[Tyson]

I'd point out that OB's don't have more room interaction than monopoles.  Monopoles tend to interact more with the side walls in the mids/highs, and more with the room overall due to omnipolar bass radiation below baffle step.  On the other hand, OB's interact less with the side walls at all frequencies due to their figure 8 radiation pattern (ie, nulls to the sides), but then they interact more strongly with the front wall (behind the speakers).  In my experience, room treatment should be adjusted to account for these differences.

But here's my question - the point of a recording is to capture the sound of live music.  And the point of playback at home is to get as close to the sound of live music as possible.  What if OB's allow all recordings to sound more like live music?  If live music is our standard, then I will take any path that gets me closer to that, even if some think it's "fake". 

Put another way - what if using an OB speaker allows you to get closer to the sound live music than is possible otherwise?  And what if it's better regardless of how true it is to the recording?

Now, you can flagellate yourselves at the "accuracy" alter, and diminish your possible level of musical enjoyment as a result, but I don't see how the idea of "more accurate" is synonymous with "better".  I see this happen all the time in the audiophile world - "Dude, I just upgraded my amp and now I can really hear how totally shitty all my music was recorded".  Seriously.

So, rather than say accuracy is the only goal, let's say it's one among many.  Others are important, such as musical enjoyment.  And they are a NOT always the same thing.  So, what if you had the choice?  What if you had one system you found more musically enjoyable (which was still pretty accurate), or a 2nd system that was more accurate, but you found it less musically enjoyable?  Which would you choose?  As a tubes and OB guy, I know what my answer is

[puppet]

How can more accurate be less enjoyable?

[Tyson]

How can more accurate be less enjoyable?

[TJHUB]

How can more accurate be less enjoyable?

Change the word "accurate" to "revealing" and that's how. 

[Bob in St. Louis]

How can more accurate be less enjoyable?

Some call "those kind" of speakers as sounding so clean they're "clinical" sounding.

[fredgarvin]

I live in Yellowknife, Northwest territories, Canada. There`s not much here. So no, I don`t have these things you seem to have. I am hardly trolling. What I do have is the chance to ask people like you about it, and that`s what i am doing.  ... Trolling for what by the way? This is all very interesting to me and quite a few others in this thread.

Interesting thread imo, some people call it 'trolling' if you don't agree with them or don't consider their input the 'definitive answer'.

What about DSP and other electronic methods,  as you mentioned, some might say it is actually a more sophisticated and controllable method to add the desired dimension effect to sound reproduction than OB speakers?

[Nuance]

But here's my question - the point of a recording is to capture the sound of live music.  And the point of playback at home is to get as close to the sound of live music as possible.  What if OB's allow all recordings to sound more like live music?  If live music is our standard, then I will take any path that gets me closer to that, even if some think it's "fake". 

Hmm...I don't know that I agree with that.  A lot of music is recorded in a studio and has processing added, so the ultimate goal isn't necessarily capturing the "live music," and in turn the goal as a hobbyist isn't reproducing "live music."  Instead, we're trying to reproduce the recording accurately (I hate to use that word, but what choice do I have).  If you only listen to classical or live recordings then I'd concur with your statement, but any other genre is generally studio produced, no?

So, rather than say accuracy is the only goal, let's say it's one among many.  Others are important, such as musical enjoyment.  And they are a NOT always the same thing.  So, what if you had the choice?  What if you had one system you found more musically enjoyable (which was still pretty accurate), or a 2nd system that was more accurate, but you found it less musically enjoyable?  Which would you choose?  As a tubes and OB guy, I know what my answer is

That's an easy one: most would choose the more enjoyable system.  To heck with accuracy if one cannot enjoy it. 

[Quiet Earth]

Hmm...I don't know that I agree with that.  A lot of music is recorded in a studio and has processing added, so the ultimate goal isn't necessarily capturing the "live music," and in turn the goal as a hobbyist isn't reproducing "live music."  Instead, we're trying to reproduce the recording accurately (I hate to use that word, but what choice do I have).  If you only listen to classical or live recordings then I'd concur with your statement, but any other genre is generally studio produced, no?

That's an easy one: most would choose the more enjoyable system.  To heck with accuracy if one cannot enjoy it.

Well said. 

[fredgarvin]

Hmm...I don't know that I agree with that.  A lot of music is recorded in a studio and has processing added, so the ultimate goal isn't necessarily capturing the "live music," and in turn the goal as a hobbyist isn't reproducing "live music."  Instead, we're trying to reproduce the recording accurately (I hate to use that word, but what choice do I have).  If you only listen to classical or live recordings then I'd concur with your statement, but any other genre is generally studio produced, no?

That's an easy one: most would choose the more enjoyable system.  To heck with accuracy if one cannot enjoy it.

This is my thought as well.

[macrojack]

Inasmuch as audio reproduction is about a facsimile of the original, wouldn't it follow that all of our efforts produce a fake? It's really just about pleasing our ears, generating an experience, enjoying our lives. And it is all about illusion and emotion and imagination, so there is nothing definitive to be found. Even if measurements can be created to establish an absolute sound, we still have not accounted for taste, and human history says we never will.

It's like where you choose to live. Many guys on this site, are located in the N.Y.C. omnisphere and claim to love it. For my part, I grew up in Passaic County, N.J. and left for Colorado in 1972. Been back enough times, and recently enough, to say you couldn't pay me enough to live there now. It was fine until I found something I liked better.

And isn't that how it is with your audio system? You like what you have and swear by it, until you happen onto an alternative you prefer. I like my horns well enough not to think about change but I thought about OB before I went to the horns. It was the impossibility of having OBs 4 or more feet from the front wall that caused me not to investigate further. And now I find out that they were fake all along.

[Tyson]

Hmm...I don't know that I agree with that.  A lot of music is recorded in a studio and has processing added, so the ultimate goal isn't necessarily capturing the "live music," and in turn the goal as a hobbyist isn't reproducing "live music."  Instead, we're trying to reproduce the recording accurately (I hate to use that word, but what choice do I have).  If you only listen to classical or live recordings then I'd concur with your statement, but any other genre is generally studio produced, no?

Why is processing added in the studio?  Simple, it's because the engineer is trying to enhance the sound of the music (ie, make it better than what was captured by the mic's), using the tools they have available to make the recording BETTER (at least in their judgement).  So, if engineers are allowed to use tools to enhance recordings, why aren't we? 

And, BTW, I agree with the use of DSP to enhance playback - in fact I use DSP in my setup with my OB's and tube amps

[Bob in St. Louis]

TYSON = "Has tone controls and isn't afraid to use them."   

[Nuance]

Inasmuch as audio reproduction is about a facsimile of the original, wouldn't it follow that all of our efforts produce a fake? It's really just about pleasing our ears, generating an experience, enjoying our lives. And it is all about illusion and emotion and imagination, so there is nothing definitive to be found. Even if measurements can be created to establish an absolute sound, we still have not accounted for taste, and human history says we never will.

It's like where you choose to live. Many guys on this site, are located in the N.Y.C. omnisphere and claim to love it. For my part, I grew up in Passaic County, N.J. and left for Colorado in 1972. Been back enough times, and recently enough, to say you couldn't pay me enough to live there now. It was fine until I found something I liked better.

And isn't that how it is with your audio system? You like what you have and swear by it, until you happen onto an alternative you prefer.

Well said.

Why is processing added in the studio?  Simple, it's because the engineer is trying to enhance the sound of the music (ie, make it better than what was captured by the mic's), using the tools they have available to make the recording BETTER (at least in their judgement).  So, if engineers are allowed to use tools to enhance recordings, why aren't we? 

And, BTW, I agree with the use of DSP to enhance playback - in fact I use DSP in my setup with my OB's and tube amps

I wasn't disagreeing with anything except you saying that the goal is mimicking live music.  The goal of the artist and recording engineers/producers is to make the product sound a certain way (to their satisfaction).  Our goal is reproducing the recording faithfully as intended.  I'm all for using DSP, tone controls, etc. if it brings you happiness.  After all, the only thing that matters is that we're enjoying our system/hobby.  My point is simply that the reference of a live performance has kind of gone out the window, and instead the reference is simply hearing the recording as the artist/engineer intended.

To summarize: The goal is happiness, and the new "reference" is faithfully reproducing the actual recording itself.  It's too bad recording quality varies so much; if it was standardized the "reference" would actually be a true "reference."

[Trismos]

My point is simply that the reference of a live performance has kind of gone out the window, and instead the reference is simply hearing the recording as the artist/engineer intended.

I agree with that. One almost wants to say 'well of course'.

[Tyson]

Bob, haha, that was funny

Nuance and Trismos - I listen to mainly classical, which is live instruments in a real acoustic space, so the reference to live performance has NOT gone out the window for me.

But lets look at your studio produced pop/rock albums.  Most people will admit that the vast majority of recordings are pretty average, if not downright poor.  In this case, the recording itself (by being less than optimal) is a hinderance to appreciating the music.  Should system strive to faithfully reproduce this?  Or, if the system can ameliorate a little bit the crappiness of the recording, is that a better choice?  Because if it's the latter, then you've deviated from faithfulness in the name of musical enjoyment.

For example - some rock recordings in the early 80's are mastered very bright with very light bass.  Clearly this is the sound the artists laid out on the record, but it sounds like sh!t to me.  Should I NOT use a mid-bass boost to improve the tonal balance?  Tone controls indeed!

And if tone controls are ok in some (or many) situations, then why not other things like OB's or tubes?  Why do box speakers and SS amps always have to be the end-all be-all when this whole "my system is more accurate than your system" discussion comes up?  When people insinuate that with me, my response is "Who cares?"  Because artists and recording engineers are not gods.  They are just people, who often make pretty poor decisions when it comes to recorded sound. 

[macrojack]

Ain't no shoulds in my game. Doesn't matter if your sound conforms to any standard or not. Whatever you're doing and however you like it is perfect. It's not like this is health advice - unless you play at deafening levels. And you should be able to figure that too without forum advice.
I guess it was the magazines that set this whole standards thang in motion. ABSOLUTE SOUND!! Absolutely self-defeating. Tone controls are bad if you don't like them and good if you do. If you benefit somehow by laying out $4000 for wires, why not - it's your money. If the Pioneer receiver you financed in 1971 is still tickling your innards, it does not matter what the world thinks about that.
People like our beloved DougS make this experience ecclesiastical. It's a religion to him and any sacrifice is justifiable for the sound goal he envisions. I'm familiar with that thinking because I was that dedicated once upon a time. I've lost it though. Nowadays, I still go through the motions and I still pursue some vague objective, but my heart isn't much in it. The importance has waned. The excitement is gone.
Movies are fake too.

[Tyson]

PS, I'm still waiting for the day someone comes over to my place, puts on Billie Holiday and says - "That sounds awesome!  But dammit Tyson, I know this recording is compressed and flat sounding and you need to change your system so I can hear it flat and compressed, because this great sound you are getting is NOT faithful to the recording."

[puppet]

Tyson ... you're talking about two different things I think. Speaker accuracy and post tone adjustment.

Speakers should be accurate. A piano should sound like a piano .. a trumpet like a trumpet (not a trombone) etc. If you get "more enjoyment" out of bigger bass, less shrill horns .. whatever, fine. Use your EQ. .. While you certainly can subtract from a signal you most certainly can't add to it after the fact. Likewise if a speaker doesn't accurately produce a signal. No matter what you do, it will still not sound true.   

[Trismos]

But lets look at your studio produced pop/rock albums.  Most people will admit that the vast majority of recordings are pretty average, if not downright poor.  In this case, the recording itself (by being less than optimal) is a hinderance to appreciating the music.  Should system strive to faithfully reproduce this?  Or, if the system can ameliorate a little bit the crappiness of the recording, is that a better choice?  Because if it's the latter, then you've deviated from faithfulness in the name of musical enjoyment.

For example - some rock recordings in the early 80's are mastered very bright with very light bass.  Clearly this is the sound the artists laid out on the record, but it sounds like sh!t to me.  Should I NOT use a mid-bass boost to improve the tonal balance?  Tone controls indeed!

And if tone controls are ok in some (or many) situations, then why not other things like OB's or tubes?  Why do box speakers and SS amps always have to be the end-all be-all when this whole "my system is more accurate than your system" discussion comes up?  When people insinuate that with me, my response is "Who cares?"  Because artists and recording engineers are not gods.  They are just people, who often make pretty poor decisions when it comes to recorded sound.

I'm not sure who you are debating with but you sure are winning!! Mind you, you appear to make a lot of assumptions. Just because the artist "laid it out that way" doesn't mean that's what they necessarily wanted as a final product. Technology only got you so far with so much $ back then. Then there's also the issue about the actual song being more important than the quality of the recording.

I use EQ and "room correction" via JRiver. When listening with my K-701s, I up the bass a bit because they're quite shy there.

I reiterate, the subject line "Isn't the OB presentation fake?" was indeed meant to draw attention. And some people are passionate and get all worked up. This is fine. I just notice that in article after article, equipment reviews carry on about "tonal accuracy", and wax poetic about detail, texture, dynamics and soundstage, and how the speaker "disappears". The speaker isn't supposed to 'add' something to the music from what I understand. That is one of the reasons OB people speak out against box speakers, yet the OB speaker adds flavor in it's own way.

Ok. So for the record, I shouldn't have used the term "fake". That's not quite what I meant. The paragraph above more accurately assesses what I meant.

Cheerio! 

[Tyson]

Tyson ... you're talking about two different things I think. Speaker accuracy and post tone adjustment.

Speakers should be accurate. A piano should sound like a piano .. a trumpet like a trumpet (not a trombone) etc. If you get "more enjoyment" out of bigger bass, less shrill horns .. whatever, fine. Use your EQ. .. While you certainly can subtract from a signal you most certainly can't add to it after the fact. Likewise if a speaker doesn't accurately produce a signal. No matter what you do, it will still not sound true.   

I'm only talking about high end audio here, not low end.  And within the high end audio realm there are a TON of speakers that meet this criteria.  And none of them sound exactly alike.  So how do you choose?  Do you look at graphs and say "Well, this one measures the best, so it must be the one to buy"?  Of course not.  You go and listen.  And listening is subjective, always. 

It's not really you guys specifically I'm railing against.  Its rather the broader assumption underlying a lot of this hobby that more accurate is always better.  It's not.  And it never will be.  Sometimes more accurate is better, sometimes its worse. 

I think part of it is that many people in the audiophile world are not really music lovers first, they are frustrated engineers first, and music lovers second.  Their inner "logical voice" tells them that such and such must be better because it's engineered better or measures better, or whatever. 

But when it comes to sound, to actual listening, "better" or "worse" is subjective.  It's a value judgement you make based on your own internal response to the music. 

With speakers that have been reasonably well designed, there is a LOT of variation in sound.  Which one is "better" or "worse" is not an engineering question (because I'm assuming that all candidates are well engineered).  It's a question of preference, and is thus, subjective.  Trying to figure out "What's the very best" is the audiophile equivalent of trying to figure out "What's the best car in the world?"  Measurements and engineering will get you pretty far, but eventually you have to make a decision among many (sometimes quite different) vehicles.  "Which car is the best" is as stupid as asking "Which stereo is most accurate".