audio-ble;-)
Assuming this, we can derive circuits, concepts, that are suitable for audio and circuits, concepts, that are unsuitable for audio. More precisely: depending on the application and other desired characteristics: increasing suitability with regard to xyz, such as low power consumption, or low manufacturing costs, decreasing suitability with regard to audio suitability: increasing modulation, i.e. change, of the current, of the signal by components.
One key experiment, among several others, I advise: building channel-separated psus ("double mono"), and connect them. And compare these two states, disconnected and connected, by listening, audio, to each other.
Here, an amplifier is compared with itself, so to speak. More precisely: two identical psus, or more precisely: identical parts from the same batch;-)
Second:
Amplifier design is generally understood to mean the circuit, I think. However, in electrician training, attention is not paid to the physical, objective prerequisites, the parts and their influence on the current, i.e. the signal, because current is not analyzed either. Current is taught as a concept, in the form of lines and numbers, which is physically incorrect.
So first of all: parts modulate current, signal, not in form of lines and numbers, but audibly and essentially through various types of noise. Audi-ble.
Different parts modulate differently. All audio-ble;-)
Assuming this, we can derive circuits, concepts, that are suitable for audio and circuits, concepts, that are unsuitable for audio. More precisely: depending on the application and other desired characteristics: increasing suitability with regard to xyz, such as low power consumption, or low manufacturing costs, decreasing suitability with regard to audio suitability: increasing modulation, i.e. change, of the current, of the signal by components.
One key experiment, among several others, I advise: building channel-separated psus ("double mono"), and connect them. And compare these two states, disconnected and connected, by listening, audio, to each other.
Here, an amplifier is compared with itself, so to speak. More precisely: two identical psus, or more precisely: identical parts from the same batch;-)
Known hereby as the Cumbb's Axiom of speaker positioning.
Funny, no mention of the distance to the listener. Not important? Or do we start again from 10cm?
@anatech
@jjasniew
@tmuikku
@cumbb
@Markw4
@wg_ski
@abstract
More or less in order of importance (it's up to you to find out):
Thank you very much!
For me, your all replies for one reason or another have been admirable for their highly interesting and knowledgeable content.
Although in my opinion despite so much experience and expertise expressed, a univocal conclusion that is good for everyone is not reached.
And this is not necessarily a bad thing...
anatech, in my opinion your post is exceptional for the load of experience, knowledge, expertise and humanity that it contains and that it manages to communicate and to you on my part goes a special thanks. 👍
jjasniew, I'm so glad my gut feeling was wrong about you. 🙂
However, it is not said that I'm completely certain that I've taken a very different position compared to the one I expressed in my post from which together with the others your current replies arose.
But I need time to let the enormous amount of information that you have all managed to transmit very well settle.
I chose this way of replying just because I won't be able to do it with each of your ones, it would be really too much work for me...
I'm not sure, but it seesm to me that nobody mentioned "expectation bias" and I see that topic almost always comes up when someone shares their listening experiences and then I always wonder how the comparison of any two "variables" (devices themselves, materials and costs) can ever have an impact if they have the same cost, entail small practical differences and costs and from which the expectation is just that they doesn't sound the same...
😍
@jjasniew
@tmuikku
@cumbb
@Markw4
@wg_ski
@abstract
More or less in order of importance (it's up to you to find out):
Thank you very much!
For me, your all replies for one reason or another have been admirable for their highly interesting and knowledgeable content.
Although in my opinion despite so much experience and expertise expressed, a univocal conclusion that is good for everyone is not reached.
And this is not necessarily a bad thing...
anatech, in my opinion your post is exceptional for the load of experience, knowledge, expertise and humanity that it contains and that it manages to communicate and to you on my part goes a special thanks. 👍
jjasniew, I'm so glad my gut feeling was wrong about you. 🙂
However, it is not said that I'm completely certain that I've taken a very different position compared to the one I expressed in my post from which together with the others your current replies arose.
But I need time to let the enormous amount of information that you have all managed to transmit very well settle.
I chose this way of replying just because I won't be able to do it with each of your ones, it would be really too much work for me...
I'm not sure, but it seesm to me that nobody mentioned "expectation bias" and I see that topic almost always comes up when someone shares their listening experiences and then I always wonder how the comparison of any two "variables" (devices themselves, materials and costs) can ever have an impact if they have the same cost, entail small practical differences and costs and from which the expectation is just that they doesn't sound the same...
😍
One and the same amplifier can sounds with differ soundstage because of using different power supply.
On request, we can further differentiate and specify the topic:
If you are within the reproduction range of the speakers, you are in quasi headphone mode. By the way: In my opinion, loudspeakers have a much higher resolution and imaging precision than headphones.
Outside the image size, the speaker position remains identical - or almost. It can be heard that even when the distance of the listener is much increased, the loudspeakers do not want to move apart. And even if the volume is increased, changes will not be necessary.
Even 10 meter high open air systems are not positioned according to sound, but according to the width of the stage, which stands in the way of a closed sound. Just as most people set up their speakers according to the width of their rack or the number of power amplifiers or simply because there are corners in the room;-) But it sounds...-)-...
The reason for this advice is that most stereo signals are mono: on both channels and almost the same amplitude. So that these mono signals remain mono, the bodyness and dynamics and power remain..
AN example: What everyone here should have done at least once: increase the capacity of the psu. Most people will notice this increase easy, the stage image will generally change and appear larger. However, many events in the picture will appear smaller in proportion. The proportions become more authentic. That's roughly how I would describe the difference.
There is a lot of info on speaker positioning methods out there.
Here are couple of them:
https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=46634
https://audioroundtable.com/misc/asa05.pdf
Here are couple of them:
https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=46634
https://audioroundtable.com/misc/asa05.pdf