My room is basically 25’ x 35’, the whole upper floorr of the house and is a fairly convoluted space bass wize. Main listening are is 16x24, ceiking vaulted 7’ to 17’.
diyAudio - planet10
dave
diyAudio - planet10
dave
I think he might be saying apple pie is a poor version of an apple. OJ concentrate is a poor version of an orange. Everclear is a poor version of corn - wait; that one doesnt work! ;')
Uh, "Dead and Friends" is a poor version of "The Grateful Dead". Some parts of B, are simply no longer coming through in A...
Uh, "Dead and Friends" is a poor version of "The Grateful Dead". Some parts of B, are simply no longer coming through in A...
Nope. Althou he is a personal whose opinion should be careful considered.
For instance, based on what i unsersatnd from Toole, they are largely in the camp that all “compentent” amps sound the same*.
A lot of our favourites, because we like what they do for the sonics, would probably not be considered “competent" (a guess).
* (tell that to my half dozen plus amps)
dave
Should they be trusted when they say that "under well controlled & designed blind listening tests there is a very high level of consistency in what listeners consider best sounding"?
This depends on live performance, recording, quality of two channel stereo system and listening environment+setup. Live is worse quite often in case we are allowed to compare apples and oranges.
If metric is comfort home speakers win live hands down. The metric can be chosen for either to win so 
I've found acoustic (or mostly acoustic) events to be emotionally more connecting and when there is PA its about the speakers and engineer operating! So live can reach more impact. Home system can have almost the same impact, every day event with the pandemic still going. I'm trying to reach the impact and connection with my home system with recorded music. Best sound I've heard are from live setting with this metric (I haven't heard much "audiophile" hifi stuff) and hopefully it is reachable with recorded music as well.
As a side note for anyone who's not playing in a band I suggest go and visit some rock band rehearsals sometime, it's freaking loud! Home speakers don't have to go that loud (realistic SPL for drums for example), it is silly loud and not enjoyable per se.
I've found acoustic (or mostly acoustic) events to be emotionally more connecting and when there is PA its about the speakers and engineer operating! So live can reach more impact. Home system can have almost the same impact, every day event with the pandemic still going. I'm trying to reach the impact and connection with my home system with recorded music. Best sound I've heard are from live setting with this metric (I haven't heard much "audiophile" hifi stuff) and hopefully it is reachable with recorded music as well. As a side note for anyone who's not playing in a band I suggest go and visit some rock band rehearsals sometime, it's freaking loud! Home speakers don't have to go that loud (realistic SPL for drums for example), it is silly loud and not enjoyable per se.
Last edited:
If you post something that is not restricted to a subscription I'll read it and give you a response. But if you post something like this that requires a subscription that I don't have it is completely useless. Which is what I am declaring your post to be. Useless.
Thought a little about what is impact. It must be combination of memories and influx from the senses that trigger it and maybe presence of the family or friends aids too. The more brain is involved the more you are in it and more impactful a moment is I think. Recorded music has a little advantage over live with the memory part, one can choose the right music for the right moment and feel very attached. Senses have advantage in the live performance though. I believe visuals tickle brain more than audio so video or a window could enhance the experience at home. Chest bounding bass, comfortably loud volume without distractions (like distorting tweeter, or weird frequency response), a friend helping with the playlist, some smell of odorant and maybe some wine with cheese would tickle brain the most So yeah, maybe impact could be better at home setting and it is not just the speakers alone that help to the heightened level of enjoyment.
So yeah, maybe impact could be better at home setting and it is not just the speakers alone that help to the heightened level of enjoyment.
Last edited:
one way or the other, listeners consistantly consider wide dispersion in the presence of lateral reflections as best sounding "under well controlled & designed blind listening tests"
with an exception of trained professionals, for which Toole gives a convincing explanation
No. I went back and tried it again. Don't see anything like a 'browse for free' button. They just want you to sign up for a subscription.
I understand where bradleypnw is coming from. There is a school of thought that if you add enough side speakers and/or rear speakers and/or ceiling speakers that you can create an immersive sound field that gives you the impression you are in a large hall or some other venue instead of your living room.
I get it. But it is an illusion, not a reality. Some people might like it, and others might not. The idea is not new. It’s been around for decades. Starting with 4 channel, or Quadraphonic, in the 1970s. And there are all kinds of variations today with Dolby this, and Dolby that, and DTS, and THX, etc.
But they are all artificially created either by adding tracks to the recording in the mix, or creating additional pseudo channels in the amplifier.
And now Dolby is really pushing it with Atmos. Very nice for them. They are probably getting a nice a royalty from it. They started, of course, with home theater, but hey, why not push it into streaming audio as well. More money to be made that way.
So although Tidal and Amazon have picked up Atmos for audio, others like Spotify are still not convinced about its value and aren’t doing anything with it now.
Bradleypnw has jumped on the multi-channel bandwagon, but I don’t think he is really all that concerned about maximum sound quality. It’s more the immersive effect than the purity of the sound.
My big problem with his posts is when he claims it is superior to 2 channel. It isn’t a question of superior sound at all. It’s simple a matter of a different sound. And to experience it with any degree of reasonable sound quality you will have to significantly increase your equipment and its associated cost. It could be 2 to 3 to 4 times more than what a quality stereo system costs. Not to mention that all of this stuff has to go somewhere. And that also includes lots of additional speaker cables. Not pretty.
So is it worth the cost and the clutter. That’s up to you. But don’t expect to be magically moved into a concert hall. That’s not going to happen. You are still in your listening room with all the sonic flaws it may contain.
I get it. But it is an illusion, not a reality. Some people might like it, and others might not. The idea is not new. It’s been around for decades. Starting with 4 channel, or Quadraphonic, in the 1970s. And there are all kinds of variations today with Dolby this, and Dolby that, and DTS, and THX, etc.
But they are all artificially created either by adding tracks to the recording in the mix, or creating additional pseudo channels in the amplifier.
And now Dolby is really pushing it with Atmos. Very nice for them. They are probably getting a nice a royalty from it. They started, of course, with home theater, but hey, why not push it into streaming audio as well. More money to be made that way.
So although Tidal and Amazon have picked up Atmos for audio, others like Spotify are still not convinced about its value and aren’t doing anything with it now.
Bradleypnw has jumped on the multi-channel bandwagon, but I don’t think he is really all that concerned about maximum sound quality. It’s more the immersive effect than the purity of the sound.
My big problem with his posts is when he claims it is superior to 2 channel. It isn’t a question of superior sound at all. It’s simple a matter of a different sound. And to experience it with any degree of reasonable sound quality you will have to significantly increase your equipment and its associated cost. It could be 2 to 3 to 4 times more than what a quality stereo system costs. Not to mention that all of this stuff has to go somewhere. And that also includes lots of additional speaker cables. Not pretty.
So is it worth the cost and the clutter. That’s up to you. But don’t expect to be magically moved into a concert hall. That’s not going to happen. You are still in your listening room with all the sonic flaws it may contain.
That's a trade-off
But is it better for music enjoyment?
Because certainly not for Your wallet. Or Your family life
People generally do not want it.
Be aware, this is not meant as an attack, just something to think about.
We read you are planning OB speakers. What's so different about it vs using more channels?
The OB speakers control the pattern, so you can aim the null to get that pattern (more) right at the listening spot. But that back energy has to go somewhere. It will make it's way to the listening spot at a later time, which will influence how one perceives that first wave front.
Many people like how that seems to enhance the experience, nothing wrong with that.
It is different from adding channels, sure. But it could have some similarities as well.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.