[Steve]

Unfortunately, right now I have one pair of $2500 speakers (on lone) that is so bright, even in a dark room, that it is incredible. There are plenty of others like it out there, either bright or too full. Every type of  component, whether speaker or electronics, varies is all over the place, sonic wise. Just look at the variety and number of designs out there.

Let's use a simple hypothetical example of two speakers, "A" and "B", with "B" actually being the better, more accurate speaker.

"A" seems a better match to the room because although "A" is dark, the electronics is bright, so "A" speaker appears to match the room better ("B" appears to sound bright in the room). However, if the electronics were actually accurate, then "A" would have been shown to be dark in the room, which it is, while "B" would have shown to sound even better than "A" in the room.

In otherwards, the poor electronics clouded the judgement as to which speaker better matched the room, and sounded better.

The end result is that the customer chose both the poorer speaker, "A", because of the poorer electronics. However, if he had the better electronics, then one would have chosen the better speaker, "B" to match the room, and it would have sounded even better than "A" with the poor electronics.

Again I ask, how is one is going to choose the right speaker to optimally match the room when the poor electronics is in the way?   

Cheers.

[JLM]

Wow, a fast moving thread...

For ordinary folks, I'll stick with my first post here.  As you approach audio nirvana (the mole hills become mountains) and we could argue dozens of points with none of us being wrong.

I'm also of the opinion that we are each sensitive to different forms of distortion.  Personally I can't get past vinyl surface noise, to the point that the first hint of it ruins any enjoyment/appreciation no matter how good.  Some can hear through errors of comission but are sensitive to errors of omission.  For me, this explains the basis between the tube versus solid state or vinyl versus digital source arguments.  Again, its all very subjective once you get much beyond the basics.

By "trained" ears I'm referring to those with musical training, that for instance can distinguish brands of piano or by sound, appreciate the differences between violinists, know a concerto from a canon; and those with audio experience to recognize all those sorts of characteristics included in equipment reviews.

BTW, doug s. is right, I'm guilty of holding hard to the "KISS" principle, probably to a fault. 

[BrianM]

I'll second JLM's point that musical training is an extremely worthwhile consideration for any audio enthusiast.  Not necessarily learning to play an instrument, but definitely in determining to become more informed in the "Music Appreciation 101" sense.  I think people underestimate how good their hearing is, or rather could be; I know I did as a young person, in spite of having "gifted" ears (as I was too often told).  Making a study of music over time, learning about forms, performance style practices, how instruments are played, how music is written and interpreted, and, let's face it, just learning to differentiate between poor taste and good taste, will literally physically reorient how your ears receive information.   I can go back and replay things I considered just dandy at a young age and be amazed at how dissonant or wrongheaded it sounds to me now, with a couple more decades of training under my belt.  And vice versa: some things I dismissed then, I came to appreciate later after I knew better what to listen for.

Oh, and also, the KISS principle is your greatest possible ally in audio, IMO. 

[Geardaddy]

I'll second JLM's point that musical training is an extremely worthwhile consideration for any audio enthusiast.  Not necessarily learning to play an instrument, but definitely in determining to become more informed in the "Music Appreciation 101" sense.  I think people underestimate how good their hearing is, or rather could be; I know I did as a young person, in spite of having "gifted" ears (as I was too often told).  Making a study of music over time, learning about forms, performance style practices, how instruments are played, how music is written and interpreted, and, let's face it, just learning to differentiate between poor taste and good taste, will literally physically reorient how your ears receive information.   I can go back and replay things I considered just dandy at a young age and be amazed at how dissonant or wrongheaded it sounds to me now, with a couple more decades of training under my belt.  And vice versa: some things I dismissed then, I came to appreciate later after I knew better what to listen for.

Oh, and also, the KISS principle is your greatest possible ally in audio, IMO. 

Agreed...and dare we say that not all ears are created equal?

[reflex]

Don...Doug....I'm confused....


(that happens easily sometimes  )

[Housteau]

Both Synergy and Voicing have been mentioned in this thread,synergy is an unintended consequence of component non-linearity. An actual linear component is often unrecognized when placed within the context of a non-linear system and is frequently faulted for passing a problem downstream. Synergy is best described as zigging and zagging via trial and error to an end you can live with. As most audiophiles have noticed, relying on synergy for a good result is a frustrating experience. "Voicing" an electronic component often compounds the difficulty of assembling a linear system as it represents a departure from neutrality. Most electronic designers, if they are trying to create a transparent and neutral circuit,don't intentionally deviate from this goal. Speaker designers who are trying to build a low distortion transparent loudspeaker don't design in a deviation from flat response or knowingly compound the non-linearity that the speaker system inherently has. To state the obvious most manufacturers try to build electronics that are compatible with as wide a spectrum of speakers as possible. The same approach to compatibility holds true for most loudspeaker designers. Any time a manufacturer starts talking about how they voiced their product an alarm goes off for me.
Scotty

The logical and scientific part of me agrees with what you have said here, but my actual experiences have shown that there is more to it than just linear accuracy between components.  For example, Solid State amplifiers and pre-amps are often measured to be more accurate and thought to me the most linear, yet tubed based components with all their distortion can often present the more musical illusion, at least they seem to for me.

[reflex]

Both Synergy and Voicing have been mentioned in this thread,synergy is an unintended consequence of component non-linearity. An actual linear component is often unrecognized when placed within the context of a non-linear system and is frequently faulted for passing a problem downstream. Synergy is best described as zigging and zagging via trial and error to an end you can live with. As most audiophiles have noticed, relying on synergy for a good result is a frustrating experience. "Voicing" an electronic component often compounds the difficulty of assembling a linear system as it represents a departure from neutrality. Most electronic designers, if they are trying to create a transparent and neutral circuit,don't intentionally deviate from this goal. Speaker designers who are trying to build a low distortion transparent loudspeaker don't design in a deviation from flat response or knowingly compound the non-linearity that the speaker system inherently has. To state the obvious most manufacturers try to build electronics that are compatible with as wide a spectrum of speakers as possible. The same approach to compatibility holds true for most loudspeaker designers. Any time a manufacturer starts talking about how they voiced their product an alarm goes off for me.
Scotty

The logical and scientific part of me agrees with what you have said here, but my actual experiences have shown that there is more to it than just linear accuracy between components.  For example, Solid State amplifiers and pre-amps are often measured to be more accurate and thought to me the most linear, yet tubed based components with all their distortion can often present the more musical illusion, at least they seem to for me.

"Accuracy" can and should be measured in a number of ways.  I hesitate to use the word "measured" at all, because obtaining a realistic sonic image in your environment is probably more about creating a 3-dimensional soundfield than it is about obtaining the flatest frequency response or the least measured distortion. 

Probably the most detrimental aspect of a 2 channel audio system is that it, in fact, is a sonic painting that is two dimensional.  The flat, two dimensional plane of the speakers, is what presents this sonic painting for us to examine and enjoy.  Live music is not two dimensional.  It exists in a three dimensional world.  The placement of the musicians, the placement of the sounds they create, occupies much more space in the venue than the narrow, flat space the speakers occupy in our listening rooms.  For an audio system to create the illusion of 3D in a listening room it's needs more than accurate response and low distortion.  Detail, and maybe most importantly, micro-detail, aids in the illusion of 3D.  Time and phase accuracy is probably the most important aspect of a speaker in placing the performance in the 3D world.

[BrianM]

The flat, two dimensional plane of the speakers, is what presents this sonic painting for us to examine and enjoy.  Live music is not two dimensional.  It exists in a three dimensional world.

I just checked, and my (2) speakers exist in a three dimensional world, too.  I assume therefore that the music coming from them enters into the same three dimensional world.  Everything we hear is, when you boil it down, three dimensional.

The placement of the musicians, the placement of the sounds they create, occupies much more space in the venue than the narrow, flat space the speakers occupy in our listening rooms.

True, but all of those musicians are being fed into a set of microphones which occupy a very small and likely flat part of the original space.  Your stereo's job is to spit out whatever the microphones were able to pick up, in reverse.

For an audio system to create the illusion of 3D in a listening room it's needs more than accurate response and low distortion.

Right, it needs your room to create as little extraneous "3-dimensionality" as possible.  To me, flat response in a pretty dead room sounds most like the recording.

Detail, and maybe most importantly, micro-detail, aids in the illusion of 3D.  Time and phase accuracy is probably the most important aspect of a speaker in placing the performance in the 3D world.

Yup.  All of those things would ensure that the stereo was best reproducing the prior illusion, i.e. that received by the microphones; our sense of this illusion of 3D is only (potentially) as good as the original recording's.

[Daygloworange]

All the points Brian touches on a very important, and the last point he makes is particularly true. The recording itself is often times the final mitigating factor. Minimalist recordings (ie: simple 2 channel stereo mic recordings) highlight the full soundstage capabilities of 2 channel audio best.


Knowledge of (the fundamentals of) how the complete recording/playback process works, will go a long way to improving system performance. A lot of recording nowadays are engineered using nearfield/equilateral triangle speaker placement methods so as to minimize channel crosstalk between speakers, and minimize first reflection points by moving them further behind you and changing the angle of reflection of off axis speaker sounds.

A good grasp of the fundamentals of sound recording technologies and techniques will help you set up your system for the best possible playback. A proper playback system needs to reverse engineer the sonic "capture" of the live event.
If you do a little Google'ing, you can find lots of articles that start right from the beginning, on how microphones work, how they are used, the importance of room acoustics and minimizing channel crosstalk, for proper 2 channel soundfield reproduction.

We discussed a lot of the how's and why's of proper system playback in a number of threads on AudioCircle recently:

Read from Ethan Winer's post # 28 and on:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=50093.20

Also from the beginning to end on this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49710.0

Cheers

[reflex]

The flat, two dimensional plane of the speakers, is what presents this sonic painting for us to examine and enjoy.  Live music is not two dimensional.  It exists in a three dimensional world.

I just checked, and my (2) speakers exist in a three dimensional world, too.  I assume therefore that the music coming from them enters into the same three dimensional world.  Everything we hear is, when you boil it down, three dimensional.

The placement of the musicians, the placement of the sounds they create, occupies much more space in the venue than the narrow, flat space the speakers occupy in our listening rooms.

True, but all of those musicians are being fed into a set of microphones which occupy a very small and likely flat part of the original space.  Your stereo's job is to spit out whatever the microphones were able to pick up, in reverse.

For an audio system to create the illusion of 3D in a listening room it's needs more than accurate response and low distortion.

Right, it needs your room to create as little extraneous "3-dimensionality" as possible.  To me, flat response in a pretty dead room sounds most like the recording.

Detail, and maybe most importantly, micro-detail, aids in the illusion of 3D.  Time and phase accuracy is probably the most important aspect of a speaker in placing the performance in the 3D world.

Yup.  All of those things would ensure that the stereo was best reproducing the prior illusion, i.e. that received by the microphones; our sense of this illusion of 3D is only (potentially) as good as the original recording's.

Your speakers exist in 3 dimensional space, but they themselves...the plane of their drivers is 2 dimensional.  Take the sound of the kick drum as an example.  The sound emanates from the drum in all directions, not just the drumhead itself.  The sound reproduced by the drum is a 3 dimensional sphere without boundries, it's spl dimenishing over distance and time, though not symetrical if you created an image of the soundfield it created.  The sound of that same drum, reproduced by the speaker, is 2 dimensional, with the drivers modulating a flat plane of air at their surface.  

You are right about the microphones, their diaphrams specifically, occupying a 2 dimensional space.  But if you take a "live" recording, even one performed in a studio, the mics are placed in the 3D world.  They retrieve the primary sound of the instrument as well as the ambient sound of that instrument and the space it occupies.  The speaker is the opposite of the microphone (take some headphones and plug them into a mic input and speak...guess what, they become a microphone, though probably not a very good one).  So a great speaker should mirror the microphones that recorded the performance.  The entire audio system should be as much of a mirror as possible.

[Daygloworange]

Your speakers exist in 3 dimensional space, but they themselves...the plane of their drivers is 2 dimensional.  Take the sound of the kick drum as an example.  The sound emanates from the drum in all directions, not just the drumhead itself.  

Nevermind what the drum is doing (for the moment).

Focus on what is happening at your ears. That is the most important part to understand 2 channel recording and playback.

Your ears are simply transducers. So are microphones. They capture sound by the same transfer mechanism as your ears do. Pressure fluctuations.

Your ears are single channel transducers. They work independantly of each other. Same as 2 microphones in a 2 channel recording.

We talked in great detail how basic acoustics work, psychoacoustics, and how sounds eminate from sources in those 2 threads I linked to in my earlier post.

Cheers

[TONEPUB]

Agreed...and dare we say that not all ears are created equal?

This is the one I have to agree with most as well as personal preference....

I know that if you put ten people in a room, chances are they will all have a particular hotspot.
One likes midrange warmth and magic, another bass slam and dynamics, another imaging...

You get the point.

I think I'd still spend a few thousand bucks (maybe less depending on your room) on some good room treatments first.  With a good room to start with, you might find you can even live with less hifi....
I've had such great luck with the GIK products, that I can't imagine not having that stuff in my room.
Three sets of tri-traps, about a dozen 242 panels, a little extra carpeting (and a little bit of Sonex I had lying around) has transformed my system in a way that nothing else for the money even comes close.

I guess for me what's evolved over listening to so many components over the last 30 years is
I'm looking for a sound that's as detailed (revealing the most information from the recording) I can
get without being harsh and the most musical I can get (offering up the best tonality and accuracy in regards to the way an acoustic instrument really sounds) with out getting overly warm and gooey sounding.

That being said if I had to choose, I'd still take a Stereo 70 and a pair of British minimonitors over a number of other things, choosing to err on the romantic.

I pretty much see all of the components as equal.  I've had plenty of opportunity to use fantastic sources with average speakers, or average electronics with great speakers, and all of the other variations, but in the end, something doesn't make it through to the listening chair.

I'm a big fan of system synergy, not making one component way better than the other, unless say you are shopping for a 3000 dollar CD player and you just happen to get a killer deal on a friends 10 thousand dollar player for 4000 bucks.  At that point, you are poised for the next upgrade....

But having had the opportunity to set it up in many variations, I still come away with equal emphasis on it all.  Great sources can't reveal all they are capable without great electronics and great speakers (your favorite flavor here, of course).  And you still miss a lot of it without careful attention to room acoustics and setup, which does not have to be terribly expensive.

The other thing I would put a high emphasis on, especially if you are an LP lover is great software.  This will be the ultimate ceiling of what your system will be able to reveal as well.  The higher up the food chain you go, the more you will be limited by your records.  Having listened to the Continuum now for a couple of months, without great records, it's really no big deal, but with great records (and clean ones...)
it really comes alive!

Just a little food for thought!

[BrianM]

Agreed...and dare we say that not all ears are created equal?

That's true, if you mean it in the same way that some people have natural 20/20 vision and some don't.  But of course someone can have great eyesight yet not "see" a lot of what's going on around him.  I think that's the point here, that our five senses can be trained to a high degree, like any other skill, provided we're not actually impaired to begin with.  (I'm not talking about getting glasses or contacts or hearing aids, obviously, rather learning to appreciate and judge what you see, or hear, according to whatever criteria you choose to accept.)  I'm a trained singer and have, through my training, come to understand that the number of people who could theoretically become good and accomplished singers is far higher than most people would believe.  In practice, it requires that you simply not be tone deaf (that you can carry a tune) and that you're willing to exercise a lot of patience.  (Depending on your natural ability to begin with, it could require a LOT of patience...)  Using your voicebox properly is foremost a coordination thing, and coordination can always be taught to the willing.  Anyway...much the same with your ears.  Of course some people are assumed to have been born with perfect pitch, but the reality is you acquire it from exposure, and some people have acquired it much later in life.  And of course you don't first need perfect pitch or 20/20 vision before attempting to improve your hearing or sight.

[Zero]

Great post Jeff. 

[Steve]

I see there are some misconceptions by the general public, and even designers. By the way, I believe that specs are part of the equation as well as stringent listening tests.

1. Except for one or two different types of sophicated stage designs, a typical DC coupled stage is actually bass heavy, not linear. What this means is that DC coupled tube and SS preamps, and DC gain stages in tube/SS amps are usually bass heavy, not linear. Tubes, on the other had have a weakness in the HD and IMD distortion arena.

2. Electronics are not as accurate as many believe. In fact they substantially deviate from accurate. That is why typical "voicing" of a component is dependent on the rest of the audio system etc.

3. Another problem with electronics is the parts used. One would be surprised how they can negatively influence the sound, for instance electrolyic capacitors. Large values are especially detrimental and presents a form of distortion (anything that alters the quality of the music).

The result is that almost all components, including electronics, are not accurate, but can vary substantially. I would not take anything for granted. It is also why one needs a standard, by carefully and stringently controlled listening tests over long periods of time.

[Freo-1]

I see there are some misconceptions by the general public, and even designers. By the way, I believe that specs are part of the equation as well as stringent listening tests.

1. Except for one or two different types of sophicated stage designs, a typical DC coupled stage is actually bass heavy, not linear. What this means is that DC coupled tube and SS preamps, and DC gain stages in tube/SS amps are usually bass heavy, not linear. Tubes, on the other had have a weakness in the HD and IMD distortion arena.

2. Electronics are not as accurate as many believe. In fact they substantially deviate from accurate. That is why typical "voicing" of a component is dependent on the rest of the audio system etc.

3. Another problem with electronics is the parts used. One would be surprised how they can negatively influence the sound, for instance electrolyic capacitors. Large values are especially detrimental and presents a form of distortion (anything that alters the quality of the music).

The result is that almost all components, including electronics, are not accurate, but can vary substantially. I would not take anything for granted. It is also why one needs a standard, by carefully and stringently controlled listening tests over long periods of time.

Steve may just opened Pandora's Box here. I've posted this link before, and, since we opened the door, this is as good time as any to re-visit:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1640

Hope all you subjective folks don't get too riled up over this 

[Steve]

Hi Freo,

     I  have not read the article before, but what I have read so far seems interesting. Evidently alot of people are going to the site as it is hard to download. A few minor glitches, but the article is somewhat informative.

Cheers.

[Freo-1]

Hi Steve,

No worries. Hope you enjoy it. The sidebars are interesting as well (especially the distortion characteristics). One of my work mates gave me a paper copy of the story (from the IEEE mag). I work at a R&D lab, and most of the people who work there are all engineers of one sort or another. 

[Steve]

Hi Freo,

     We are getting off topic, but I find it interesting that the JJ E88cc has a total harmonic distortion of -76db down typical and -80db down is not uncommon, at 2vrms out. All without global feedback. Beats the NOS Amperex bulgeboy at -60db, which is similar to the 6sn7 from my recollection.

     All of which is good for accurate sound. Of course, good parts and design are also necessary. I guess the point is that it is very difficult to get even a small component to be accurate. I think much more difficult than the general public realizes.

Time for supper.

Cheers.

[jon_010101]

We are getting off topic, but I find it interesting that the JJ E88cc has a total harmonic distortion of -76db down typical and -80db down is not uncommon, at 2vrms out. All without global feedback. Beats the NOS Amperex bulgeboy at -60db, which is similar to the 6sn7 from my recollection.

Excellent point -- 16dB is a tremendous difference!  A great way to guarantee a twitchy setup is to have a bunch of tube stages cascaded without any feedback, since only a few "magic" combinations of tubes will result in good linearity.  It seems the obvious solutions are for manufacturers to suggest only using one brand (as you've done with the JJ), or to just give in and wrap a quick feedback loop from the coupling cap back to input.  I can't imagine how flaky a Citation I preamp would sound if it's 8-9 12AX/T7 stages didn't include local NFB!