Here's Floyd Toole's comments on the Revel Salon2 vs JBL M2 AVS Forum shootout. He identified two weak links in today's audio:
1) Recording quality.
2) Two Channel Stereo.
He attributed the Salon 2's victory primarily to the first issue. Revel's early off-axis reflections improved the preference ratings because the recordings probably didn't do a good job creating them.
Later, he explicitly states it.
With regard to two channel stereo, Toole said:
This means all past recordings are fundamentally flawed. Many are also flawed because the sound engineers had hearing damage due to working in the industry, Toole calls it the occupational hazard.
His post also contains comments particularly useful for DIYers. For example, bass frequencies contribute 30% of sound preference and you get that through multi-subs + room curve equalization. Use microphones to measure the room curve to equalize the low frequency modal region but do NOT use microphones to equalize the room curve in the ray acoustic region above 300-500Hz. Above 300-500Hz you want to measure and equalize the speaker (anechoic or outside or however you can devise) but not the room curve generated by the loudspeaker -- don't equalize the room curve above 300-500Hz; if you have a speaker that measures well above 300-500Hz it will work well in any room relative to other loudspeakers.
1) Recording quality.
2) Two Channel Stereo.
He attributed the Salon 2's victory primarily to the first issue. Revel's early off-axis reflections improved the preference ratings because the recordings probably didn't do a good job creating them.
Later, he explicitly states it.
With regard to two channel stereo, Toole said:
This means all past recordings are fundamentally flawed. Many are also flawed because the sound engineers had hearing damage due to working in the industry, Toole calls it the occupational hazard.
His post also contains comments particularly useful for DIYers. For example, bass frequencies contribute 30% of sound preference and you get that through multi-subs + room curve equalization. Use microphones to measure the room curve to equalize the low frequency modal region but do NOT use microphones to equalize the room curve in the ray acoustic region above 300-500Hz. Above 300-500Hz you want to measure and equalize the speaker (anechoic or outside or however you can devise) but not the room curve generated by the loudspeaker -- don't equalize the room curve above 300-500Hz; if you have a speaker that measures well above 300-500Hz it will work well in any room relative to other loudspeakers.
Oh, and in room -- using your ears not your microphone -- use tone controls if the music doesn't sound right. Presuming your speakers are good.
Which makes me think the old HiFi equalizers with all the sliders are a bad idea. People adjust those when they are in the room. Instead, all the discrete frequency equalization should be handled in the speaker, equalized in the lab (backyard on a ladder).
Which makes me think the old HiFi equalizers with all the sliders are a bad idea. People adjust those when they are in the room. Instead, all the discrete frequency equalization should be handled in the speaker, equalized in the lab (backyard on a ladder).
Hmmm... Makes me think of the QWERTY order for keyboards. When we abandoned the mechanical typewriters we don't longer need to slow down the writing speed but it is a job too extensive to replace the old standard. Equally we are stuck to the old stereo standard.
But what is the difference between adjusting a curve with coils and capacitors in a speaker crossover filter and to do it with resistors and capacitors -- or in the digital domain -- in a equalizer?
No, I have to admit, I have not read Toole yet. I will.
But what is the difference between adjusting a curve with coils and capacitors in a speaker crossover filter and to do it with resistors and capacitors -- or in the digital domain -- in a equalizer?
No, I have to admit, I have not read Toole yet. I will.
Others can supply a more accurate explanation but I believe Toole said reflections become acoustic sources. Consequently, you can't equalize them.
A second answer would be your brain adjusts to the room. You wouldn't equalize a familiar voice to sound correct in your room so you shouldn't equalize a speaker either.
A second answer would be your brain adjusts to the room. You wouldn't equalize a familiar voice to sound correct in your room so you shouldn't equalize a speaker either.
I agree. Sticking with 2 channels limits the ability to get a realistic soundfield. But every serious attempt to address this (think Ambisonic not quad) has failed to get traction so we are stuck with either movie surround or 2 channel audio.
There is of course a lot of research into immersive soundfields on headphones for gamers. This may be the next step forwards.
There is of course a lot of research into immersive soundfields on headphones for gamers. This may be the next step forwards.
I agree 100% about point #1 and have felt this way for decades.
Point #2 - Meh. I am perfectly happy with stereo. When they get #1 right, 2 channels is plenty enjoyable enough. The desire for virtual reality seems odd to me. Perhaps a fun and novel distraction, but not a permanent fixture.
Point #2 - Meh. I am perfectly happy with stereo. When they get #1 right, 2 channels is plenty enjoyable enough. The desire for virtual reality seems odd to me. Perhaps a fun and novel distraction, but not a permanent fixture.
Last edited:
In the thread called Harman - The Future of Listening Harman said,
Plus, Toole, Olive, and others listen to Tidal streaming. In the past the industry would have had to talk everyone into buying music DVDs to listen to multichannel audio. But now that everyone is converting to streaming they don't have to convince everyone to replace their CD/record collection.
2 channel stereo was a really sticky problem but I think it's going to change pretty fast now.
Streaming services have a chance to fix this issue now. Probably not very good at first but they'll refine it over time.
Hi,
think the weakest link are the 'ears' sitting in front of the setup.
Ever more talk about snakeoil, esoteric ******** and fake news.
audio approved USB cables, gold plated fuses, oversized router power supplies, probabely even golden network cables on one side and vanishing common sense and hard facts on the other.
Most definitely .... the listener deserves the top rank.
jauu
Calvin
think the weakest link are the 'ears' sitting in front of the setup.
Ever more talk about snakeoil, esoteric ******** and fake news.
audio approved USB cables, gold plated fuses, oversized router power supplies, probabely even golden network cables on one side and vanishing common sense and hard facts on the other.
Most definitely .... the listener deserves the top rank.
jauu
Calvin
Disagree with the view that stereo is going to die off anytime soon. There is no standard for multichannel speaker placement and level that dominates the market AFAiK. If you plan to move your speakers around and change settings for every album, have fun.
Disagree that loudness wars are dwindling. AFAIK most of the hi res remasters targeted for streaming and SACD release are often lower DR than the CD that preceded them.
Disagree that loudness wars are dwindling. AFAIK most of the hi res remasters targeted for streaming and SACD release are often lower DR than the CD that preceded them.
Hi,
think the weakest link are the 'ears' sitting in front of the setup.
Ever more talk about snakeoil, esoteric ******** and fake news.
audio approved USB cables, gold plated fuses, oversized router power supplies, probabely even golden network cables on one side and vanishing common sense and hard facts on the other.
Most definitely .... the listener deserves the top rank.
jauu
Calvin
OK, I am a person with technical features. I should not believe any difference when I replace a router or switch SMPS for a linear PSU. I look with strange eyes to gold plated fuses and expensive network cabling just like you. I see a lot of audio setups with even the basic things not done according standards, randomly chosen gain etc. and people being very busy with very small details so I can relate to your remarks.
A few years ago I had nothing to do and I had a spare LPS with exactly the right ratings so I replaced my 8 port gigabit switch its SMPS for that LPS. Decided that it can't hurt to try out and an open mind is a must in any area. Should not make any difference, yet it did and it was repeatable. I decided to keep the LPS in the chain as it can not have a significant negative side effect. I got rid of the SMPS without any measuring (aha, some will think) and I decided not to think of it anymore. What do I do now?
On topic: a weak link in audio is that most stuff is meant to be used for 2 years and one does not get that same feeling like long ago that one obtained a piece of value. It is much of the same, cheaply made in China stuff with a label. I visited a guy that had bought new speakers and I mistook these for Elac while they were Wharfedales. I thought "hey they both buy at the same OEM".
Last edited:
With all respect to Toole, I find this a bit too easy. If two microphones cannot capture the soundfield, how can two ears?
It is not necessary to re-create the soundfield of the original performance. It 'only' is necessary to recreate the air pressure variations at the eardrum that resulted from the original performance.
The difference may seem unimportant, but it isn't.
I have been at demonstrations of immersive sound systems, up to 19.7 channels. Incredibly complex and expensive, in an effort to recreate the soundfield. Not convincing.
I have also been involved in testing the Smyth Realizer a few years ago, which succeeded in recreating the sound field at your eardrums so well that the late Siegfried Linkwitz, at the demo I did in his residence, asked me to turn off the speakers, while they were already off. When I told him, he jerked off the headphones and looked at me unbelievingly.
The loudspeaker industry is as much about creating lovable furniture/conversation pieces as it is about reproduction of audio.
Jan
Last edited:
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes, the epitome of audio. Nothing quite like having a massive "knob", even with extra knobs on, to shove right in the face of your buddies when showing off your audio system.
Must be very, very good. But I do find it somewhat questionable that they seemingly resort to classic clichés using a phallos, even if it's for marketing purposes.
Must be very, very good. But I do find it somewhat questionable that they seemingly resort to classic clichés using a phallos, even if it's for marketing purposes.
I will 75% disagree with Toole.
Why? Because I have heard good old two channel stereo sound astonishingly real, so real that it shifts your perceptions and ideas of what recordings and playback can be. Real enough to make you - and other people in the room - say "How is this possible?" The recordings are not the problem, and it's shocking to learn that.
The 25% where I agree with Toole is that most people will never hear this, and it's near impossible to achieve the illusion in the average domestic listening space. When I've heard the illusion it has always been in large rooms with good to great acoustics. If you are in a smaller space with poor acoustics, it's easier to achieve a sense of realism by throwing more tech at it. More speakers, more channels, more gadgets, etc. That's the terrain where most listening is done. But it still isn't as real as great speakers in a great space.
IME, stereo recording is not inherently the problem, the room and speaker are.
Why? Because I have heard good old two channel stereo sound astonishingly real, so real that it shifts your perceptions and ideas of what recordings and playback can be. Real enough to make you - and other people in the room - say "How is this possible?" The recordings are not the problem, and it's shocking to learn that.
The 25% where I agree with Toole is that most people will never hear this, and it's near impossible to achieve the illusion in the average domestic listening space. When I've heard the illusion it has always been in large rooms with good to great acoustics. If you are in a smaller space with poor acoustics, it's easier to achieve a sense of realism by throwing more tech at it. More speakers, more channels, more gadgets, etc. That's the terrain where most listening is done. But it still isn't as real as great speakers in a great space.
IME, stereo recording is not inherently the problem, the room and speaker are.
Try this:
Mono noise through 2 speakers (normal stereo setup), then listen to it while moving your head a tiny bit.
You'll hear a massive amount of couloration.
This is the reason why stereo is flawed, it's impossible to recreate the phanthom centre image correctly. Only with a centre channel the centre image can be created correctly.
I have had a tidal ‘hi-fi’ account for going on 3 yrs now and it’s rare (like maybe two or three times) that a remaster sounds better at reference level, they get tight, congested, and distorted. Now at low levels most do sound more appealing but I still end up preferring the original even if it is more lackluster.
I came across this exact thing when I was voicing my last speaker build, it was done in our loft that is open to the kitchen/dining/living room, quite a large space with high ceilings (23’ peak) many obtuse angles and irregular measurements, and non-parallel (word?) wall surfaces. The speakers had more room behind them than to the listening position. (Basically no front wall) and playing around with phase in dsp I was getting some really unbelievable sound (as if you were one with the music) and all with what I would consider ‘mid-fi’ equipment at best.
So yeah.....it’s definitely not all about the money, but recording quality IMO does need to be good enough to get up to a reference level volume which in my case was averaging around 98-100db @ LP. The better the recording the louder it can play without discomfort (within system limitations) I was getting up to 105db @lp clean on maybe 3 or 4 recordings.
These levels are dangerously loud and may damage hearing but in small doses there’s nothing else quite like it besides a live show.
So speaking of dsp, is there a way to sum a mono center channel using dsp.......I’ve been wanting to mess around with a three channel setup for awhile now.
If not dsp what is the best analog way? I’ve seen quite a few old school recievers (McIntosh etc..) that seemed to have the capability built in?
I think the fact the average Jack and Jane are buying speakers from Google, Amazon, and Apple is a big motivation to repair the recordings. Those companies build speakers and supply streaming services. Bad recordings make THEIR speakers sound bad no matter how good they build the speakers. All three companies have core competence in the computing skills needed to recreate the music so it's accurate.
Sean Olive did research finding that younger listener (college age) preferences favor neutral speakers. He also found college age listeners rapidly adapt their preferences toward neutral speakers.
Sean Olive also pays a lot of attention to headphones because that's the big seller among college age through millennials.
There's a lot of market incentive to fix recordings now.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.