[Steve]

Hello,

I have been working on a test speaker, just for my own personal use. Farfignugen stopped by the other day and while enjoying the music, we discussed a question I have been mulling over for a long time.

With recording quality varying so much, how does one adjust their speakers. Thoughts such as for maximum fidelity for a few recordings vs adjusting for a maximum number of recordings sounding pretty good.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Cheers

Steve

[JLM]

Yep, an age old audiophile quandary. 

Only you can decide where along the spectrum of highest fidelity versus most forgiving works best for you. 

I will say that "natural" detail comes from more defined imaging.  This sort of detail does not fatigue or distract from musicality.

[Mike-48]

With recording quality varying so much, how does one adjust their speakers. Thoughts such as for maximum fidelity for a few recordings vs adjusting for a maximum number of recordings sounding pretty good.

Steve -- Harbeth (who are known for natural sound) are said to use recordings of the designer's family speaking. When the speaker can get familiar voices right, it's on its way to being correct.

Mike

[JLM]

Steve -- Harbeth (who are known for natural sound) are said to use recordings of the designer's family speaking. When the speaker can get familiar voices right, it's on its way to being correct.

Mike

No disrespect for Harbeth (I like their speakers if set up correctly), but that's a very low bar to clear (a narrow frequency range, low sound pressure levels, no sound staging to test, and very narrow dynamic range).  Human voice (singing) was the starting point all the beloved LS3/5a speakers came out of the BBC studios 40 years ago. 

[G Georgopoulos]

Hello,

I have been working on a test speaker, just for my own personal use. Farfignugen stopped by the other day and while enjoying the music, we discussed a question I have been mulling over for a long time.

With recording quality varying so much, how does one adjust their speakers. Thoughts such as for maximum fidelity for a few recordings vs adjusting for a maximum number of recordings sounding pretty good.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Cheers

Steve

The problem with you Steve is you fiddle with your amp tone response
so you're at a loss now,how can you hifi your speaker
you obviously don't want flat response
there is no answer to that

[Mag]

Hello,

I have been working on a test speaker, just for my own personal use. Farfignugen stopped by the other day and while enjoying the music, we discussed a question I have been mulling over for a long time.

With recording quality varying so much, how does one adjust their speakers. Thoughts such as for maximum fidelity for a few recordings vs adjusting for a maximum number of recordings sounding pretty good.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Cheers

Steve

For me inserting a Yamaha MG-10 mixer between the pre-amp and amp was the cat's @%*, using balanced cables.

The Yamaha works for me because the distortion is low enough that it doesn't mask the sound, which I found using another equalizer did. Don't know if other mixers would mask the sound.

The advantage of using a mixer is you can custom the sound to your liking and speakers. For me after experimenting for two weeks I found that boosting the treble, mids, and bass +2 sounded musical as opposed to just sounding good with other settings. The gain is another revelation, more gain gives you more detail, but it adds a sterile sound or digital glare. So finding the desired setting for your ears and speakers is the trick. I prefer a lower setting, sacrificing some detail for more harmonics. You can also use compression, I use none. Line level is also critical, too much volume and you clip the music, too low and you loose detail, +4 works for me. Then the master volume I have set high, so I need less volume on the pre-amp.

The reality though is bad recordings sound bad and you can't fix 'em. Therefore focus on how you want good recordings to sound.

[JLM]

Playing with frequency response can be a bottomless trap of confusion unless you have a very well trained ear or a reference to A/B against, if you want the correct balance (flat).  OTOH the purpose of home audio is enjoyment (even if it is messed up and you're deluded).   

And all the EQ in the world can't fix time domain issues (delays, phasing mixups) or room affects (most audiophiles way, way over invest in gear for the given room).  Some would say EMI/RF issues should be addressed or that everything should be balanced vs. single-ended while others preach the need for power conditioning (a local phenomenon that may or may not apply in my experience).

Excess detail distracts from the music (performance, talent shown, emotional connection, and can be very fatiguing as it puts your analytical side into overdrive).  What piano was that?  What mikes were used?  How much did he eat for lunch and did he floss before the recording?  Is she pregnant?  Much of this is due to the extremely close miking that is popular. 

This whole question brings me back to the paradoxical question:  If stuck on an island, which would be better?  A super high fidelity system that only 5 albums sound good on (and the rest sound like sh*t), or a mediocre system that you can enjoy (at much lower fidelity) Spotify on?  Sometimes audiophiles corner themselves into the first option. 

[Letitroll98]

I recently upped the detail on my speakers by purchasing new ones (new to me).  90% of all the music on my regular playlist sounds better, 10% is poorly recorded and sounds worse, so of course with that weighting anyone would vote for more detail.  Thus it gets down to what comprises your library, I try to buy well recorded music whenever possible (why does the greatest rock and roll band, the Stones, always have such poorly recorded music?), but the occasional dog does sneak in and usually gets relegated to the back bin.  Do you only have five good albums?  Then I would vote for euphoric coloration, but for me it's generally a non issue, I just listen to the Stones less.

[mcgsxr]

The longer I play in the audio world the better I understand how I veer off the audiophile path in at least one area.

I treasure detail and coherence like most others.  But I want more bass than there "should" be.  I just like a little more.

So I buy (and in some cases build) speakers or combinations that take me where I want to go.

[Steve]

Thanks for the replies and keep them coming. I have a few comments if I may.

1) I like JLM's comment, "I will say that "natural" detail comes from more defined imaging.  This sort of detail does not fatigue or distract from musicality." To build upon that comment, masking inner detail is also accomplished by slightly too much bass. And it does not have to be too much. I would say most venues present all sorts of problems and I believe as JLM that that we definitely need to work on venue problems.

I test using many many recording selections. Some are more forgiving while others require pin point system accuracy to obtain naturalness. Some are flat out poor recordings.

The problem with you Steve is you fiddle with your amp tone response
so you're at a loss now,how can you hifi your speaker
you obviously don't want flat response
there is no answer to that

Actually I do not George. I have setups to listen test both my 11A line preamplifier, and my amplifier for accuracy in absolute terms. I don't know of anyone else who actually performs listening tests on their amps to assure their amps accuracy to its source. The only time I need to make an adjustment on my amp is when I install a different manufacturer's tubes. I do not artificially flavor my amps to meet some need or preference, it is the test speaker I adjust. I, and others, find an accurate system produces the most natural sound, presupposing the recording is of superior quality.

The speaker xover adjustments are as little as 1 part in 180,000 parts. This equates to a frequency response change in the -105db range. (This is not spl change across the entire audio band.) In otherwards, extremely small changes in the frequency response at the extreme low and highs are perceived. This concurs with Olson's work. Several different setups are/were used and their results concur. The closer to perfection, the greater the naturalness with the best recordings.

Fortunately, I do not use an equalizer. I have found that working with the venue was enough in my situation. And frankly, I was surprised at how many recordings are of superior quality. The main differences I found was some of yesterday's music vs todays.
Some 50s and 60's are really good, but many were not. Minimalist recordings appeared superior. As you stated, bad recordings are just bad. True indeed.

JLM, I think you might be interested in Stereophile test CD 3, track 10. Test CD 2, track 10 is a shortened version of a recording which uses various types of mics so one can get a feel of each.

Keep the comments coming folks. Much appreciated.

Steve
 

[AJinFLA]

I have setups to listen test both my 11A line preamplifier, and my amplifier for accuracy in absolute terms.

What does that sound like...with stereophonic constructs?

[Steve]

I have setups to listen test both my 11A line preamplifier, and my amplifier for accuracy in absolute terms.

What does that sound like...with stereophonic constructs?

Normally that would mean that the pre's and amp's outputs do not alter the musical information from their respective inputs.
The input of each component is the reference for that component. Do you have your own "definition" or not understand the principle?

Keep the comments and own findings coming folks.

[G Georgopoulos]

With recording quality varying so much, how does one adjust their speakers. Thoughts such as for maximum fidelity for a few recordings vs adjusting for a maximum number of recordings sounding pretty good.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Cheers

Steve

Steve, bad recordings are bad in even the best system!
btw treat your room,usually improves the many good recordings.

[AJinFLA]

I have setups to listen test both my 11A line preamplifier, and my amplifier for accuracy in absolute terms.

Normally that would mean that the pre's and amp's outputs do not alter the musical information from their respective inputs.
The input of each component is the reference for that component.

I understand how you listen to the output. Via speakers. I'm unclear how you listen to the "reference" at inputs. And judge it's "accuracy" to the output.
Pardon my confusion, perhaps you can clarify.

[Steve]

I understand how you listen to the output. Via speakers. I'm unclear how you listen to the "reference" at inputs. And judge it's "accuracy" to the output.
Pardon my confusion, perhaps you can clarify.

I probably should not have brought that point up as it is proprietary AJ. However, I felt the need to respond to GG's comment about my amp not being accurate, which it is. Let's just say I use a test jig and let it be.

The problem with you Steve is you fiddle with your amp tone response
so you're at a loss now,how can you hifi your speaker
you obviously don't want flat response
there is no answer to that

Steve, bad recordings are bad in even the best system!
btw treat your room,usually improves the many good recordings.

I agree GG. That is why I treat my room the best I can before and even during if I spot something new that is a problem.

Let's continue with the topic, with recording quality varying so much, how does one adjust their speakers. Thoughts such as for maximum fidelity for a few recordings vs adjusting for a maximum number of recordings sounding pretty good, or in between.

Feel free to input.

Cheers

[G Georgopoulos]

Hi Steve

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/index.html

Download this free sound editor and rejuvenate old/bad recording.

cheers

[jsrtheta]

I haven't used any EQ for over 20 years. Recording quality (by which I mean the engineering and mastering, etc) varies so wildly that setting a "one size fits all" EQ is a waste of time, I think.

Once you have your room set up optimally, you might as well take the recordings as they come.

[Steve]

I haven't used any EQ for over 20 years. Recording quality (by which I mean the engineering and mastering, etc) varies so wildly that setting a "one size fits all" EQ is a waste of time, I think.

Once you have your room set up optimally, you might as well take the recordings as they come.

Me neither, never. I have been doing a back and forth different recordings while adjusting my test speakers; honing in on the best recordings and system sound.

So how much does the genre influence adjustments? Do you adjust differently depending upon if your pleasure is classical, blues, or westerns?

Cheers
Steve

[Wayner]

Speaker positioning and especially toe-in play a huge role in the speakers "disappearing" act. My system(s) sound best when there is lots of "air" in the recordings. To achieve that, I have found that they must be symmetrical to the room and each other. I have them measured to 1/32" to a sound that I want. This (IMO) has way more merit then any effect with the associated electronics connected to the speakers.

'ner

[FullRangeMan]

I would adjust an loudspeaker to most bass under 120-150Hz.